The frustration of the right and conservatives

Post Reply New Topic

Except when it comes to use of other offensive words, such as the evil and so bad N word. Unless of course, it’s one N calling another N and then it’s just cultural.

On a bit of a tangent, I'm dreading the cringefest that's likely to ensue should people on the spectrum decide to "reclaim the 'A' word" which is currently being used as an insult in some circles (admittedly frequently by people who exhibit a handful of the diagnostic criteria, but still...).

I wonder how many conservatives would respond to this thread if it was entitled: The Sexual Frustration Of The Right And Conservatives? I swear, it would pickle their livers!

Hey, you're the one telling me how terrible the word, cracker, is, and how I shouldn't use it, because it's racist against WHITES!! !! !

When did I do this, exactly?

Isn't that the whole point of your argument? Because if it's not, then you've just been slinging poop like a monkey with no rhyme or reason.

When did you stop beating your wife, Bill?



As clumsy a false dichotomy as I've ever seen.

Now, how about those principles, Bill? Stop reading from your fundie playbook and engage in some honest discourse.

I believe that the entire autism movement should just let go of what words other people outside the group uses, like all "identity" movements ideally should.

Then, if your argument isn't about white people being set upon by evil, evil liberalism, just what is it?
And my principles? I thought I've been clear - everyone should be regarded as equal but aren't. Therefore, we who have so much should be willing to give a helping hand to those who aren't treated so equally, whether that is by personal behavior or by government action that we support. That not every slur holds equal weight, as circumstance dictates what harm said word causes. That pretending to be color blind is utter bull$hit, as a black person will always be a black person and a white person will always be a white person, no matter how you might pretend you can't tell; rather, we should appreciate and celebrate any and all diversity. There, I put it in as saccharine sweet terms as I could momentarily come up with.

What trend leftward?

Conservatives care about the frustrations of conservatives. Liberals care about the frustrations of liberals. Neither side is likely to have any sympathy for the other side.

Do you really want to use the SJW tactic of crying about how nobody cares about you? Or would you rather be a big boy and care for yourself?

You aren't a liberal, Bill. You're a Progressive. You apply the Marxist class struggle to immutable characteristics and make believe it's something new.



That's one mistake in your thinking. Everyone should be regarded as equal before the law because they are not equal. No two individuals are the same, regardless of immutable characteristics.



And what do you do, Bill? I mean other than demeaning literally everyone by erasing their individuality via making every issue one about immutable characteristics as class?



Irrelevant. I don't care sufficiently about your feelings, nor those of anyone else I don't have a vested interest in. Nor do I believe that people are more or less sensitive to offence based solely on their skin colour or dependent on how oppressed their ancestors were or were not. That's not something you can judge based on race, gender, ethnicity or even current station, unless they have the privilege of having an ancestry they can trace back for centuries and which carries its own coat of arms.



That's not what it means to be colour blind, Bill, and I have to assume you're being disingenuous when you claim it is, because the alternative is that I consider you to mentally deficient and, aside from anything else, that would render any discussion with you utterly pointless.

To be colour blind is to place no value on skin tone, whether positive or negative. To be colour blind is to address the ideas on their merits, no matter their genetics. To be colour blind is to not perceive people who look different to be of a different species, to have different values, needs or thought processes merely because they happen to have a different appearance. To be colour blind is to judge people by "the content of their character" and not "the colo[u]r of their skins". To be colour blind is not to pretend that that various hues of flesh do not exist.

If you want to end discrimination on the basis of race, stop discriminating on the basis of race. Simple, no?



Why? What principle is behind the need to "appreciate and celebrate any and all diversity"?

Do you appreciate and celebrate the alt-right? How about utopian ethno-statists like Richard Spencer? Are you in favour of holding a national holiday to celebrate the KKK?

How about something a little more simple. Do you "appreciate and celebrate" "Conservatism" which, as best I can tell, you use to mean "non-Progressivism"?



You can gift wrap it in cocaine and hire a dozen supermodels to deliver it, it won't distract from the contents of the package.

The trend is towards extremism on both "sides", though that's an oversimplification. The left/right dichotomy isn't fit for purpose as is, and certainly not in the context of political discourse in #currentyear.

What is most certainly true is that the Overton window has shifted towards both neo-marxism and ethno-centrism, towards collectivism and away from individualism, often at the expense of rational discourse and behaviour. The conversation is being led by radical ideologies and their adherents, which each "side" readily converts into controlled opposition under clickbait headlines.

True, a better, though not perfect analysis of the emerging divide might be nationalist vs globalist. We're in for a massive political upset because almost all major parties in Western countries are devoutly globalist, remembering of course that Trump is not the GOP.

There wouldn't have to be class struggle if those at the top didn't step on the rest of us.
The trouble with your definition of ending racial discrimination means to end Affirmative Action, and the idealism behind it. You've made it clear you don't believe racial minorities are being discriminated against. You still yet have to explain how you're going to get rid of white supremacy.
What's the principle behind appreciating diversity? Are you serious? We are an ethnically, religiously, and politically diverse country. We have to appreciate diversity as a strength, or else we'll either tear ourselves apart as a country, or one group will end up resting their feet on all the rest - - and who ends up as the foot rest might not be the outcome you're hoping for.
I appreciate diversity as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Richard Spenser and his fanatics have made it clear that not hurting others isn't in the cards for them.

Not much I can add to that, save to point out how obvious it should be that the result of a near-universal cross-party alignment on globalism would be moderates from either side of that ephemeral line of dichotomy finding themselves in bed with one another in opposition to it.

Huzzah! We're finally getting somewhere, comrade!



The trouble with Affirmative Action is that it's de facto discrimination on the basis of race. This is why principles matter. You can't argue against discrimination on the basis of race whilst arguing for discrimination on the basis of race.



I've made no such argument. Far from it, in fact. I believe that Affirmative Action is a great example of denigrating racial minorities on the basis of their supposed inferiority.



Why do you think it's necessary to do so? White supremacy was already crushed into insignificance in the free market of ideas. It's only since the rise of neo-Marxism that its raised its ugly head again, albeit in insignificant numbers.



Bait and switch.

You stated that: "we should appreciate and celebrate any and all diversity".

As you've already excluded "white supremacy" from the list of diverse ideas we should appreciate and celebrate, we'll have to categorise that too as a sophist's stance rather than a principle.



Richard Spencer has foolish utopian notions, but at no point does he profess a desire to cause harm to anyone. Applying the principle of charity, it's reasonable to assume that he legitimately believes its possible to peacefully create an ethno-state, however incapable he is of explaining (as is typical of most utopians) the steps necessary to realise one. That doesn't prevent me from pointing out how ludicrous his ideas are, how stupid the foundations are and how - in my opinion - his dream is impossible without spilling blood.

In other words, I'd treat Richard Spencer no differently than how I would treat you (or, indeed, any other Marxist) when it comes to his stated ideas and principles. Though, naturally, I give Spencer a tiny bit of extra credit for not masquerading as a representative of liberalism.