Accusations alone prove Nothing

You’re a sexist piece of shit, and you couldn’t philosophize your way out of a tiny cardboard box or paper bag.
You’re not here for honest, open and thoughtful dialogue, not even in the slightest, you’re here for diatribe.
I refuse to set an example of feeding trolls like you, and other jerk offs.
Now get the fuck off my thread.

And there is no ‘rape culture’ in America, perhaps there’s a rape sub-subculture, but there’s no rape culture, on the contrary, but why don’t you post a new thread on the subject and how liberals are so much more peaceful and loving than conservatives, and refrain from muddying this one up any further than you already have.

Gloom,
I appreciated your last post before the edit. :wink:

:laughing:

Not even about man-hating feminism, it’s more about respecting the rule of law and common sense. You know, those things that leftists (totalitarians)… don’t care for.

As you probably know by now, I myself hold some positions typically regarded as leftist.
I support socialism and environmentalism, so long as they’re what I see as executed properly.
Where I take issue with liberals, and where a growing number of people from all sides of the political spectrums take issue with them, conservatives, independents, even from within the liberal party, is their anti-white, Christian male agenda, often masquerading as liberty and equality for women and minorities.

But moreover, it’s gotten worse, it’s gotten to the point where they no longer believe they owe us any debate or explanation now.
Anyone who disagrees with them, even in the slightest, even diehards from within their own ranks are immediately misconstrued, derided, vilified and branded a racist, homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic Nazi, and swiftly socio-politically ostracized.
I mean even if you staunchly disagree with conservatives, at least republicans these days generally have the decency to, just keep on explaining themselves and their position as best they can, without resorting to name-calling, defamation, slander, threats and other extreme underhanded tactics.

There’s an alarmingly growing sense of entitlement and mob mentality now, and it’s alienating more and more people from them.
It’s gotten way out of hand.
They can just say and do whatever they want.
X is accused of rape, you express any doubt whatsoever, you’re a rape apologist and so on.
This mentality has to stop, and if it doesn’t, we’re probably going to start seeing mob lynchings if we haven’t already.

Arguably conveniently for the economic establishment, liberalism has become less about the economy, which used to be quite literally their meat and potatoes, their bread and butter a few decades ago (‘it’s the economy, stupid’!), and more about protecting women and minorities from discrimination at any cost, including the cost of protecting men and the majority from discrimination, in fact, it has become plain discrimination against men and the majority, and it has got to stop!

Behind all this I think the elite is knowingly fanning and fuelling the flames at least, if not downright lighting them themselves, between women and minorities and men and the majority, as part of the ol’, divide and rule tactic, so they can continue looting us all left, right and center.

even socialists and capitalists can agree on some things at least.
We both think ‘crony capitalism’ or corporatism is bad, that megabanks and corporations shouldn’t be receiving corporate welfare, tax loopholes and so on.
Where we disagree is whether just eliminating the systemic and widespread corruption is enough.
I say it’s not, for starters corporations have been looting us blind for decades if not centuries now.
Merely removing the existing corruption is insufficient.
The corporations have been getting monstrously rich off this corruption for far, much too long.
They owe us trillions of dollars in reparations, but anyhow, at least it’s a starting point, and I think both socialists and capitalists can agree the central banks are completely corrupt and need to be destroyed.

Right on.
Not respecting the rule of law is the worst crime.
They fallaciously and dangerously equate being accused of something with being convicted.
I don’t think all ‘leftists’ (not even sure there is such a thing as leftism, so much as a hodgepodge of disparate, loosely related ideologies somewhat artificially and arbitrarily lumped together historically for convenience) are totalitarians, there are many different schools of leftist thought, some of them arguably more libertarian than, ‘libertarians’, or what that word has come to mean in 21st century American thought, but it’s a subject that’s perhaps a bit too big for this thread.

Totalitarians don’t care for law? You mean the very thing they enforce far too much? Do u even read what you write? No common sense at all and you hate on others for lacking it…

And as if rightists never break the law or defy common sense lol. You make this way too easy.

Peter Kropotkin: the simple reason I didn’t respond the points gloomy made was
they aren’t relevant to his post… his post was simply bashing liberals
and the method he used was about the very serious problem of the rape culture
in America… I don’t need to respond to a post that’s only value is to attack
liberals and liberalism…

Gloom:
You’re a sexist piece of shit, and you couldn’t philosophize your way out of a tiny cardboard box or paper bag.
You’re not here for honest, open and thoughtful dialogue, not even in the slightest, you’re here for diatribe.
I refuse to set an example of feeding trolls like you, and other jerk offs.
Now get the fuck off my thread.

K: and we have the anger issue… look, I am sorry you have anger issues and you
should probably see a professional for that… but I maintain that this thread was
created for the sole purpose of attacking liberals and liberalism…
and the continuing personal attacks seem to suggest that I am right…
I would suggest the failure here is yours and yours alone…
but not the reasons you may think…you have failed in the basic principle of
examining your basic principles for their truth…you have the courage of your convictions
but not the courage of an attack upon your convictions… you have failed the basic
point of being a philosopher which is to examine what you believe and see if it is true…
my point about having changed political viewpoints is to show that it is possible to
not only understand but to change one’s political viewpoint…as I have done, multiple times…
as an adult…I am willing to challenged my beliefs, attack my convictions as it were,
can you?

Kropotkin

Gloom, you are a common sense rational classical liberal, not a leftist.

You must discover the absolute difference between these two things. The false conflation of the one with the other is a major source of many problems right now.

I think he means giving people their due process, habaeus corpus.

And you’re right, fascism is a school of right thought, and it’s totalitarian, but I think in Ur’s mind, rightism means just capitalism, libertarianism and such, where as both fascism and socialism are somehow on the left.

I find it much more useful and applicable to assess “left” and “right” according to both social and economic stances, much like the “political compass” does.

Only simpletons like UrGod think absolutely and without nuance - as though there is 1 single homogenous left. The usual slightly more sophisticated understanding places people and parties along a relative scale, but you need to take into account that some people who support capitalism also support restraint in social behaviours (Conservatives), and some support freer trade as well as free living in general (Libertarians). Likewise some who support more economic controls also want to enforce what you can do and say in social respects (like this new wave of feminists), and some who support more economic planning also support a lack of control over individual choices outside of the workplace (like me).

It’s ham-fisted to ignore the broader spectrum of political beliefs, and so easily turned into an “us versus them” false dichotomy that completely misrepresents the vast majority of actual people. You should never listen to people who speak in black and white terms about politics (or anything).

You don’t want to talk about men’s rights because you hate men, pure and simple.

You will use any excuse to wiggle and worm your way out of one.

While I wouldn’t say all liberals are like that, and what liberalism means exactly is sort of nebulous (I have used liberalism in both a broad, abstract sense to refer to many ideological currents throughout the ages, and in a narrow, concrete sense to mean Canadian liberals/American democrats, in this thread), I agree many, if not most mainstream liberals have unfortunately become like that, they feel as tho their party is The way, The only way for all peoples, places and times, ahistoric, and that anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy, and while conservatives/republicans have definitely been guilty of this level of fanaticism in the past, as have many ideological currents, liberalism is perhaps the worst today, and that’s why I think we’re seeing this opposition to it that’s been simmering for ages in the underground, finally beginning to erupt into the mainstream.

@UrGod

I don’t think you can fit my views into that tiny of a box, but you can try.

Having two dimensions helps make things a little more sophisticated than one.
You can split politics into an economic and social sphere or domain.
You can make things even a little more complex by divvying them up like this:

There is socialist economics (left), where corporations are ran in the interest of workers and consumers, there is corporatist economics (right), where corporations are ran in the interest of capitalists, and there is capitalist economics (center), where it’s a free for all, economic competition.

And there is progressive ‘socionomics’ (left), if you will (don’t know what else to call it), which would be, what?
Promoting the rights of women and minorities, and in my view, often at the expense of men and the majority, multiculturalism/racialism, minimization of difference, feminization of men and boys/masculinization of women and girls, gun control, cameras everywhere, environmentalism, one or two child policy, planned parenthood, enforced vegetarianism/veganism, psychiatric fascism and so on.

And there is conservative socionomics (right), which are more well known and understood than progressive socionomics, because we had them for centuries:
Rigid roles for men and women and adherence to racial, religious, sexual and social norms, criminalization of drugs and prostitution, sanctity of marriage, life and so on.

And then you have liberal or libertarian (two words that as you’ve argued ought to mean the same thing: free) socionomics (center), where we’re free to conduct our personal, private affairs as we see fit independently of state intervention.

I think it’s important to make a distinction between liberalism on the one hand, and what could be called progressivism on the other.
Progressivism is one of the two major kinds of authoritarianism in our culture, the other is of course conservatism.
All too often liberalism is lumped in with progressiveism.

Myself I’m mostly a socialist when it comes to the economy, and mostly a liberal or libertarian when it comes to our personal, private lives, like you, but with some progressive, and conservative elements thrown in.

We can add another dimension, a political one.
The tripartite division here would be democrat (left), monarchist (right) and anarchist (center).
And there are more dimensions you can add, and ways to split the aforementioned ones up.
You can go on adding and dividing, and I, like you, encourage people to become broader, more sophisticated and personalized in their thinking, if they can help it.

Back-pattin’. Congratulating the self.

Self/other relationship wherein self has already been established to be proudly humble, “other” (aka gloom) will now be analyzed to discover what obviously must be a problem from the point of view of the previously-established-all-perfect self.

More self-flattering wishful thinking. It’s impossible to love without hate because in order to love you must hate that which threatens what you love, so if you’re void of hate, as you claim, then you’re indifferent, ambivalent. In order to love all, you’d have to have sympathy for the devil and cheer equally on both sides of the fence. So you’re flattering yourself for possessing what is impossible to have while demonizing those who don’t from your altar of self-righteousness. You can’t see that?

Maybe you can see clearer to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye once you gotten the beam out of your own? :confusion-shrug:

“They’re probably guilty anyway” because they’re part of a class or category of people who do such things.

“Twisted logic liberals like to use” - “Liberals” are a class or category of people who do such things.

You’re essentially doing what you’re complaining about: the sweeping demonization of people for belonging to a class.

Generalizations are only generally good, but that’s ok since “men” are systemizers :wink: and it’s perfectly natural :slight_smile:

Nah, women should come first because they have the eggs while men are perfectly expendable. Gotta protect the eggs!

No, the woman is always innocent like the customer is always right. Eggs, man, eggs! We must protect the eggs!

Consider the poor muslim who has never seen a half-naked bleach-blonde unveiled from her burka. Poor guy, it must be like a starving child watching Trump eat a big mac. Screw that; hang the muslim to protect the eggs! Easter is almost here! :animals-bunnywhite:

@Serendipper

While the minority of men who rape women may be larger than the minority of women who rape men, it’s still only a minority of men who rape women, where as the majority of progressives arguably employ this form of twisted logic: they equate being accused of rape with being charged with rape, which’s not to say conservatives don’t have their own forms of twisted logic, they do.

I wouldn’t overgeneralize generalizations, they’re not always good or bad.
Charging and accusing are two very different things, charging requires a great deal of evidence, time and money, accusing requires none.
The majority of progressives employ this twisted form of logic, but if you point to one and say this is an example progressives who don’t, than I’ll happily recognize the difference between type B progressives, who don’t, and the more common type A progressives, who do.
Just because I employ generalizations, doesn’t mean I don’t recognize there are exceptions or meaningful differences between one class of thing and another.

And I mean the majority of people charged with theft and murder may be convicted, but does it follow that the majority of people who’re are accused of theft and murder are guilty, and that we should ruin their lives on the basis of accusation alone?
Of course it doesn’t, and neither should we ruin the lives of men or women who’ve merely been accused of rape or sexual harassment.