Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[Undrafted]

11 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Reminded me of a this.

Funny because it’s true. 

 

 

That's so nonsensical on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. 

 

What are you trying to say?  That only those on the left are against racism?  And since the left are presumably uniformly and categorically a bad thing, is being against racism also a bad thing?  That there is no racism among those in authority?

[189lb enforcers?]

51 minutes ago, Undrafted said:

That's so nonsensical on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. 

 

What are you trying to say?  That only those on the left are against racism?  And since the left are presumably uniformly and categorically a bad thing, is being against racism also a bad thing?  That there is no racism among those in authority?

Actually, I didn’t say anything. 

 

It would appear that you are now convicted of projecting, which is always a telling, leading indicator of one’s perceptions of their environment. 

 

I find humour in that picture in that where the hippy, the guy opposing The Man, now supports, The Man. 

 

[HerrDrFunk]

7 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Actually, I didn’t say anything. 

 

It would appear that you are now convicted of projecting, which is always a telling, leading indicator of one’s perceptions of their environment. 

 

I find humour in that picture in that where the hippy, the guy opposing The Man, now supports, The Man. 

 

lol

[48MPHSlapShot]

It's a weird situation. I most certainly don't think that moderate politics are gone....in fact, I still think most people are somewhat centered. That being said, both left and right political ideologies are currently being represented largely by fringe ideas. Alt right , ethno nationalism on the right, and socialism/authoritarianism on the left.

 

With that being said, I think that fringe far left tendencies are infiltrating the moderate left on a more regular basis than fringe far right tendencies are infiltrating the moderate right, mainly because it's easier to spot the fringe tendencies of the right than it is to spot fringe tendencies on the left. 

 

But regardless, I think it's important for those of us not on the fringes (so basically everyone) to point out fringe ideas and beat them back down, regardless of where we stand politically. It's the only way we keep both sides in check.

[189lb enforcers?]

[Undrafted]

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Actually, I didn’t say anything. 

 

It would appear that you are now convicted of projecting, which is always a telling, leading indicator of one’s perceptions of their environment. 

 

I find humour in that picture in that where the hippy, the guy opposing The Man, now supports, The Man. 

 

When you (or I or anyone else) posts something, we're "saying" something--just the same as we do in person in real life.  And what we say are reflections of ourselves.

 

If the point was the transformation from anti-establishment to pro-establishment, from hippie to post-yuppie, then the man on the right would be wearing a suit and his sign would say something like "DO NOT Question (MY) Authority", without attaching a specific issue to "the left".

 

That isn't what's in that graphic.  By mentioning anti-racism specifically, it DOES attach the issue to specifically the "left" and "authority", with all three being portrayed as negatives.

 

Your declared interpretation of that picture sounds like a disingenuously obtuse excuse to post a pro-racist cartoon, but perhaps the bolded nonsense sentence above indicates you're genuinely that dim.

[189lb enforcers?]

1 hour ago, Undrafted said:

When you (or I or anyone else) posts something, we're "saying" something--just the same as we do in person in real life.  And what we say are reflections of ourselves.

 

If the point was the transformation from anti-establishment to pro-establishment, from hippie to post-yuppie, then the man on the right would be wearing a suit and his sign would say something like "DO NOT Question (MY) Authority", without attaching a specific issue to "the left".

 

That isn't what's in that graphic.  By mentioning anti-racism specifically, it DOES attach the issue to specifically the "left" and "authority", with all three being portrayed as negatives.

 

Your declared interpretation of that picture sounds like a disingenuously obtuse excuse to post a pro-racist cartoon, but perhaps the bolded nonsense sentence above indicates you're genuinely that dim.

We can agree to disagree on interpretation of our environments and that cartoon. It doesn’t eat me alive to think you may have your own opinions. 

 

Now that you’ve twice expressed your opinion concerning mine, I hope that you’re satisfied and don’t mind my having not returned the favour of inferring that you are also a racist, by proxy, or ended this post by questioning your intelligence. 

 

 

 

What is your take on this one then?:

 

 

Ideals of the Left. 

I’d say the average “Hippy” no longer concerns himself with equality, only identity and their place in the hierarchy of victimhood culture. 

These guys...

 

 

These guys are willfully those working to silence free speech, something the media and the Left greatly endorse.

 

This escalated into the ANTIFA mentality which has protested, rioted, victimized and smeared many free speech engagements.

 

The hippies, not my preferred moniker, are now an extension of the media, which is as big government/big corporations as one could conjure up to paint an image of, The Man, which was once these protesters’ fight. Not anymore. Useful idiots?

 

The suits you speak of, they are the targets, not the protesters.

 

The Patriarchy, or whatever the boogie man-of-the-Day is today,  is the tax paying, working class, not the 1%.

 

The victimhood industry is funded by regular Joes while the mega corporations have people doing their bidding for them, which is the point of the cartoon, IMO, of course. Victimhood pays, but only in Western culture. 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by 189lb enforcers?

[Undrafted]

4 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

We can agree to disagree on interpretation of our environments and that cartoon. It doesn’t eat me alive to think you may have your own opinions. 

 

Now that you’ve twice expressed your opinion concerning mine, I hope that you’re satisfied and don’t mind my having not returned the favour of inferring that you are also a racist, by proxy, or ended this post by questioning your intelligence. 

 

Well, here's the thing: no one forced you to post that cartoon, you did that of your own free will.  Saying after the fact that you "didn't say anything" doesn't make you own posting that any less, especially since you posted it again.  So who's actually inferring you're a racist?  I'd say by posting that (twice), you are the one who's inferring that you support racism.  The little intellectually dishonest 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' attempt at providing an tenuously innocuous interpretation of the cartoon doesn't change that.

 

As for questioning your intelligence, you don't provide a lot of options:  If you genuinely believe your interpretation of that cartoon, you're a fool.  If you think you're fooling anyone else with your interpretation of the cartoon, you're a fool and insulting people's intelligence at the same time.

 

However, the nonsensical and irrelevant tin-foil-hat rant that you followed up with banished what little doubt that might remain about whether you're a bona fide fool or not. 

 

You complain about "victimhood culture", yet exactly two sentences later, you literally say the side you support as being "victimized"--both quotes are your direct words.  You whine about alleged "free speech infringements" without the simplest understanding that free speech does NOT mean or include unopposed free speech.  The rest of what you wrote sounds like random samples of political jargon strung together nonsensically without any actual understanding of what the words actually mean.

[Kragar]

On 8/6/2018 at 10:40 AM, Undrafted said:

Fiscal mismanagement doesn't make the Republicans (or other conservative governments/parties) "less conservative".  It simply means they're incompetent and/or corrupt.

When part of what defines fiscal conservatism is responsible spending, especially by the government, fiscal mismanagement definitely does make one less conservative.  That doesn't mean your other options aren't possible.

 

Edit: additionally, creating more avenues for government spending also makes one less conservative.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Kragar

[Undrafted]

9 hours ago, Kragar said:

When part of what defines fiscal conservatism is responsible spending, especially by the government, fiscal mismanagement definitely does make one less conservative.  That doesn't mean your other options aren't possible.

 

Edit: additionally, creating more avenues for government spending also makes one less conservative.

I think we both agree that responsible spending is a basic hallmark of true fiscal conservatism.  But I don't agree that 'mismanagement' in itself makes one less conservative; the other part of the equation is what that money is wasted/spent on and why.  Neither irresponsible spending, corruption nor incompetence is left/right, liberal/conservative thing--when governments of either stripe do it, it's just plain wrong.

[Lockout Casualty]

Spoiler

On 8/3/2018 at 1:48 PM, Kragar said:

Thanks for helping to prove my point.  You don't want a discussion, as evidenced by statements like "just quit reading here and never bother again."  You pile hyperbole and disdain on your perception of "the right's" position, and persist on name-calling, thinking this puts you on higher ground.  Kinda like what happens in too many classrooms.  After looking at all the links in the following spoiler, maybe teachers and classrooms should be equipped with cameras like cops and their cars (btw, while I restricted links to those that are mostly anti-Trump, there are instances of anti-Obama ones out there too.  As you point out that the majority of those with higher education are liberal, that supports that most teachers lean that way, too, right?)

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://brightthemag.com/should-teachers-talk-trump-in-class-education-36a851784959

https://www.wmar2news.com/news/in-focus/san-francisco-teachers-union-offers-anti-trump-lesson-plan

https://www.miamiherald.com/article207803739.html

https://kutv.com/news/local/park-city-jr-high-teacher-on-leave-for-telling-class-to-read-hateful-anti-trump-song

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2016/05/27/should-a-third-grade-teacher-share-his-disdain-for-donald-trump-with-his-class/#46d52f6461a2

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/05/28/liberal-columnist-slated-to-teach-antitrump-course-at-ivy-league-college-n2485088

https://www.krqe.com/news/parents-concerned-over-recording-of-teachers-political-rant/900127113

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-teacher-lesson-plan-donald-trump-racist-sexist/

https://myfox8.com/2017/09/04/school-district-apologizes-after-teacher-kicks-students-out-of-class-for-wearing-make-american-great-again-shirt/

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cherokee-county/school-apologizes-after-teacher-says-students-cant-wear-make-america-great-again-shirts/602622162

http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/local-news/2018/04/25/fort-wayne-community-schools-teacher-accused-of-bullying-student-over-use-of-fox-news-as-source-on-current-events-report/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/northeastern-professor-wishes-death-on-trump

http://www.aei.org/publication/stop-teaching-anti-trump-bias/

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/01/26/teacher-fires-toy-gun-at-president-tump-image-yells-die/

http://tobecomeateacher.org/how-to-teach-under-trump/

https://freebeacon.com/culture/new-book-sheds-light-anti-trump-agenda-public-schools-politicization-classroom/

http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/education/ph-cc-westminster-hs-politics-20170217-story.html

https://uproxx.com/news/teacher-resign-john-oliver-donald-trump/

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/02/15/occ-student-suspended-after-filming-teacher-saying-trumps-election-was-an-act-of-terrorism/

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article170719737.html

https://aminerdetail.com/washington-county-public-schools-issues-statement-in-response-to-smithsburg-teachers-anti-trump-comments/

 

Since Social Justice classes came well after I was attending school, I'd be curious to know how much they talk about the fact that more white people fought against slavery than for it in the US Civil War, or how the majority of African slaves were captured and enslaved by fellow Africans.  Do they even talk about slavery that goes on today?  I doubt it, since there are no white male faces they can identify as the bad-guy.  Even you were misguided earlier in this thread regarding the "3/5 of a person" designation, which was not to punish black people but to punish the South for slavery.  Had that not been implemented, Southern states would have had higher representation in Congress (when black people couldn't vote to influence their representation), and who knows how much longer slavery would have continued in the US.  Since others also take offense at "3/5", I suspect it is not being properly taught in enough places.

 

There is a difference between peaceful counter-protesting and preventing the speaker from begin heard.  The number of right-leaning speakers who have been outright prevented from holding a previously scheduled event.  How many stages have been rushed by right-wing protesters, stealing the mike from a more liberal speaker?  How many people were assaulted or denied service for wearing an Obama hat (or any other political identifier), and then compare that to those with a MAGA hat.

 

A quick search showed me people who have stated they want to ban guns outright include Biden and Feinstein.  See this list for their statements, and similar comments from other Dem politicians: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns

 

Fine, what about the other half of illegals?  Illegal immigrants that do not enter legally drive down wages, since they are often pressured to take less pay than legal residents.  What about those who have since received amnesty.  They still overly represent lower-skilled workers, and therefore impact that portion of the workforce.  Did you have any idea that the large presence of low and unskilled immigration hurts black people the most, driving down wages and job opportunities.  I'm not worried about my job at all.  But, I'd sure be happier seeing more black people have better opportunities to improve their situations by having more jobs available to them, so that their unemployment rate aligns with the rest of us.  You do know that there is a link between unemployment and incarceration?  Does it help the economy when immigrants are sending their money back to where they came from?  You know, money that is likely not taxed (either due to illegals not filing or income too the income too low to be taxed), and not put back into the economy.  

https://cis.org/Testimony/Immigration-and-Black-Americans-Assessing-Impact

https://cis.org/Testimony/Illegal-Immigration-Impact-Wages-and-Employment-Black-Workers

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/02/news/economy/mexico-remittances/index.html

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/06/15/world/immigrants-around-world-sent-445-billion-back-their-home-countries

 

You mention everyone should have access to necessary healthcare.  What is "necessary", btw?  Are healthcare services "necessary" (and necessary to be provided at no cost) to combat repeated, conscious self-abuse through tobacco, alcohol, drugs, sex, and poor diet choices (and I fall into at least one of those categories, no holier-than-thou going on here).  Regardless, you point out it has to be paid for, and who better than the government, right?  Could you not say the same thing about housing, food, water, electricity and other basic utilities/services?  You cannot live without food and water, after all.  Is it fair that people with higher incomes can afford more and better quality food and access to cleaner water (through purchasing filter systems).  Where on the agenda is leveling out that playing field?  Oh crap, I hope I didn't give anyone ideas there.

 

(Side note, IMO the Swiss have a far better system, and the vast majority there are paying for their own insurance, and the right to choose their coverage.  Their concept is universal, but quite different than what Dems are suggesting, or what Canada, UK, Scandinavian countries experience)

 

You are free to continue to state opinions as fact all you like.  Fortunately, I don't have to believe them, and the same goes for anyone else whose critical thinking skills allow them to see past talking points.  Keep up with words like jerbs, dimwit, and xenophobic... they'll take you far.  

 

 You're talking about teachers while avoiding the context. It being that there are over 5 million teachers in the US. To suggest your stories are anything beyond anecdotal evidence would be plain wrong. Beside that, did you read your articles? 

 

This one talks about a teacher making anti-Trump posts on his Facebook. Are teachers not allowed to express their opinion outside the classroom? Does one forgo such privilege, nay, right, when taking a teaching job? Every teacher, like every other person with a brain, is biased to some degree or another, that is however, a far cry from suggesting teachers are leftists who push their biases onto their students. 

 

The first article talks about teachers' struggle to remain neutral:

Quote

 I found that I was not alone in feeling strained by today’s hyper-partisan climate. I also found that many teachers struggle to remain neutral, whether their schools are in red, blue, or purple communities.

Again, teachers are humans with biases, but this clearly shows that they try to contain their biases inside their classrooms. 

 

Second talks about actions of the teachers' union, which last I checked, does not teach in class. And the article itself states, "It is unclear how many teachers have used the plan outlined by a Mission High School teacher".

 

Another is about a teacher who used an Eminem song with plans for a opposing lesson the following day (too many right wing parents blew a gasket however). Wrong or right, it's just one of more than FIVE MILLION teachers in the US. 

 

Most of the articles are about a single teacher who goes off the deep end. Like I said, even if you link a thousand articles about a single teacher pushing his left wing bias onto students, it'll still account for a tiny (.0002) fraction of all teachers. I don't know how you can claim I'm the one relying on emotion and opinion, when you have no problem painting the entire teaching profession (highly respected everywhere outside of North America) with the same leftist, opinion-pushing brush. 

 

I couldn't tell you anything about Social Justice classes, as I've never taken one. I don't think the left should be uncomfortable with the facts that more whites fought for slavery than against, nor that Africans enslaved other Africans (and sold them to the white people who took them to the Americas). It doesn't affect any position that doesn't rely inherently on blaming whites (which I would argue, if necessary, the left does not do). You're right about the 3/5 compromise, I clearly missed something when I last read about this. 

 

You're right, the left does have a number of people who've ran up onto stages and grabbed mics, or drowned out the speaker with (short-lived) chants before getting ejected (sometimes they even got ejected for asking legitimate questions). Contrast that with right wing protesters wielding firearms and other weapons, wearing full tactical gear, and actual history of violence. Right wing speakers were prevented from speaking by private entities, not the government. Their right to free speech was not violated. Same with denial of service for political beliefs, there's no law against discriminating based on one's political choice. But since you asked, here's a doctor who denied service to Obama voters. Of course there are many more if you care to look.

 

Point is, left wing is a bunch of kids at worst breaking some storefronts and looting, right wing is at worst murderous. It's the right wing that consistently discredits media, teachers, experts, etc., because they all have a supposed left wing bias. And the issue is that with the right wing, it's the leaders and politicians that are provoking such actions by portraying these groups as enemies of the people. They're not just saying these experts et al are wrong (and proving it in any way), they're suggesting that they are to be defended against, that there is a war going on for the soul of the country and the left are the devil (sometimes literally, Obama the anti-Christ, for example). The left doesn't have Glenn Becks, Sean Hannities, Bill O'Reillies, Rush Limbaughs, etc., because the left doesn't rely on ignorance in their base to get anywhere. This is why teachers are pushing biases, the media is fake news, and experts are self-interested to the conservative mind. Nobody is right, unless it supports their pre-conceived beliefs. 

 

Wanting to ban guns and working toward that end are vastly different things. There is no left wing movement to ban guns out there, outside of right wingers' heads. And to boot, not every name on there is for banning guns, some are advocating just what I said - limiting access to qualified individuals and prohibiting things like AK47s. 

 

US unemployment is ~4%, I don't think the issue is job availability. Black employment is an issue of its own, and bringing up illegals only serves to point fingers at an easily-dehumanised group instead of issues of why black unemployment is so out of sync with the overall rate and why blacks are competing disproportionately with illegals for low-income jobs. Yes, I do know there is a link between unemployment and incarceration. I also know there is a link between black ethnicity and incarceration. Oh, and unemployment. 

 

Further, illegals do pay taxes. Billions in fact. And they can't use the benefits their taxes are paying for. So not only are they not squeezing out legal residents out of queue, they are effectively subsidising their benefits by not being eligible themselves. 

 

Necessary level being when you are sick, you can go see a doctor with no cost (I would go further and include optometrist and dentist, as well as the pharmacist). Yes, people will abuse their bodies, playing hockey, riding mountain bikes, breathing air, living outside a bubble, etc.. And yes, they should continue to be treated. What's the alternative? If it's their second go around and they can't afford payment, they can beg for treatment money? Is that the society you want? I certainly don't. 

 

As for your foot and water nonsense, that's what welfare and disability are for. Great point, however. Typically these payments are barely enough to pay for housing alone. You do know that there is a link between poverty and crime? So again, do you prefer sticking it to the lazy by not providing sufficient funds to survive for many people who need a little help? The right wing likes to remind us of the lazy parasites, but they never mention context (does the right have a problem with context?). Over 50 million people "participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012". How many do you think are lazy no-goodnicks, that it would justify harming the rest? Over 74% participated between one and 48 months (from same link), how many remaining are disabled and mentally ill? 

 

 

I will continue to state my opinion and backing it up with fact. You, nor anyone else here, have to believe them, nor reply to me, nor engage my in any way. Been there, done that in my 15+ years on CDC. The discussion that will be generated is a known to me before I make a post, because it's always the same. A bunch of easily-disproved links, a bunch of likes for posts that are clearly ignorant (looking at you, Ryan, Alf, and Forsberg), and few acknowledgements of actual argument. So as you can see, I'm really not here for an intelligent discussion, because I know it's once in a million that I'll find it here at any given time. You can criticise me for not being friendly and polite, or for using strong words for most of the right wing, it doesn't bother me. I'm simply expressing my opinion of said wing, whom I see somewhere between Cletus and Ralph Wiggum on a scale of intellectual prowess. Ignore me or reply to me, I welcome either. It's an anonymous forum, where facts are fake and the points don't matter. If we were to sit across from each other, we'd be having a very different discussion. 

 

PS. Sorry for such a late reply. I've just not had the time. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Lockout Casualty

[Mattrek]

I’m firmly on the left because the issues I support align with their ideas. I have studied the issues and while not perfect most of the time the left has the better solution. I think the biggest problem is the echo chamber that tells you what the other side believes. Go ahead and ask me what I support as a progressive (no I don’t support banning all guns, no I don’t like abortions, no I don’t support spending money we don’t have unless the return on the investment is justifiable, no I don’t think the left is perfect, no I don’t think fossil fuel production should be shut down immediately, no I don’t agree with open borders as a few positions that the right says the left supports).

 

But most would rather be told what the other side believes rather then asking (no I don’t believe all conservatives are evil or racist as an example). The biggest issue is this. We’re taught to hate another person because of their views and thanks to the tribalism of putting your team winning over doing the right thing for all people we don’t ask the simplest of questions like: what do you believe?

 

I’ve found common ground with pro-gun absolutionists, anti-abortion stalwarts and anti-government types. There is ground where we can agree, but it has to be a WANTED solution and both sides have to be willing to engage respectfully, earnestly and honestly, which quite frankly is very rare. Most prefer to hurl insults, assumptions, deflections, whataboutisms and basically every excuse in the book to avoid it (I’m not unguilty of this either).

 

I agree people need to get some tougher skin, but here’s the thing for either side: if someone tells you they’re offended believe them and apologize. Why is it so hard for people to admit wrongdoing? Criticism should also be welcomed. How is anyone ever to learn without making mistakes? The whole thing has changed to “I’m right, you’re wrong and nothing you say can change my mind” rather then explaining “these are the facts that support why I believe this”. Why not be open minded that you could in fact be wrong?

 

I support equality and caring for one another. If that makes me a SJW, libtard, snowflake or whatever pejorative people come up with so be it. Being a decent person is now a problem with some apparently *shrugs*

 

EDIT: Forgot to mention another big problem. Hating the other side so much that you are willing to ignore facts/data/research/science in order to create an opinion opposite to what the people you hate believe. Now we have basic tenets of society breaking down because of this. “Breaking the law is bad”, “education is good”, “facts matter”, “science matters”, “being compassionate for others is good”, “racist remarks are bad”, I could go on, but you get the idea. Because of this hatred ideas of our society once mostly agreed upon are not in an effort to distinguish themselves from the other side they hate regardless of the factuality and merit behind said position.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Mattrek

[Kragar]

On 8/7/2018 at 11:32 PM, Undrafted said:

I think we both agree that responsible spending is a basic hallmark of true fiscal conservatism.  But I don't agree that 'mismanagement' in itself makes one less conservative; the other part of the equation is what that money is wasted/spent on and why.  Neither irresponsible spending, corruption nor incompetence is left/right, liberal/conservative thing--when governments of either stripe do it, it's just plain wrong.

Fair enough.  Your first statement here wasn't clear to me in your earlier posts.  I agree with what you here.

[Shift-4]

@Mattrek

That is one of the best posts I have ever seen on CDC. Well said. 

[BabychStache]

5 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

@Mattrek

That is one of the best posts I have ever seen on CDC. Well said. 

I opened the thread for the entertainment factor, but was blown away by this post. @Mattrek dropping knowledge! 

[Warhippy]

On 2018-08-06 at 4:29 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

We can agree to disagree on interpretation of our environments and that cartoon. It doesn’t eat me alive to think you may have your own opinions. 

 

Now that you’ve twice expressed your opinion concerning mine, I hope that you’re satisfied and don’t mind my having not returned the favour of inferring that you are also a racist, by proxy, or ended this post by questioning your intelligence. 

 

 

 

What is your take on this one then?:

 

 

Ideals of the Left. 

I’d say the average “Hippy” no longer concerns himself with equality, only identity and their place in the hierarchy of victimhood culture. 

These guys...

 

 

These guys are willfully those working to silence free speech, something the media and the Left greatly endorse.

 

This escalated into the ANTIFA mentality which has protested, rioted, victimized and smeared many free speech engagements.

 

The hippies, not my preferred moniker, are now an extension of the media, which is as big government/big corporations as one could conjure up to paint an image of, The Man, which was once these protesters’ fight. Not anymore. Useful idiots?

 

The suits you speak of, they are the targets, not the protesters.

 

The Patriarchy, or whatever the boogie man-of-the-Day is today,  is the tax paying, working class, not the 1%.

 

The victimhood industry is funded by regular Joes while the mega corporations have people doing their bidding for them, which is the point of the cartoon, IMO, of course. Victimhood pays, but only in Western culture. 

 

 

And this is what happens when every idiot that is barely capable of reading or conducting any argument past internet memes they don't understand gets to vote

 

 

But hey....nice hair though

[Kragar]

nvm, will repost

Edited August 9, 2018 by Kragar

[Kragar]

Spoiler

12 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 You're talking about teachers while avoiding the context. It being that there are over 5 million teachers in the US. To suggest your stories are anything beyond anecdotal evidence would be plain wrong. Beside that, did you read your articles? 

 

This one talks about a teacher making anti-Trump posts on his Facebook. Are teachers not allowed to express their opinion outside the classroom? Does one forgo such privilege, nay, right, when taking a teaching job? Every teacher, like every other person with a brain, is biased to some degree or another, that is however, a far cry from suggesting teachers are leftists who push their biases onto their students. 

 

The first article talks about teachers' struggle to remain neutral:

Again, teachers are humans with biases, but this clearly shows that they try to contain their biases inside their classrooms. 

 

Second talks about actions of the teachers' union, which last I checked, does not teach in class. And the article itself states, "It is unclear how many teachers have used the plan outlined by a Mission High School teacher".

 

Another is about a teacher who used an Eminem song with plans for a opposing lesson the following day (too many right wing parents blew a gasket however). Wrong or right, it's just one of more than FIVE MILLION teachers in the US. 

 

Most of the articles are about a single teacher who goes off the deep end. Like I said, even if you link a thousand articles about a single teacher pushing his left wing bias onto students, it'll still account for a tiny (.0002) fraction of all teachers. I don't know how you can claim I'm the one relying on emotion and opinion, when you have no problem painting the entire teaching profession (highly respected everywhere outside of North America) with the same leftist, opinion-pushing brush. 

 

I couldn't tell you anything about Social Justice classes, as I've never taken one. I don't think the left should be uncomfortable with the facts that more whites fought for slavery than against, nor that Africans enslaved other Africans (and sold them to the white people who took them to the Americas). It doesn't affect any position that doesn't rely inherently on blaming whites (which I would argue, if necessary, the left does not do). You're right about the 3/5 compromise, I clearly missed something when I last read about this. 

 

You're right, the left does have a number of people who've ran up onto stages and grabbed mics, or drowned out the speaker with (short-lived) chants before getting ejected (sometimes they even got ejected for asking legitimate questions). Contrast that with right wing protesters wielding firearms and other weapons, wearing full tactical gear, and actual history of violence. Right wing speakers were prevented from speaking by private entities, not the government. Their right to free speech was not violated. Same with denial of service for political beliefs, there's no law against discriminating based on one's political choice. But since you asked, here's a doctor who denied service to Obama voters. Of course there are many more if you care to look.

 

Point is, left wing is a bunch of kids at worst breaking some storefronts and looting, right wing is at worst murderous. It's the right wing that consistently discredits media, teachers, experts, etc., because they all have a supposed left wing bias. And the issue is that with the right wing, it's the leaders and politicians that are provoking such actions by portraying these groups as enemies of the people. They're not just saying these experts et al are wrong (and proving it in any way), they're suggesting that they are to be defended against, that there is a war going on for the soul of the country and the left are the devil (sometimes literally, Obama the anti-Christ, for example). The left doesn't have Glenn Becks, Sean Hannities, Bill O'Reillies, Rush Limbaughs, etc., because the left doesn't rely on ignorance in their base to get anywhere. This is why teachers are pushing biases, the media is fake news, and experts are self-interested to the conservative mind. Nobody is right, unless it supports their pre-conceived beliefs. 

 

Wanting to ban guns and working toward that end are vastly different things. There is no left wing movement to ban guns out there, outside of right wingers' heads. And to boot, not every name on there is for banning guns, some are advocating just what I said - limiting access to qualified individuals and prohibiting things like AK47s. 

 

US unemployment is ~4%, I don't think the issue is job availability. Black employment is an issue of its own, and bringing up illegals only serves to point fingers at an easily-dehumanised group instead of issues of why black unemployment is so out of sync with the overall rate and why blacks are competing disproportionately with illegals for low-income jobs. Yes, I do know there is a link between unemployment and incarceration. I also know there is a link between black ethnicity and incarceration. Oh, and unemployment. 

 

Further, illegals do pay taxes. Billions in fact. And they can't use the benefits their taxes are paying for. So not only are they not squeezing out legal residents out of queue, they are effectively subsidising their benefits by not being eligible themselves. 

 

Necessary level being when you are sick, you can go see a doctor with no cost (I would go further and include optometrist and dentist, as well as the pharmacist). Yes, people will abuse their bodies, playing hockey, riding mountain bikes, breathing air, living outside a bubble, etc.. And yes, they should continue to be treated. What's the alternative? If it's their second go around and they can't afford payment, they can beg for treatment money? Is that the society you want? I certainly don't. 

 

As for your foot and water nonsense, that's what welfare and disability are for. Great point, however. Typically these payments are barely enough to pay for housing alone. You do know that there is a link between poverty and crime? So again, do you prefer sticking it to the lazy by not providing sufficient funds to survive for many people who need a little help? The right wing likes to remind us of the lazy parasites, but they never mention context (does the right have a problem with context?). Over 50 million people "participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012". How many do you think are lazy no-goodnicks, that it would justify harming the rest? Over 74% participated between one and 48 months (from same link), how many remaining are disabled and mentally ill? 

 

 

I will continue to state my opinion and backing it up with fact. You, nor anyone else here, have to believe them, nor reply to me, nor engage my in any way. Been there, done that in my 15+ years on CDC. The discussion that will be generated is a known to me before I make a post, because it's always the same. A bunch of easily-disproved links, a bunch of likes for posts that are clearly ignorant (looking at you, Ryan, Alf, and Forsberg), and few acknowledgements of actual argument. So as you can see, I'm really not here for an intelligent discussion, because I know it's once in a million that I'll find it here at any given time. You can criticise me for not being friendly and polite, or for using strong words for most of the right wing, it doesn't bother me. I'm simply expressing my opinion of said wing, whom I see somewhere between Cletus and Ralph Wiggum on a scale of intellectual prowess. Ignore me or reply to me, I welcome either. It's an anonymous forum, where facts are fake and the points don't matter. If we were to sit across from each other, we'd be having a very different discussion. 

 

PS. Sorry for such a late reply. I've just not had the time. 

 

 

No worries on the delay... life hits us all.  I no longer post from my work computer, and I'm not prepared to deal with the stress of learning to post from my smartphone, so I'm prone to longer delays than before.

 

We're not going to make much progress here, and that's fine.  You make some valid points, and some IMO less valid, and I'm gathering you feel similarly with me.  I won't claim to be any better... it's not always possible to prevent bias from clouding judgment.

 

Sorry for the double notification... the first post had my comments in the hidden area, so I fixed it here.

[Mattrek]

Key example of what I was talking about. The whole thread is worth reading, but here’s the most important snippets. This is possible on every issue, but it requires both sides to listen and engage respectfully.

 

 

[Undrafted]

10 hours ago, Mattrek said:

I’m firmly on the left because the issues I support align with their ideas. I have studied the issues and while not perfect most of the time the left has the better solution. I think the biggest problem is the echo chamber that tells you what the other side believes. Go ahead and ask me what I support as a progressive (no I don’t support banning all guns, no I don’t like abortions, no I don’t support spending money we don’t have unless the return on the investment is justifiable, no I don’t think the left is perfect, no I don’t think fossil fuel production should be shut down immediately, no I don’t agree with open borders as a few positions that the right says the left supports).

 

But most would rather be told what the other side believes rather then asking (no I don’t believe all conservatives are evil or racist as an example). The biggest issue is this. We’re taught to hate another person because of their views and thanks to the tribalism of putting your team winning over doing the right thing for all people we don’t ask the simplest of questions like: what do you believe?

 

I’ve found common ground with pro-gun absolutionists, anti-abortion stalwarts and anti-government types. There is ground where we can agree, but it has to be a WANTED solution and both sides have to be willing to engage respectfully, earnestly and honestly, which quite frankly is very rare. Most prefer to hurl insults, assumptions, deflections, whataboutisms and basically every excuse in the book to avoid it (I’m not unguilty of this either).

 

I agree people need to get some tougher skin, but here’s the thing for either side: if someone tells you they’re offended believe them and apologize. Why is it so hard for people to admit wrongdoing? Criticism should also be welcomed. How is anyone ever to learn without making mistakes? The whole thing has changed to “I’m right, you’re wrong and nothing you say can change my mind” rather then explaining “these are the facts that support why I believe this”. Why not be open minded that you could in fact be wrong?

 

I support equality and caring for one another. If that makes me a SJW, libtard, snowflake or whatever pejorative people come up with so be it. Being a decent person is now a problem with some apparently *shrugs*

 

EDIT: Forgot to mention another big problem. Hating the other side so much that you are willing to ignore facts/data/research/science in order to create an opinion opposite to what the people you hate believe. Now we have basic tenets of society breaking down because of this. “Breaking the law is bad”, “education is good”, “facts matter”, “science matters”, “being compassionate for others is good”, “racist remarks are bad”, I could go on, but you get the idea. Because of this hatred ideas of our society once mostly agreed upon are not in an effort to distinguish themselves from the other side they hate regardless of the factuality and merit behind said position.

Well, here's my simple question to you (and anyone else): why pigeonhole yourself as 'being on the left'?  Why should anyone "pick a side"?

 

We, the general public, have been manipulated by the political parties to "pick a side", in the hopes of bolstering party loyalty and reinforcing authority, as opposed to actually being informed on issues and making decisions based on that (and it wasn't always that way).  And for the most part, the general public has played along because it's EASIER than making informed decisions.

 

Currently, I find most political discourse, especially on the internet, to be as ludicrous (but less comical) than the "Left Twix vs. Right Twix" commercials.