Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR

Post Reply New Topic

I've been struggling with unemployment since 2007, does that count as long term enough for you? I don't get government assistance because my wife and I don't have a dark enough shade of melanin to be qualified as "disadvantaged" or "historically oppressed", and so based upon government policies we aren't considered "disadvantaged". Now, are you going to be like the callous and insensitive people of the far right and respond abrasively? Are you just going to not acknowledge my points as you said was just simple knowledge in basic psychology? Are you just going to call me "racist" for considering government policies which detrimentally affect my wife and I to be wrong?

Not understanding the other side is a problem in general, not limited to conservatives misunderstanding liberals.


I bolded the above word, because it's a really important one to keep in mind. Just because something appears to be a particular way doesn't mean that it actually is.

Whenever I debate pro-choice types, I have to keep in mind that whether or not they appear callous and insensetive, they probably aren't that way really.

What you are claiming is that white people are the underdog in this society and people of color are riding high and dominating. This strikes me as a most peculiar point of view.

Is that what I'm claiming? No. Is that what you somehow interpreted what I said to mean? Yes, unless you are intentionally twisting my words you may actually believe that.

Hmm, so far the poll seems to be showing a left-ish bend being the more common perception...

But you must still have some financial support, at least from family. Some people have no family to support them. In the past if you were unemployed and had no one willing to support you it meant wandering the streets looking for odd jobs, or outright begging if all else failed.


I don't understand what's detrimental. You haven't even explained what the policies are.

What is a "far right" extremist? Are people who think the government is too big and too invasive far right extremists? Are people who resent income redistribution, especially if they are on the short end of that redistribution, far right extremists? Are people who are disgusted by Liberal Political Correctness far right extremists?

ruveyn

According to the OP, yes, all of those views qualify their holders as far right extremists. I should add that he seems to currently prefer the adjective "ultra" when denoting views he considers extreme, as in "ultra-conservative", though he frequently changes it up as more stigmatizing possibilities occur to him.

I don't count you as one of the callous and insensitive one's. I could list names of people on here who strike me as callous and insensitive but I don't feel like doing that. I also get the idea that a lot conservatives are callous and insensitive from right-wing talk shows. I don't know of anyone on the left who's as mean spiritid as Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, or Bill O'Reilly. Even Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have a nasty streak and have said things I found morally repugnant.


I actually don't support late term abortion. I can see both sides of the abortion debate to some degree.

Last edited by marshall on 19 Oct 2010, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Apparently the O.P. believes anyone who does not fall panting and heaving upon the bosom of the Democrat Left-Wing program is a a Far Right Extremist.

This republic was founded by Far Right Extremists all the way from Patric Henry and Thomas Paine to Jefferson and Washington.

ruveyn

And they all lived in the 18th - early 19th century. It was a completely different world then. How can you compare their views to todays political spectrum? You have no idea what they would think if they lived in the 21st century.

There involvement in our country's establishment would make their views relevant. As for your 21st century statement if there is actually something you want to point out that might have affected their political views i would recommend you do that instead of making a vague statement that can't be validated or argued against. We only know what they did think, not what they might have thought had they lived today instead of yesterday.

I've been a member of WP for a few years now, but until recently I haven't really posted very much. What can I say? I'm an Aspie-- it takes me a while to warm up to new surroundings. One of the things I really enjoy discussing is politics (religion and philosophy aren't too far behind, either). However, quite honestly, I've not joined into as many discussions as I'd like, mostly because I really find full-blown heated arguments unpalatable and abrasive. I try to live my life by a sort of "live and let live", non-judgmental credo. I myself am agnostic, secular humanist, and inclined toward the left, but I've got nothing against Christians, conservatives, libertarians, etc., so long as there's some sort of mutual agreement to be respectful toward each other. I'm not quite sure how things used to be. As of late, though, it seems like there's been a lot of animosity from all fronts, and to be honest, it really doesn't feel all that inviting. I understand these issues can get pretty heated. I get passionate sometimes myself. But I do feel that the level of discourse recently has been less about healthy dialogue and compromise and problem-solving, and more about division and stubbornness and condescension.

The other thing is, I also find it sort of pointless to try to debate what I see as the merits of my ideologies with people who are dead-set on opposing those ideologies without any concessions or negotiations. It isn't that I view the discussions as games to be "won" by getting the other person to concede. I just find it futile to make my case to people who already have a perspective which they have resolved to unwaveringly espouse. This applies to certain people of all the political persuasions-- left, right, libertarian, Keynesian, Randian, Marxist. Perhaps it's naive of me, but I still believe the true purpose behind political discussion is to bridge the gaps between these different camps and reach common-sense solutions that appease as many people as possible, not to widen the gulf or foment hostility or embolden any one position over the others. I don't see that happening here so much.

I think the problem, in a word, is smugness.

PPR is a smug fit.

Aimless likes this.