Sign in to follow this  
Rob_Zepp

Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Politics is being more personal?

 

Now if you disagree with someone's point of view, it automatically means you have to dislike the person too and wish them ill will, etc.  

Maybe I'm just too young to remember the "olden days"... but maybe before it was a lot of "agree to disagree", whereas now it's "How dare you!  Block/unfriend/censor/cancel/etc".

 

Mental maturity, rationality, and self-discipline has gone out the window.  

I think this is the word. Yes you can actually disagree and still like someone. It doesn't sell papers of make you click on an ad tho. 

 

I really only have a problem when someone has crossed an actual line like actually being racist or tries to push their religion on me or my family. To me those are real lines, not if they think the environment is the #1 thing or just want low taxes, etc. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 6:12 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

Personally, I see what was described once as what the Brown Shirts were, and other examples of conscripted volunteerism, to usher in a 1984-like tomorrow by the types of antics I see groups like ANTIFA using. Rat out your enemy or brother for wrong think. We see it all over the place now. I could elaborate, but I know it’s not going to be worth the time in here. 

I'm not a fan of ANTIFA, but I dont find them particularly terrifying. I think it might be helpful if you elaborated given the scope of the claim you are making.


I'm pretty sure the extreme right is far more of a problem. I mean it's easy to make the connection between their rhetoric and the violence they commit. For example, they are informed that non whites are "invading" the country, which can be interpreted as a reason to kill them.


I think a lot of people misunderstand Orwell. For one thing he was a lifelong socialist and 1984 was satire (even though the message and caution was quite real)

 

On 9/8/2019 at 6:12 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

Global Warming, lol. Try Glaciation and Pangea; the earth does it’s own thing, puny, narcissistic Humans. It’s not as simple as that, but maybe it gets a convo going and flushes out some easily refutable narratives, not that it’s an enjoyable position to take - one not defending the environment, which is a false equivalence anyways. 

The USA, among developed or undeveloped countries, is the only holdout when it comes to acknowledging that global warming is a real, man made problem.


More significant is the practically unanimous scientific consensus on the matter. 


The scientific method is the most excruciatingly laborious process imaginable. It must make accurate predictions in order to be of any use of all. It is how we are able to send space craft billions of kilometers for a fly by of an object much smaller then our own moon. The computer you are using. The insulin you may be taking. The thermometer you may be reading. All the result of the same process.


Its as if people take all that for granted, then all the sudden become a skeptic on one specific issue.

 

On 9/8/2019 at 6:12 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

The divisiveness isn’t accidental, it’s by design, but nobody seems to see it, they’d rather just play out the role they signed up for. That’s social engineering. So many videos and articles exist on that stuff, but they are getting harder and harder to find, but again, it seems Nobody is noticing that. I don’t get it. 

The divisiveness I see comes from, for example, from those who point fingers everywhere else but themselves as the cause of people's maladies, meanwhile these same people proceed with a tax cut that guts everyone but the exceptionally wealthy.


It comes from the institutions and pundits funded by the very rich like Prager U, who try to convince people, for example, that labor unions (worker rights) are antithetical to your personal well being, when in fact they are (obviously) a significant reason why other industrialized countries are prosperous and great places to live.

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, can't say the left isn't consistent.  I wonder if the purpose behind the Green New Deal's target on air travel has to do with how airplanes caused 9/11 (at least to the good ol' NYT).

 

"18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center." 

 

Terrorists don't kill people, airplanes kill people :picard:

 

It shouldn't surprise me that people who go to such lengths to distance Muslims from Islamist extremism refuse to extend the same courtesy to conservatives with regards to white nationalists.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think this is the word. Yes you can actually disagree and still like someone. It doesn't sell papers of make you click on an ad tho. 

 

I really only have a problem when someone has crossed an actual line like actually being racist or tries to push their religion on me or my family. To me those are real lines, not if they think the environment is the #1 thing or just want low taxes, etc. 

I guess the problem is finding out where is the actual line is... or at least the vicinity.  

 

I'm completely non-religious, but I actually don't mind have religion in schools.  Not actual indoctrination, but promotion of some points... like the good parts that is the norm for almost every civilization.  The "love thy neighbour", "don't steal", etc.  Some rudimentary exposure for basic morality.  

Plus, it's always good for kids to learn about other religion and stuff.  As a child growing up in the 80's/90's in a East Van public school.... I do remember a nun coming to my school, telling stories and showing us videos.  It wasn't explicitly stated to be Christian... but it was strongly implied.  Then she also brought a lot of supplies that we had to pack to send to impoverished children somewhere in Central America.  Now retroactively looking back, some of those lessons were probably instilled in me... and I am very grateful of them.  

 

As for "racist".... that's where it gets dicey.  There are extremes on both sides of course, so the line is shifting constantly.  I can totally understand the obvious ones, like people throwing racial slurs with actual intent to harm, or judging others and making decisions due to negative internal response to someone's race, religion, etc...... but nowadays, some think it's already racist to promote more legal immigration vs illegal ones.... or even judging someone by their character rather than physical traits could be considered as micro-aggressive racism or whatever.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

I guess the problem is finding out where is the actual line is... or at least the vicinity.  

 

I'm completely non-religious, but I actually don't mind have religion in schools.  Not actual indoctrination, but promotion of some points... like the good parts that is the norm for almost every civilization.  The "love thy neighbour", "don't steal", etc.  Some rudimentary exposure for basic morality.  

Plus, it's always good for kids to learn about other religion and stuff.  As a child growing up in the 80's/90's in a East Van public school.... I do remember a nun coming to my school, telling stories and showing us videos.  It wasn't explicitly stated to be Christian... but it was strongly implied.  Then she also brought a lot of supplies that we had to pack to send to impoverished children somewhere in Central America.  Now retroactively looking back, some of those lessons were probably instilled in me... and I am very grateful of them.  

 

As for "racist".... that's where it gets dicey.  There are extremes on both sides of course, so the line is shifting constantly.  I can totally understand the obvious ones, like people throwing racial slurs with actual intent to harm, or judging others and making decisions due to negative internal response to someone's race, religion, etc...... but nowadays, some think it's already racist to promote more legal immigration vs illegal ones.... or even judging someone by their character rather than physical traits could be considered as micro-aggressive racism or whatever.  

I think you know it when you see it most of the time. Many CPC backbenchers are frothing to get some kind of legal wedge into women's right to choose e.g., or candidates hanging out with near-nazi's like Faith Goldy or guys like Bernier whipping up that old standby of fear of immigration. Usually the candidates can't help themselves and have to be who they are. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

The scientific method is the most excruciatingly laborious process imaginable. It must make accurate predictions in order to be of any use of all. It is how we are able to send space craft billions of kilometers for a fly by of an object much smaller then our own moon. The computer you are using. The insulin you may be taking. The thermometer you may be reading. All the result of the same process.


Its as if people take all that for granted, then all the sudden become a skeptic on one specific issue.

So true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gurn said:

So true.

Is this the same scientific method that led to doctors widely promoting trans fats and smoking tobacco in the past, or the current overuse of opioids?  

 

Money can inspire people to do a lot of things, not all of which are good for the rest of us.

 

Don't take this as me being against green tech or taking measures to reduce pollution.  I like clean air and water as much as the next person, and not breathing exhaust while cycling is awesome.  But politicians and acclaimed scientists have been calling for our climate-sourced doom for over 50 years.  Given their record on predictions, aren't we all entitled to a little skepticism?  Just because scientists are making claims doesn't mean that the scientific method was used properly in their work.

 

How many times do people have to claim the planet will suffer irreversibly if we don't change before people start to question the science?  And, if jet travel is bad, and sea levels are rising as a result of our harmful ways, why do so many prominent climate change ambassadors use private jets often and buy multi-million dollar oceanfront property?  Are they just selfish and/or stupid?  If so, should we really be taking their advice?

 

17 hours ago, Red Light Racicot said:

The scientific method is the most excruciatingly laborious process imaginable. It must make accurate predictions in order to be of any use of all. 

That statement there should postpone the climate debate for some time, because accurate predictions are not what we have been receiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.