Liberalism is white supremacy

[rangerx]

7 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Nonsense.  You were just condemning me for my opinions of liberals.  Yet when BLM equates liberalism, the core of political liberal ideology, with white supremacy you equivocate.  Do you support the liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech or not?  If you do, don't you think you should condemn this chant of BLM?  Don't you wonder why the BLM movement has go so far astray?

I equivocated nothing. I said both exist. I have no opinion of liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech because I'm not certain such a thing even exists and as such there's no burden for me to prove anything. If it does, it may or may not reflect me or my liberal views. Once again you fail painting liberals with a wide brush.

In case you hadn't noticed. I'm talking about you as a conservative, not others as conservatives.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I find it provocative that at a liberal arts college like William & Mary that students would shut down free speech particularly when the speaker is an alumna from the ACLU. 

I also am disappointed about how often students at university are shouting down and protesting any speakers that they don’t agree with 100%. It’s as if there are purity tests being imposed, and not just at this school, either. It’s happening at schools across the nation and beyond, and I see the same thing happening on social media where people are being blocked and unfriended and even outright harassed or threatened for thinking differently or not falling in line. 

It’s a very real problem. This is a huge mistake. Very shortsighted. Very immature. Detrimental to our wellbeing in a liberal democracy. Fascistic, even  

There are a few problems with your approach, though...

First, it was a small group of students who shutdown the talk, not the university. You may as well blame Starbucks as a company for vandalism when two of their customers knock down a trash can or blame the site manager for littering when those same customers leave a cup on the table. It’s a failure of logic, a breakdown in mental engineering. 

Second, you blame BLM as a whole for the comments of a handful of individuals. Third, you generalize about all liberals and liberalism. The fallacies you use to make your points are almost too numerous to count. There’s merit in the underlying point you’re making, but it’s so often drowned out by this ridiculous desire to poke people and agitate others and laugh, as if you need to feel superior to compensate for feelings of inferiority.

You’re not a chimp throwing feces and should stop acting like one.

Fourth, free speech is not the guaranteed right to speak anywhere about anything you please. Instead, it’s about whether or not the government can punish or prevent you from speaking. However, if you start acting and speaking foolishly in my home, I can kick you out. In my restaurant, I can have you removed. At my university, I can block you from entering, etc. 

That said, you’re right about this blocking of speakers being a bigger problem, this desire to silence others instead of addressing their horrible ideas openly. I say this as someone you’d likely dismiss as being liberal (as you have in the past), and I say this as someone who could be an ally to you... someone who wants to partner with you in standing up for important principles like these. 

But you make it really hard with your pubescent attitude, persistent trolling, incessant need to split discussions into us/them, right/left, conservative/liberal, good/evil, and also your fundamental misunderstanding of what the first amendment and what free speech actually are. 

4 hours ago, waitforufo said:

The constitution guarantees all Americans the right to assemble, and the right to free speech. 

Because it’s not this. Their first amendment rights were in no way infringed since it wasn’t government doing the infringing. 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by iNow

[MigL]

Excellent post iNow.
But to be fair BLM has used these tactics before. Right here in Toronto, so RangerX should know about them.
For two years in a row they have shut down or threatened to shut down, the PRIDE parade, unless certain elements of society are excluded from the march. That this sort of divisive behavior would be allowed for an event that is all about inclusion, is an indication of where BLM is headed.

All waitforufo is asking, is whether this is consistent with RangerX's Liberal stance. And he has proceeded to dance around the subject while calling waitforufo a few of the typical names hurled at anyone who disagrees with him ( bigot ). The fact that RangerX can't bring himself to denounce some of the militant actions of BLM, while agreeing that no one should be intimidated, or shouted down, for speaking their mind, is the problem of overzealous political correctness.
What to do when the oppressed people you're trying to protect, start acting like their oppressors ?

[rangerx]

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

Excellent post iNow.
But to be fair BLM has used these tactics before. Right here in Toronto, so RangerX should know about them.
For two years in a row they have shut down or threatened to shut down, the PRIDE parade, unless certain elements of society are excluded from the march. That this sort of divisive behavior would be allowed for an event that is all about inclusion, is an indication of where BLM is headed.

All waitforufo is asking, is whether this is consistent with RangerX's Liberal stance. And he has proceeded to dance around the subject while calling waitforufo a few of the typical names hurled at anyone who disagrees with him ( bigot ). The fact that RangerX can't bring himself to denounce some of the militant actions of BLM, while agreeing that no one should be intimidated, or shouted down, for speaking their mind, is the problem of overzealous political correctness.
What to do when the oppressed people you're trying to protect, start acting like their oppressors ?

Are you freaking blind?

5 hours ago, rangerx said:

And just so you know, I condemn censorship in the strongest terms. I'm sure Berkley sticks in your craw. Violently opposing free speech is an issue some people need to address. Let's not kid ourselves, reverse racism exists too. Most liberals agree with me, but you'll have none of it. Your narrative is liberal bad conservative good, period.

The difference being, I am able and willing to address the underlying issues. Not like you, who conflates those issues into something they're not.
 

Apparently.

Even to the point of making shit up after I've already clearly stated my position on the matter.

Try reading a whole thread sometime, instead of grasping at straws to make a gotcha troll.

[waitforufo]

 

5 hours ago, rangerx said:

I equivocated nothing. I said both exist. I have no opinion of liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech because I'm not certain such a thing even exists and as such there's no burden for me to prove anything. If it does, it may or may not reflect me or my liberal views. Once again you fail painting liberals with a wide brush.

In case you hadn't noticed. I'm talking about you as a conservative, not others as conservatives.

You see the problem is BLM says "liberalism is white supremacy" and you say "I said both exist."  Now I guess we could argue about what the definition of what "is" is, but since this is a science forum I think we should be able to agree that BLM is saying that liberalism equals white supremacy which means they are one and the same.  So no you don't agree with BLM but simply don't have the courage to admit that a group you have sympathy for is wrong in this instance. I find this rather shocking since the statement that "liberalism is white supremacy" is so wrong it it mind boggling.  

Then you say you have no opinion of the liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech because you are not certain such a thing even exist.  So is it that you don't know the opinions of the ACLU on free speech or that you don't know that free speech is a thing that exists?  Well if it is the former you you have a fundamental ignorance of the American experience and should be quite a bit less strident in you posts.  If it is the latter you have a fundamental ignorance of liberalism regardless of the country you live in. Free speech is a fundamental cornerstone  of liberalism. It is in fact the reason why blogs like this one are permitted to exist.

My favorite part of this post, however, is that since you are ignorant (not certain such a thing even exists) that there is no burden for you to prove anything. If you have no burden to prove anything, then why should anyone argue with you at all? Your example of proof in previous posts is laughable.  For example you said.

6 hours ago, rangerx said:

Last time I checked, Nazi and Neo-Nazi groups are violent groups. Violence was how they were destroyed and they rise again. Violence is all they understand.

I read back, but nothing by waitforufo condemning nazi violence. Nada. Zip. Yet here he stands, insisting everyone repudiate everyone he demands.

Hypocrisy at it's height.

Using your logic, I have never seen you demonstrate an ability to perform mathematics in Science Forums so that must be proof that you cant add and subtract.  Do you see the logical fallacy in that statement?

By the way, free speech is a right in the United States, but violence is a felony.  While I believe that the speech of white supremacists is despicable, free speech also gives us all the right to speak out against that speech.  Perhaps if BLM would have listened to Ms. Claire Gastañaga they would have learned that.  

iNow, your post starts out good, but then you cave to the emotion of those sympathetic to BLM.  Chants like "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy"  should be roundly condemned by any thinking proponent of liberalism.  

MigL you mention the direction where BLM is headed.  Chants like "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, , "liberalism is white supremacy"  point in a frighting direction.  Pretending that they are trivial is equivalent to the German people disregarding the words and actions of the brownshirts.  

Edited October 6, 2017 by waitforufo

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Then you say you have no opinion of the liberal positions of the ACLU on free speech because you are not certain such a thing even exist.  So is it that you don't know the opinions of the ACLU on free speech or that you don't know that free speech is a thing that exists?  Well if it is the former you you have a fundamental ignorance of the American experience and should be quite a bit less strident in you posts.  If it is the latter you have a fundamental ignorance of liberalism regardless of the country you live in. Free speech is a fundamental cornerstone  of liberalism. It is in fact the reason why blogs like this one are permitted to exist.

I have not read these so called "liberal opinions of the ACLU" that exist in your head. All I know is what you say are just talking points from your opinion and little else, no less your fractured version of the American experience.

I'm quite aware that free speech is a thing that exists. It's also quite evident you're lacking the same reading comprehension as MigL in this thread.

So let me say it one more time, but this time I'll break it up and give it to you in small doses.

And I quote:

I condemn censorship in the strongest terms. Do i need to tie it up in a pink ribbon and spray perfume on it to make it any more obvious?
I'm sure Berkley sticks in your craw.  In case you can't comprehend, I'm agreeing with you. It sticks in mine too.
Violently opposing free speech is an issue some people need to address. I underlined "some" because it already was bolded. Then MigL comes along a suggests I can't bring myself to denounce some (bolding mine) of the militant actions of BLM. Do I need to tie it to a banner then tie it to a bi-plane then tow it across the sky to demonstrate I'm agreeing with you and him? Or does the fact a liberal might actually agree with you on something seem like impossible concept? Apparently so because....

Most liberals agree with me, but you'll have none of it. Most liberals strongly uphold free speech. Simply because of your extremist agendas, are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that. Likewise, your unwillingness to acknowledge the plight of the BLM community at it's grassroots (to his credit, MigL has), instead relentlessly trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by feeding into the narrative they are nothing but a bunch of violent ingrates, is entirely bogus and bigoted.


 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by rangerx

[scherado]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

  2 hours ago, MigL said:

Excellent post iNow.
But to be fair BLM has used these tactics before. Right here in Toronto, so RangerX should know about them.
For two years in a row they have shut down or threatened to shut down, the PRIDE parade, unless certain elements of society are excluded from the march. That this sort of divisive behavior would be allowed for an event that is all about inclusion, is an indication of where BLM is headed.

....

Does anyone know to which "certain elements of society?" BLM had objected "for two years in a row" in Toronto? I can't imagine what in a PRIDE parade can be so objectionable.

Edited October 6, 2017 by scherado

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

But to be fair BLM has used these tactics before. Right here in Toronto, so RangerX should know about them.
For two years in a row they have shut down or threatened to shut down, the PRIDE parade, unless certain elements of society are excluded from the march. That this sort of divisive behavior would be allowed for an event that is all about inclusion, is an indication of where BLM is headed.

I didn't address this part in my other response, so I will now.

I didn't know. I have no idea if it's true or not. I cannot be expected to know everything everywhere, simply because you think I should.

To that end, a citation is necessary.

But for the sake of this discussion at this moment, I'll offer you the benefit the doubt. If it were true, you seem certain of their direction, but does that incident(s) invalidate their origin, in your book? I know it does in waitforwtf's, narrative of denial, but not so sure in yours, because you have mentioned something previously (albeit minor).

And by the way MigL, I never suggested you're a racial bigot, just a political one.

[scherado]

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

On 10/4/2017 at 11:43 PM, scherado said:

What are you attempting to convey with the quality "white" in the third sentence? (The "old" descriptor indicates a prejudiced/bigoted maladjustment with respect to age; the "man" characteristic, a.k.a. genitalia, indicates a sexist prejudiced/bigoted maladjustment with respect to sex-type.)

The constitution was written by white people, thus making it illegitimate.  Old because those white men lived a long time ago and are now all dead.  Man because women did not participate again making it illegitimate.  By using the slogans "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy",  I believe this is what BLM is trying to communicate.

Are you aware the I was using your words when I asked the question? After reading a bit more carefully, I think you were mocking those who withhold legitimacy based upon "whiteness" (+male genitalia, ancient)

I made the mistake of thinking it obvious what BLM is communicating. I see your red-colored "likability" rating...and have a better understanding of your methods. (9.5 on Euphemism Meter)

[swansont]

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 So why not ask rangerx what part of the constitution is being perverted in the same manner as jihad perverts the Quran?  Since you don't ask I assume you agree.  

I was asking you.

You are making a bad assumption.

Quote

The constitution guarantees all Americans the right to assemble, and the right to free speech.  William & Mary is public university.  The rights of students who wanted to assemble and learn from Ms. Claire Gastañaga were violated by this protest at a government institution.  Good enough for you?

Yes, that you've answered. But the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech with regard to government interference. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

Unless you are asserting that the BLM is actually an arm of the government, then this is not a first amendment issue. The government was not involved in shutting down anyone's speech here. As far as rights go, the students have a right to assemble and to free speech, too.  

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Also, I have not commented on the the football game knee taking.  I will however point out that the Star Spangled Banner is about the heroics of soldiers defending our nation from invasion.  It is not about the police.  Also, the knee taking is designed to be offensive.  Without the offense it would not be a protest.  

Players have not been protesting the anthem, they have been protesting during the anthem (and occasionally before it).

Kaepernick's decision to take a knee was the result of feedback from a veteran ("Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect.") He originally sat during the anthem. Kneeling was not "designed to be offensive", it was the opposite of that.

http://www.snopes.com/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

All waitforufo is asking, is whether this is consistent with RangerX's Liberal stance. And he has proceeded to dance around the subject while calling waitforufo a few of the typical names hurled at anyone who disagrees with him ( bigot ). The fact that RangerX can't bring himself to denounce some of the militant actions of BLM, while agreeing that no one should be intimidated, or shouted down, for speaking their mind, is the problem of overzealous political correctness.
What to do when the oppressed people you're trying to protect, start acting like their oppressors ?

RangerX and basically everyone in this thread has denounced violence and any protest which violates law. This whole thread is just a bit of whataboutism by waitforufo who simplying seems to challanging everyone to post negatively about BLM. A point you are seconding above by falsely claiming RangerX cannot and or has not denounce militant actions as a means of baiting more direct criticism of BLM. I think it is clear that no one in here is supporting violence or the opression of anyones speech be any group.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

This thread has been reported multiple times, and I'm tempted to simply shut it down. It started with a terribly fallacious OP, and waitforufo's sneering approach as usual attracted the flames. Some couldn't resist the temptation to personally insult. 

We can discuss these issues, and I'm not going to make you start over, but the fallacies and personal attacks need to stop. There is a difference between a person's ideas/opinions/stances and the person themself, and we will honor that difference here or we won't talk at all. 

It would also help a healthy DISCUSSION for members to acknowledge points made by others. If you make a statement someone later shows is false, the intellectually honest thing to do is admit it, learn, and move on armed with better knowledge. This also helps keep things CIVIL. 

Don't respond to this, talk to each other. Act like we may be able to learn something.

 

[iNow]

13 hours ago, waitforufo said:

iNow, your post starts out good, but then you cave to the emotion of those sympathetic to BLM. 

I want to understand your position. Where did I do this exactly? What specific words did I say that severed our potential to be allies in this? 

[MC1992]

On 10/5/2017 at 7:54 AM, scherado said:

The classical liberalism that one wouldn't hesitate to admit to supporting has, in America, been supplanted by a violent, irrational version of which "Antifa" is the most obscene example.

 

Goody you are so right.

Back in the days the republicans and Jeffersonian idealists were as fanatical as they could be, and they were just as hotheaded. Remember John Brown? Also back in the good old Arkansas (was there an Arkansas back then?) abolitionists wouldn't just punch some slavery supporter in the jaw, they would outright shoot him to death.

The Antifas are edgy teenagers proudly produced en mass by American style permissive parenting.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, MC1992 said:

 The Antifas are edgy teenagers proudly produced en mass by American style permissive parenting.

Your evidence of this is...?

[MonDie]

This seemed to be an exceptable place for this thought, which is a nuanced, contrary perspective.  I fathomed why, comparing the parties to their bases of support, conservative parties might have proportionately more narcissists who would score high on social dominance orientation SDO.

In the context of the five factor model, conservatism is probably related to Openness, inversely related, more than any other factor.  Although Openness, Intellect, is socially desireable, the proclivity for experimentation might backfire occasionally.  This blogger explains that IQ is linked with some troubling behaviors like drug abuse. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201011/why-intelligent-people-use-more-drugs

Perhaps most conservatives are low Openness, but these conservatives do not become our politicians.  The correlation of Openness to Extraversion is always the strongest correlation, and the two factors merge into a hierarchical factor called Positive Emotionality PEM.  Open people seek novelty and unconventionality, new ideas and aesthetics, and new people.  Extraverts want to be around people, and they are outgoing and warm.  In contrast, narcissists are usually more outgoing and assertive than warm, but, with extroversion spared, they could still make successful politicians.  Unfoutunately they probably have higher SDO along with an affinity for deceit, and the SDO would be what actually drives their conservatism.  Being natural politicians, however, they easily step in for the conventional minded who are weary of "progress."

... is what I hypothesized.

Edited November 27, 2017 by MonDie