First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Why I Left the Left
28352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/19/17
The cats out of the bag when it comes to media bias. The rioting and protests aren't as romanticize as they were in the 60s. Now they are just seen as vandalism.
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17
Even if you think Rubin's definition of progressive is correct and too far for you, that doesn't automatically make you "not left". If you're liberal you're still Left. In fact you're following the most proud tradition of the left, cannibalizing other leftists.

Anyways, that video has some dumb thoughts in it.

He goes after progressives for not wanting certain speakers in schools, which isn't really that regressive as he makes it sound. People pay money to attend post-secondary, making school a service. If that service is paying shitbags like Milo to out their transgender students, students have the right to complain about that service. Also, how can Rubin argue both that Christians shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding and that schools shouldn't kick out bigoted speakers? Why wouldn't they both have the right to deny people?

Furthermore, saying some words aren't politically correct or even using trigger warnings is not regressive or authoritarian. That's just done out of politeness. If you don't want to, that's fine, but people are also allowed to judge you based on what you say. Personally I'm not sweating never using trigger warnings because I never actually seen people mentally breakdown when confronted with a word or concept before. It's not anti freedom of speech to ask people to have some decency amongst themselves.

What else...the oppression olympics is bullshit. There's no ranked system of which minority is most oppressed. Leftists just want to get the boot off of as many's people's throats as possible. Also Leftists don't automatically hate white Christians,but we do clash because it just so happens people like Christians like to put their boot on someone's throat and scream its persecution to take it off. But their religious freedom does not and should not extend to doing harm to others, that's pretty obvious.

Lastly, his argument that if Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual then that homosexual should find another baker. That willfully ignores there is not always another baker and its not always about a cake. Back in Jim Crow times if you were black in a 99.9% white rural community, good luck getting food when all the grocery stores in town were Whites only.

So this thought...

MysticGon wrote:
If you are liberal you'd give people the liberty to be ignorant bigots and reap the consequences of their actions.

Not good enough. The invisible free hand of the market didn't help, because the majority of that community would prefer they stay Whites only. If you allow people the liberty to be ignorant bigots, other people die.
qwueri 
21537 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Online
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

MysticGon wrote:

The cats out of the bag when it comes to media bias. The rioting and protests aren't as romanticize as they were in the 60s. Now they are just seen as vandalism.


Yeah, I'm sure the 60's lauded their protestors.




28352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/17

FootChar wrote:

Even if you think Rubin's definition of progressive is correct and too far for you, that doesn't automatically make you "not left". If you're liberal you're still Left. In fact you're following the most proud tradition of the left, cannibalizing other leftists.

Anyways, that video has some dumb thoughts in it.

He goes after progressives for not wanting certain speakers in schools, which isn't really that regressive as he makes it sound. People pay money to attend post-secondary, making school a service. If that service is paying shitbags like Milo to out their transgender students, students have the right to complain about that service. Also, how can Rubin argue both that Christians shouldn't have to bake a cake for a gay wedding and that schools shouldn't kick out bigoted speakers? Why wouldn't they both have the right to deny people?

Furthermore, saying some words aren't politically correct or even using trigger warnings is not regressive or authoritarian. That's just done out of politeness. If you don't want to, that's fine, but people are also allowed to judge you based on what you say. Personally I'm not sweating never using trigger warnings because I never actually seen people mentally breakdown when confronted with a word or concept before. It's not anti freedom of speech to ask people to have some decency amongst themselves.

What else...the oppression olympics is bullshit. There's no ranked system of which minority is most oppressed. Leftists just want to get the boot off of as many's people's throats as possible. Also Leftists don't automatically hate white Christians,but we do clash because it just so happens people like Christians like to put their boot on someone's throat and scream its persecution to take it off. But their religious freedom does not and should not extend to doing harm to others, that's pretty obvious.

Lastly, his argument that if Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual then that homosexual should find another baker. That willfully ignores there is not always another baker and its not always about a cake. Back in Jim Crow times if you were black in a 99.9% white rural community, good luck getting food when all the grocery stores in town were Whites only.

So this thought...

MysticGon wrote:
If you are liberal you'd give people the liberty to be ignorant bigots and reap the consequences of their actions.

Not good enough. The invisible free hand of the market didn't help, because the majority of that community would prefer they stay Whites only. If you allow people the liberty to be ignorant bigots, other people die.


I should add a caveat that as long as no one's life is threatened. Once you get past that most basic of human rights we can talk about laws and how far to take them before they become a slippery slope.
15263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/10/17
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Says that the bakery was within their rights to do what they did.
runec 
36715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/10/17

MysticGon wrote:
The cats out of the bag when it comes to media bias. The rioting and protests aren't as romanticize as they were in the 60s. Now they are just seen as vandalism.


As qwueri pointed out they were not romanticized at the time in the 60s either. Also, no comment on Sanders, eh?

If you're just going to say what you think and ignore the responses there's no need to start a thread about it. -.-
TPmanW 
68 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/10/17
I'm not really sure where the far right gets their impressions of the left.
I hear a lot of people on the right calling out people on the left for hating straight white Christian males, but I never hear anybody on the left actually voicing that opinion.
And all the talk about crime and murder rates is hogwash. Murders are way down.
Black Lives Matter never put forward that white lives don't matter. The message was always that black lives matter too. As much as white lives.
Nobody "ranks" minorities.

You don't have to agree with the left's views, but if you do disagree, disagree with the left's views. Simply misrepresenting the other side's views doesn't get you anywhere.
Posted 2/10/17

MysticGon wrote:
I should add a caveat that as long as no one's life is threatened. Once you get past that most basic of human rights we can talk about laws and how far to take them before they become a slippery slope.

There is a lot of suffering between no discrimination and one's life being threatened. At what point do we intervene? Why should we accept any of it all?

21491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

MysticGon wrote:

Let you in on a little secret, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and ticked the box for every Democrat on my ballot. I was never a registered Democrat but their platform was better than the Republicans in my view. Now I think differently and it would appear I'm not the only one...

https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8

Enjoy.


You're not the only one. This PC/SJW crap has gone too far, not the Dem party I supported in the past.
Not only are are they no longer the party of the working person (there isn't one anymore), but their intolerance towards alternative viewpoints is so annoying.Any disagreement on any social issue or identity politics and bam, the Tumblr dictionary of insults is thrown at you: misogynist, racist, bigot, homophobe with absolutely nothing to back it up other than the fact you "triggered" them.

It's frustrating since I'm definitely a liberal or liberal leaning on social issues (although not enough or something?) and a moderate on fiscal issues and non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy so the Dems should be my political home, but now I'm an Independent since I feel unwelcome in the party.


sinoakayumi wrote:

I had recently realize that the two major parties of US become realign on the two positions of the cultural issues instead of the economic issues. Due to this, I now decide to take a more neutral position on the "Democrats vs Republicans".

^
Great point, agreed
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Except my one problem with his video lies in bakers violating their conscience on the floors of religion. Hell, I'd argue that bigotry is an excuse in itself to discriminate, and we should not afford religion such big room to discriminate just because it is.

Yet I feel that if you, the individual, are not a business, such as a freelance wedding photographer, but own a business that cannot discriminate against black customers, than I feel it would be terribly inconsistent to allow them to discriminate against gay customers. It is not like both have their ties in religion at the height of these antimovements. My conclusion? Religion is nearly meaningless in this debate. Either you should be able to discriminate based on your bigotry, or you shouldn't be able to in most cases. Freedom is the basis for allowing discrimination, not religion. Religion is just a loopy loophole.


In this case, I argue against the ability to discriminate because I want the freedom of walking where I please in public places. Although his sisterhood of nuns is something I wholly agree with. I am not much of an expert in business law, though I would clearly make a distinction between individuals and businesses.


So just to be clear, do you think a black restaurant owner should be forced to serve to people coming from their KKK meeting? I'm just curious how far you're willing to extend this anti-discrimination measure.

As a side note, I'd say that a baker owns his dough, and nobody should be forced to sell any of their property to anyone. On this point, you're right, religion has little to do with it. They can use whatever reason they want. If it's their property, they can do what they wish with it providing they are not using force on another person. "Walking where you please in public places" is fine, but businesses are private property, not public property. And I say this as an atheist. But my main curiosity is point one, I'm not really in the mood for an argument, I'm more just curious about your position.

Actually, I have a vague feeling that you and I have discussed this exact topic before. I might have even asked you the same question. Apologies if I'm repeating myself.
37219 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17


TL;DR

Just click the links. I think they collectively constitute a better critique of the political left than Rubin presents, and further provide evidence that there is room for strong, substantive criticism of the left on the left.
30170 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 2/10/17
Don't be the left or the right both are bad think for yourself and free from the group.

My beliefs are a mixture of left and right beliefs that are positive for growth and equality
24217 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

dougeprofile wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:
Except my one problem with his video lies in bakers violating their conscience on the floors of religion. Hell, I'd argue that bigotry is an excuse in itself to discriminate, and we should not afford religion such big room to discriminate just because it is.

Yet I feel that if you, the individual, are not a business, such as a freelance wedding photographer, but own a business that cannot discriminate against black customers, than I feel it would be terribly inconsistent to allow them to discriminate against gay customers. It is not like both have their ties in religion at the height of these antimovements. My conclusion? Religion is nearly meaningless in this debate. Either you should be able to discriminate based on your bigotry, or you shouldn't be able to in most cases. Freedom is the basis for allowing discrimination, not religion. Religion is just a loopy loophole.

In this case, I argue against the ability to discriminate because I want the freedom of walking where I please in public places. Although his sisterhood of nuns is something I wholly agree with. I am not much of an expert in business law, though I would clearly make a distinction between individuals and businesses.


The baker sold cakes to homosexual couples but couldn't violate their conscience by putting messages on the cake or participating in their ceremony, that is not bigotry. They ...and you have the freedom to go elsewhere; the sexual inquisition cannot tolerate dissent.


My definition of allowable discrimination and shouldn't depends on how you differentiate between individuals and businesses, and in case, I believe religion is too irrelevant in this case. Religion is not a license, freedom is.

I was not referring to a specific case though, but rather an example I pulled directly from the video that was not mentioned in detail.

But yes, you either can discriminate against blacks, asians, and homosexuals or you cannot discriminate at all (With exceptions on Age or something, Iunno.)

I am going with at all for larger businesses, and can for individuals and their small businesses, so to speak. I could change my mind.



theYchromosome wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Except my one problem with his video lies in bakers violating their conscience on the floors of religion. Hell, I'd argue that bigotry is an excuse in itself to discriminate, and we should not afford religion such big room to discriminate just because it is.

Yet I feel that if you, the individual, are not a business, such as a freelance wedding photographer, but own a business that cannot discriminate against black customers, than I feel it would be terribly inconsistent to allow them to discriminate against gay customers. It is not like both have their ties in religion at the height of these antimovements. My conclusion? Religion is nearly meaningless in this debate. Either you should be able to discriminate based on your bigotry, or you shouldn't be able to in most cases. Freedom is the basis for allowing discrimination, not religion. Religion is just a loopy loophole.


In this case, I argue against the ability to discriminate because I want the freedom of walking where I please in public places. Although his sisterhood of nuns is something I wholly agree with. I am not much of an expert in business law, though I would clearly make a distinction between individuals and businesses.


So just to be clear, do you think a black restaurant owner should be forced to serve to people coming from their KKK meeting? I'm just curious how far you're willing to extend this anti-discrimination measure.

As a side note, I'd say that a baker owns his dough, and nobody should be forced to sell any of their property to anyone. On this point, you're right, religion has little to do with it. They can use whatever reason they want. If it's their property, they can do what they wish with it providing they are not using force on another person. "Walking where you please in public places" is fine, but businesses are private property, not public property. And I say this as an atheist. But my main curiosity is point one, I'm not really in the mood for an argument, I'm more just curious about your position.

Actually, I have a vague feeling that you and I have discussed this exact topic before. I might have even asked you the same question. Apologies if I'm repeating myself.


I would argue that my meaning of public property often extends to commercial districts versus residential, based on how open it is to the public, sans things like adult shops and children. Mainly because I would fucking hate being told not to be enter what is essentially a business open to a public, but not for me. That is honestly my only argument for it, just what I would hate.

I would say I do not know about your example, but as of now I am learning towards "Yes, he should", though my main categories for either "mostly business" and "individual" is murky at best, and clearly undefined for the most part. I am sorry I cannot give you a satisfactory answer. I am not knowledgeable in such law. I do think big companies like Starbucks or Chik Fil Lay are less reasonable, than a mom and pop towing company refusing to tow a Bernie Supporter's car, although as franchisees I could change my view somewhat.

I also like to add I haven't really considered a group reservation and such which can negatively impact a business' image, but rather a normal bloke with a swastika tattoos and all that stereotypically racial stuff getting refused serviced at a Cookout, I cannot support such a thing.
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/20/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I would argue that my meaning of public property often extends to commercial districts versus residential, based on how open it is to the public, sans things like adult shops and children. Mainly because I would fucking hate being told not to be enter what is essentially a business open to a public, but not for me. That is honestly my only argument for it, just what I would hate.

I would say I do not know about your example, but as of now I am learning towards "Yes, he should", though my main categories for either "mostly business" and "individual" is murky at best, and clearly undefined for the most part. I am sorry I cannot give you a satisfactory answer. I am not knowledgeable in such law. I do think big companies like Starbucks or Chik Fil Lay are less reasonable, than a mom and pop towing company refusing to tow a Bernie Supporter's car, although as franchisees I could change my view somewhat.

I also like to add I haven't really considered a group reservation and such which can negatively impact a business' image, but rather a normal bloke with a swastika tattoos and all that stereotypically racial stuff getting refused serviced at a Cookout, I cannot support such a thing.


Fair enough. I'm... exhausted from this political cycle, so I mean it when I say that I don't want this to turn into a string of responses or a drawn-out argument. However...

Since you've said that you're not entirely sure what to think here, I'll just put out there how I think about it, in case it might help you out. As I see it, a person ought to have a right over his own body. If nothing else, one's body should be one's own property. And if somebody is being forced to work when he doesn't want to, regardless of the reasons, that's forced labor. Slavery, in a manner of speaking (I'll admit, though, that the term is somewhat hyperbolic). To contend otherwise, which is to say, that somebody must serve a customer that he doesn't want to, seems tantamount to denying that they own their body and labor. You may not like the possibility of being denied access to a business that is open to everyone else, but I'd say I dislike, far more, the legal assumption that I do not own my body, labor, materials for my craft, etc. Property is exclusionary by definition. Who and what is excluded is up to the owner, otherwise, he is not the owner. Just my 2¢.
12242 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
I honestly can't see why people would choose to blindly follow any party. I've always been about the "vote the candidate not the party-line" principle. Parties are corrupt (as we're seeing now through the Republicans handling of Trump or seen through the Democrats handling of all the Kennedy scandals of the 60s-80s) so why would anyone pledge obedience to one? It's easy to say most of my beliefs line up exactly with (party x)'s but even most very very rarely is all. Voting for and supporting the good of a party is all right but supporting the bad of a party should never be justified no matter what party it is.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.