I mis-wrote in my last post, and I can't believe you were so gracious in your reply. It speaks volumes of your character.
What I had intended to write was this:
"I have no doubt that you know thousands of people who would have no moral issue with personally waterboarding Dick Cheney."
The way that I had written it made it sound like you were one of them and shared that particular belief. I didn't think that of you, and I didn't mean to imply that you were quite that vicious a person. I beg your forgiveness and thank you for responding so kindly to that unfortunate and accidental insult.
When you argue (what can be loosely interpreted as) "you progressives have turned into an evil bunch"
You pegged me correctly.
it groups the "evil bunch" in with the "progressives", increasing the cross-identification of the two groups, and leading all who consider themselves "progressives" to reflexively defend the group as a whole.
Are you sure you're not my long-lost twin? You're entirely correct, of course. People naturally respond to criticism by becoming defensive and resistant. My goal is not to convince people. My goal is to create what I would call "negative feedback" and thus inspire others to feel that it's acceptable to join me in rejecting what is outright evil (rape, murder, torture). No one's mind will be changed the first time around. In the long term, if more and more people start speaking against it, then, over time, social proof will work in my favor and minds will be changed. That's my hope. I don't know if it will work or not.
Would it not be better to take an approach which encourages progressives' fellows to excise those who are mistaken? "You have no right to call yourself a progressive" has the effect not only of providing a public reprimand, additionally as emphasizing to other people who consider themselves progressives that they can maintain that self-identification while ostracizing those who spread hate.
I can't rightly do that because I am not a "progressive". If people want to have different political beliefs, even ones that really offend me (such as general abrogation of individual property rights), then that's fine. It's the hate speech, the evil speech (rape, murder, torture) that I must strenuously object to and fight whenever I see it. That's the kind of speech that will have truly awful effects in people. The last thing I want to see is the "Left v. Right" in America become more like the "Left v. Right" in Europe. Their "Left" are Communist and their "Right" are Nazis. That's what's coming here if more and more people don't start standing up and demanding that the hate and demonization stop.
I hope that's not too grave for you. I do take this seriously, and I share it with you because I think you're a serious and introspective individual.
Well, if that's how you define "liking America"...then it would be a very easy strawman for you to knock over!
singing patriotic songs and sitting around talking about military victories
Speaking of which, do you know any "progressives" who feel genuinely moved and sentimental when singing a patriotic song? I'm curious.
then you're even more of a moron than I originally thought.
Very "progressive" of you! I'm so inspired by your intelligent (not to mention manly) attitude that I think I'm going to convert to your way of thinking.
I'm not a "progressive". I'm about as libertarian as they come. I do find it curious that you automatically assume I'm one
Considering that you're getting royally pissed that I deign to criticize "progressives", I don't find it curious at all.
Such black-and-white "us vs them" thinking has been the bane of human civilization since the beginning.
That's kind of a black-and-white view. I prefer to be more nuanced than that.
Point being, while I don't agree with "progressive" politics, I'm not idiotic enough to go around telling everyone who will listen about how it's the ultimate evil.
Except that's not what I've said, dummy.
0. Murder, rape, and torture are evil. 1. Some "progressives" often exhort wishes of murder, rape, and torture on their hated enemies. That's evil. 2. Other "progressives" tolerate their "progressive" brethren when they make such evil wishes. That's evil too, but a lesser evil than #1.
It's just a difference in politics for fuck's sake.
If you're saying that wishing murder, torture, and rape upon hated enemies is part of "progressive" politics, then I completely agree with you.
My mom is a "progressive", so are many of my friends. I surely don't agree with them, but they're not "evil". And strangely enough, none of them advocate rape and murder
If one of their "progressive" friends wishes that anyone who reads World Net Daily be raped with a spool of razor wire, then would they object? I would object to that. In fact, I did. Apparently, you think I'm sucky to object to that.
If you pick and choose random posts on a discussion site from strangers to bolster your preconcieved political notions about large swaths of the US population, you're a moron. Plain. And. Simple.
That's retarded. I maintain: wishes of murder, torture, and rape are common from "progressives" as is the tolerance of such hate speech on their "progressive" websites. I'm going to speak against it, and I don't give a shit if you disapprove.
I'm sure I can point to plenty of people in "conservative" circles advocating murder
And you would be right. But slashdot isn't a conservative site, correct? That's why conservative hate speech is pretty rare here. Instead, there's "progressive" hate speech here, as you and I have seen, "for fuck's sake".
I guess that means "conservatism" is bankrupt too, doesn't it?
I never said "progressivism" (those scare quotes are EARNED) was bankrupt. I said, and maintain, that it accommodates hate speech specifically involving wishing murder, torture, and rape on its hated enemies.
To your question, I do criticize conservatives when they accommodate such speech, and such criticism is merited. It does not excuse hate speech on behalf of "progressives" and I will stand against it, every time, without fail, and no matter how much you hate it.
"Progressives" don't like America all that much. I know... what a wild, bizarre claim! I'm sure most "progressives" you know just love singing patriotic songs and talking about American military victories.
then proceed to detail common responses made in the past to other wild claims, in effort to head them off.
God it must just SUCK to be robbed of the opportunity to bitch about the war in Iraq!
You are a troll. Nothing else. You are trolling, not answering anything. Bitch.
That speaks for itself. Do you have a slashdot ID? I think you do.
Ironic that you're doing the same thing here that you accuse someone else of doing in this post [slashdot.org] (spotted while flicking through your history).
That's creepy. Don't you have better things to do?
Namely redefining words on your own terms. In this case, "progressive" as "commie America hater" (or whatever).
I never said that "progressives" were defined as "commie America haters". Rather, I stated (and maintain) that it is "progressive" to have some degree of negative feeling toward American and/or capitalism, ranging from mere skepticism to outright hatred. I'm describing, not defining. I don't know what the real definition of a "progressive" is anymore, especially after "progressives" started sucking up to fundamentalist Islam.
Not that criticism of the US here in general is undeserved
Very "progressive" of you. I mean that completely un-sarcastically.
Man, you are just hung up on this "progressive==teh evilist" shtick, aren't you?
Wishing murder, rape, and torture on other people is evil, and I'm not backing down on that one bit. Whether or not such expressions are A) commonplace, and B) tolerated in "progressive" circles is the pertinent question. I think it's valid to ask that question. Maybe you hate it because it makes "progressives" look bad, and you just can't stand that one bit.
Yes, and I'm glad I did because your answer was very interesting.
People who believe they have their own value outside of a breeding couple (just joshin' ya, married friends)
No, you're not "just joshing" with that comment. You're a "progressive" person and thus you don't value the notion of "kept women" in marriage. Hence, you choose to denigrate marriage with the "breeding couple" comment. Should women be free to pursue whatever they want, or should they be forced into traditional gender roles which stipulates that a woman's job is merely to bear children for her husband?
And again, education comes into it: women with higher education - which correlates well with more liberal views - are more likely to delay marriage, staying longer in the "single" column.
While that is true, it doesn't speak to the fact that most women tend to get married, even those who choose to delay it. And, when they do, they tend to vote Republican after they get married. Why is that? There's no need to ask you because you answer it with your very next comment:
An additional factor is that single mothers also tend to rely more on the "social safety net", an issue that gives an advantage to Democrats.
And that's the sound of the hammer hitting the nail *SMACK* right on the head. Single mothers need more welfare. Hence, it's in a "progressive" interest to have more women giving birth and NOT getting married since, as you admit, it gives an advantage to Democrats.
So it's no small wonder you denigrate marriage: it makes women reliant upon their family, in particular, reliant upon their husband (if they choose to be a stay-at-home parent) instead of reliant upon government welfare and thus inclined to vote for Democrats. Is that untrue? If so, then why did you write the following:
I'd guess that most of the difference comes from conservatives putting more importance on mating
Here's your argument: "Evil conservatives merely want women to breed much like heifers than be fulfilled and educated women! Marriage sucks because it's only about mating!" It kind of rings hollow after you made the mistake of mentioning "single mothers" instead of "single women", because even liberals admit that a woman who has a child as a teenager has a much less chance of becoming successful than one who chooses to have an abortion.
I know you're going to want to pigeonhole me into a particular political belief, so here's an attempt to head you off at the pass.
1. I'm a gay man and a gay adoptive parent. 2. I've been a stay-at-home parent before. 3. I regard marriage rights as special rights for straights, and I don't support special rights for anyone.
Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. It's a pearl in a mountain of dung.
I can't help but think that your method of dealing with problems of this type tends towards, "Ignore it and it will go away". I want to introduce you to a different concept. Please forgive me if I'm telling you something that you already know.
A while back I read an extremely interesting book called Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, and it changed my outlook on life. Essentially, it was a scientific view of how humans are influenced to change their beliefs, and it described six different methods by which such change takes place. (Later, I found that the number of "influence techniques" is disputed among researchers, primarily because the psychology of influence is rather nascent.) One of these methods is called "social proof", and the anecdote used to illustrate it was a rape which occurred in an alley that dozens of tenants heard and witnessed, yet not one of them called the police. Why did no one call the police to help this woman? Because each one of them, individually, looked around and saw that no one else did anything to stop it. The psychology works like this: "Since no one else is doing it, I shouldn't do it, either." The book describes it as "a bug in the brain" which causes us to look for truth by looking at the individuals around us. We can't help it: we're social creatures.
And I think this is what has happened in the "progressive" movement since the 2000 election: "progressives" have started ideologically raping women in alleys, and the other "progressives" have stood by and watched it happen, either approving or not wanting to stand out and speak up against evil happening in their own ranks. When that happens, then the reward for the perpetrator speaks for itself. "No one opposed me, so there was nothing wrong with what I did."
After that, the behavior of the group becomes habitual. The next influence technique which comes into play is consistency, and I think that's a reason why so many "progressives" here didn't choose to criticize the horrible individual in the grandparent post. Since they haven't criticized many other exhortations of death, murder, torture, and rape that they've seen "progressives" do, then they would be acting inconsistently by doing so now. Instead, they choose to punish me for having the nerve to say what they should have said so long ago. I think it all makes sense, and it's all very human.
I don't doubt that you know many nice "progressives" in Austin. To me, they're like the Christians who are polite to my face and then will say, "He'll be dead soon" when I'm out of earshot. (I'm a gay man.) People are often much more open about what they believe on the Internet and outside of the rules of accountability and politeness. I have no doubt that you are among thousands of people who would have no moral issue with personally waterboarding Dick Cheney. They wouldn't say that at a dinner party, but it's how they feel. It's just like the Christians who are very polite and sweet to me, but would gladly vote to reinstate sodomy laws if given the opportunity to do so.
And I, like both of those groups, am very polite and sweet to everyone I meet. But I'm very wary of some of them.
I am forced to mention that not all "progressives" have been polite to my face. Consider these two following interactions:
My stepdad: (fuming mad) Well I think that about George Bush! Me: It sounds like you're saying that George bush is Hitler. My stepdad: (screaming) YES HE IS!!! Me: You mean George Bush wants to kill all the Jews? My stepdad:...
My sister: (indignant) The United States has the WORST human rights record! Me: Really? Worse than North Korea? My sister:...
And those are two rather personal conversations that made me have serious misgivings about what "progressives" have become: hateful and crazy. If I hadn't seen their hateful and crazy statements repeated and acc
And there may not be an enormous disagreement beyond that. Much like the duality of being a social individual, "public services" are "government intrusions". That does not make them bad. Or good. They have to be judged on their merits.
I agree that they must be judged on their merits, but according to whose values? You seem to be fond of making the "what works" argument, which merely begs the question "works toward what?"
My point is that I tire of hearing people shouting down public service/government intrusions in their entirety as though without these things everyone would live in a wonderful world with cheap education, low crime, and smooth highways. Because they wouldn't. It's been tried. It doesn't work.
Your argument is wholly based in the idea that "government is the solution to problems", and that is your article of faith. Naturally, I tend to tire of hearing what you're repeating, because it, too, is repeated many times by many other people.
The society we enjoy requires some degree of public service/government intrusion.
I think the government should defend individual rights to life, liberty, and property. I'm ambivalent on the issue of building roads. I also think the government should run the military. That about sums it up for me.
Of course, you didn't say "none", you said "very little".
I hope I clarified exactly what I mean by "very little" in the statement above.
I just want to see the conversation elevate beyond shouts of "communist!" and "anarchist!" or "all public service is good!" and "government intrusion is bad!".
Fair enough. Will you abandon your faith that government can inherently solve problems better than individuals can?
This is a "progressive" site. This means that showcasing the haters of America (namely, China and the USSR/Russia) and their accomplishments is red meat. Call me "jingoistic" all you want, but there is no doubt that feeling some degree of negative feeling, from simple skepticism to full-blown hatred, toward America and/or capitalism is a very "progressive" thing to do.
And that's why you'll see articles like this posted on this site. Articles which extol the glory of China or the USSR are what "progressives" like to read, and there are lots of "progressives" here. Yes, it's not necessarily "news for nerds". It's red meat, and that's never a bad thing for keeping your site active and popular.
The responses to this post will probably attempt to appease chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm going to get called a "Bush lover" and they'll bring up the war in Iraq and all that. Or I'll just get modded a "troll" for answering your question in the entirely accurate and truthful way.
I didn't fuck it up, except that I probably should have amended it for this crowd. I doubt there's many Nazis here, but there sure are buttloads of communists. They generally call themselves "progressives" though, and they all view Nazis as "the opposite" of their own weird little religion.
I'm pro individualism, but I also recognize that pure individualism doesn't work.
Argument by assertion.
It's all about finding the sweet spot between being and individual and being a member of a group -- because that is what each of us is.
We are all individuals and social creatures (what you call "being a member of a group") by definition, so our disagreement lies outside of that space.
In other words: show me a country with zero public services and I'll show you a place you don't want to live.
Aha, there's the disagreement! What you call "public services" are actually government intrusions in the market which imply the suspension of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. To what degree shall the government intrude? The Nazis and Communists both wanted very, very, very large government intrusion. As you might imagine, I think the government should intrude very little.
I ignore assholes on the Internet. Someone goes off about rape and razor wire and such? They go onto my mental blacklist. To condemn them would be to acknowledge them -- and that's more than they're worth.
That's admirable of you. In short, you're reserving your attention for things that you believe are more important and worthy of your time. I understand that view, and it has its place.
The reason that I do what I do is because some people ("progresssives", namely) have become so bitter and so angry that exhortations of violence and outright hatred have become literally commonplace. If no one calls them on it, then who will? There needs to be a "progressive" reformation, a re-imagining from within, so that they can heal and become forces for good in our society instead of forces of evil (which is what they are, presently).
If I choose to ignore them, then they don't see that as the punishment that you wish it to be. Instead, they see nothing from me. They don't feel snubbed at all. They feel empowered because they were able to say something evil and they got away with it. They deserve social opprobrium for their evil wishes and I'm going to one who gives it to them. I will never stand by and watch someone glibly wish for painful death and violent rape on someone else. I am condoning evil if I say nothing in protest.
If you disapprove of my actions, then I suggest you take your own advice and snub me. Believe me, I won't mind.
I can't believe people actually buy into that garbage.
Explain to me: how will banning guns remove guns from the hands of violent criminals, particularly considering that violent criminals, by definition, will not obey gun control laws?
Does reality have a liberal bias on *that* issue, o great liberal avatar?
educated and informed people tend to be more liberal
That only begs the question: educated in what, and informed in what? Is there no surprise that "progressives" have made great strides in inserting "progressive" dogma into every conceivable college subject?
Since you probably fancy yourself both educated and informed, tell me why single women tend to vote Democrat while married women tend to vote Republican.
It's very "progressive" to suggest that we all convert to a fundamentalist religion in order to avoid the fundamentalists killing us all. It's also "progressive" to tolerate such a suggestion. That's why you'll see that post at the Daily Kos, which is a very "progressive" site.
one guy on slashdot flies off the handle and says he wants to rape people (99.9% sure it was a figure of speech and he didn't actually want to thrust his dick into someone) and you label all progressives as murderers and rapists.
"Progressives" "fly off the handle" all the time. Constantly. They're insane. Or they accommodate insanity.
And he didn't want to thrust his dick into somebody. He actually wanted them raped "by a spool of razor wire". Again, very "progressive" of him, and I don't mean that sarcastically.
you're gay (at least you said so in an earlier post)but i'm not going to say all gays hate progressives and are totally irrational retards.
That's because you can't go to any meeting of the gay community and find any such rhetoric either regularly expressed or regularly tolerated. Go to Democratic Underground or Daily Kos or Huffington Post and you will see exhortations of murder and destruction expressed and tolerated daily. That's what "progressivism" is.
dude, shut down the pussy wagon and dry your eyes
You first, "dude". That's the second "dude" you've given me. What are you, 16?
if you actually knew the history of the progressive party dating back to its roots you'd know how fucking retarded it is to say they're all a bunch of raping
History shmistory. I'm talking about what "progressives" ARE, not what they WERE.
you're just up your own ass about your self-righteous "omgz i hate rapists whaaaa!" tirade that is so fucking irrelevent to anything going on here
How dare I criticize someone for wishing death and violent rape on someone! My god, I was just so impolite to do that!
you're just not going to drop it are you?
No. I hate rape and murder, and anyone who wishes that on someone else is evil. I'm not dropping that, and I don't give a shit if you disapprove of me for failing to drop it.
if i wanted you to die
Do you?
too bad i'm a libertarian, bitch
Too bad I'm a libertarian too, cunt. Since when did libertarians start taking in rape and murder aficionados like you? They sure have gone downhill since I signed up!
We don't need to defend our economic policies because they're not disastrous.
Really? Wow, you *are* smart!
Compare Clinton to both Bushes and even Reagan
Please tell me which economic policies that Clinton was able to pass after the Republican takeover. (For that matter, which ones was he able to get through the Democratic special interest groups before the Republican takeover!) Do you know what libertarians call the battle between the executive branch controlled by one political party fighting the legislative branch controlled by the (hostile) opposing party? Gridlock. Ever heard of it? It basically means that the government spends all its time fighting itself and therefore never gets anything done. Libertarians love that. Can you fathom why? Since you're so smart, certainly you'll be able to tell me why libertarians love gridlock.
Smart people are usually liberal, that's just how it goes.
That's true only because you define "smart" as a synonym for "liberal". Convenient how that works out, isn't it? Golly, even a moron like me can noodle that one! I must be smarter just from being close to an avatar like you. May I lick your toes, o great one?
You're going against the tide of history and the overwhelming might of the available evidence in pretending otherwise.
My, what a big rhetoric you have! You must get lots of pussy with all that rhetoric. Do you get laid a lot?
Notice I don't need to resort to silly insults to get my point across.
Oh, give me time. Pretty soon you'll resort to silly insults because you're just that easy.
In any case, your points were:
1. Liberals don't have disastrous economic policies. (Really?)
2. Liberals are defined as smart. Therefore, they are.
Forgive me for failing to see how awesomely brilliant you are. Maybe your true intelligence will come out like a gay republican in subsequent posts.
Since you're also so smart, explain this to me. How will banning guns reduce violent crime, especially since violent criminals, by definition, will not obey gun-control laws? Additional, how will gun control laws be effective in light of the catastrophic failure to ban drugs? I'm sure a hyper-intelligent liberal like you can make it all very clear. Put it in black-and-white terms so an unnuanced mouth-breather like me can understand it.
Well by that token Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" protesters are the face of the conservative movement.
For a while, Fred Phelps *was* the face of the conservative movement. He was saying the things ("God hates fags" -- I'm gay, by the way) that Christians in large swaths thought but were too polite to say in public.
Once Fred Phelps started protesting at soldiers' funerals, then he became the bete noire of the right.
None of the justifies the exhortations of hate and rape which are de rigeur among "progressives". Not only that, but "progressives" are starting to become grade-A jew-haters as well. I despise it, it is evil, and I'm not backing down on that.
Casting the most radical of any faction as the norm is an easy way to dismiss any political movement.
Except that it's not "the most radical". It's common among "progressives" to express hate, murder, death, and rape. Extremely common.
Just look at this very thread. Did anyone besides me express disgust at what the parent post wrote (advocacy for murder and rape)? Did anyone condemn me for my expression of disgust? Very telling, don't you think?
You seem to be coming down on the side of, "expressing a desire for murder and rape is OK". My guess is that you are a "progressive". Do you want to murder/rape your hated enemies? Or do you merely accommodate those desires in your evil "progressive" brethren? Let me know where you fall on that "political spectrum".
No. Rape and murder are wrong. I'm not backing down on that one.
stop derailing the topic to further your unmitigated bullshit tirade against people who disagree with your political views
It is the political view of "progressives" that their enemies should be murdered and that the associates of their enemies should be violently raped.
I disagree with that political view. It is NOT bullshit to disagree with it.
this whole bullshit about "*all* progressives do this
All "progressives" either do it or accommodate it. Yes, that is true. Obviously you are one of those who accommodates it. If you weren't, then you would be criticizing the guy who advocated for murder and rape instead of criticizing the guy who objected to those expressions.
*all* conservatives are great, my shit don't stink
I never said that bullshit and you know it. I'm not even a conservative, you black-and-white-thinking dipshit.
stupid, immature, and i'm saying this as an AC who can't capitalize the start of his sentences
They're also common, everyday expressions of 'conservatives'.
Believe me, I know. I'm a gay guy and an ex-Christian, and I often call out the Christians for their hateful attitudes against gay people and atheists.
Conservatives being evil does NOT excuse the "progressives" for advocating for murder and rape.
You can find any kook to quote and attribute to an entire political movement if you hate them enough, and it looks like you sure have the hate in spades.
I still notice you're criticizing me for calling out a "progressive" for advocating for murder and rape. I guess those things are okay by you?
Furthermore, why not call out the "progressive" for being so hateful? He was calling for his enemies to be murdered and for his enemies' associates to be violently raped. Are you going to criticize him for having "hate in spades"? Of course not -- because you agree with him, you bullshitting "progressive"!
I've seen demographic research that the Democrats tend to be either highly or poorly educated; Republicans tend to be in between. I would think that speaks to social standing being the distinguisher, rather than intelligence.
Well-said. Lots of people confuse education with intelligence.
Also, women are far more likely to be Democrat than men are.
No, *single* woman tend to vote Democrat. Once they get married, they tend to vote Republican.
I don't buy it. I think you're all a bunch of stupid pussies. I think you suck, and from a cock-sucking fag like me, that's saying a lot.
Basically we're smarter than you are. Smart people don't vote Republican.
That's because you have conveniently *defined* yourself that way. If you want to point to the tenured and unfireble professors of English, Sociology, and White Guilt in their cushy, low-work jobs as evidence of "smart people", then I will gleefully concede that argument to you.
That said, if you "progressives" really are so smart, then how in the hell do you defend your disastrous economic policies and strident failure to understand economics? In that regard, I don't see you people as "smart" at all. In fact, you're 100% head-in-the-sand dumbshits.
Who knows, maybe its a function of our monkey brain that we start seeing political opponents on the net as the same person. And then we start slinging feces.
"Slinging feces" is a too-polite way to describe advocating for painful death and violent rape. That kind of shit is evil, and it's part and parcel of being a "progressive" nowadays. And that is precisely why I think "progressivism" has strayed from its roots of standing up for the poor and the weak.
I advocate for a "progressive" reformation. It is a religion, after all.
I'm not a conservative, and I agree with many of your criticisms of conservatives. But you're trying to change the subject.
But the really funny thing that makes conservatives a joke is that you all claim that "Progressives" are evil and dangerous.
I think it's evil and dangerous for a person to wish violent, painful death on his enemies and violent rape on those who associate with them, and I'm not backing down on that.
Have fun murdering people
And what's wrong with murdering people? You had no problem with it when your "progressive" brother was advocating for it. You're not resisting murder as a moral principle -- you're only bothered when the *wrong people* get murdered. Your sick morality is as transparent as your stupid lies, you evil "progressive" bastard!
Slashdot Mirror
I mis-wrote in my last post, and I can't believe you were so gracious in your reply. It speaks volumes of your character.
What I had intended to write was this:
"I have no doubt that you know thousands of people who would have no moral issue with personally waterboarding Dick Cheney."
The way that I had written it made it sound like you were one of them and shared that particular belief. I didn't think that of you, and I didn't mean to imply that you were quite that vicious a person. I beg your forgiveness and thank you for responding so kindly to that unfortunate and accidental insult.
When you argue (what can be loosely interpreted as) "you progressives have turned into an evil bunch"
You pegged me correctly.
it groups the "evil bunch" in with the "progressives", increasing the cross-identification of the two groups, and leading all who consider themselves "progressives" to reflexively defend the group as a whole.
Are you sure you're not my long-lost twin? You're entirely correct, of course. People naturally respond to criticism by becoming defensive and resistant. My goal is not to convince people. My goal is to create what I would call "negative feedback" and thus inspire others to feel that it's acceptable to join me in rejecting what is outright evil (rape, murder, torture). No one's mind will be changed the first time around. In the long term, if more and more people start speaking against it, then, over time, social proof will work in my favor and minds will be changed. That's my hope. I don't know if it will work or not.
Would it not be better to take an approach which encourages progressives' fellows to excise those who are mistaken? "You have no right to call yourself a progressive" has the effect not only of providing a public reprimand, additionally as emphasizing to other people who consider themselves progressives that they can maintain that self-identification while ostracizing those who spread hate.
I can't rightly do that because I am not a "progressive". If people want to have different political beliefs, even ones that really offend me (such as general abrogation of individual property rights), then that's fine. It's the hate speech, the evil speech (rape, murder, torture) that I must strenuously object to and fight whenever I see it. That's the kind of speech that will have truly awful effects in people. The last thing I want to see is the "Left v. Right" in America become more like the "Left v. Right" in Europe. Their "Left" are Communist and their "Right" are Nazis. That's what's coming here if more and more people don't start standing up and demanding that the hate and demonization stop.
I hope that's not too grave for you. I do take this seriously, and I share it with you because I think you're a serious and introspective individual.
Well, if that's how you define "liking America" ...then it would be a very easy strawman for you to knock over!
singing patriotic songs and sitting around talking about military victories
Speaking of which, do you know any "progressives" who feel genuinely moved and sentimental when singing a patriotic song? I'm curious.
then you're even more of a moron than I originally thought.
Very "progressive" of you! I'm so inspired by your intelligent (not to mention manly) attitude that I think I'm going to convert to your way of thinking.
I'm not a "progressive". I'm about as libertarian as they come. I do find it curious that you automatically assume I'm one
Considering that you're getting royally pissed that I deign to criticize "progressives", I don't find it curious at all.
Such black-and-white "us vs them" thinking has been the bane of human civilization since the beginning.
That's kind of a black-and-white view. I prefer to be more nuanced than that.
Point being, while I don't agree with "progressive" politics, I'm not idiotic enough to go around telling everyone who will listen about how it's the ultimate evil.
Except that's not what I've said, dummy.
0. Murder, rape, and torture are evil.
1. Some "progressives" often exhort wishes of murder, rape, and torture on their hated enemies. That's evil.
2. Other "progressives" tolerate their "progressive" brethren when they make such evil wishes. That's evil too, but a lesser evil than #1.
It's just a difference in politics for fuck's sake.
If you're saying that wishing murder, torture, and rape upon hated enemies is part of "progressive" politics, then I completely agree with you.
My mom is a "progressive", so are many of my friends. I surely don't agree with them, but they're not "evil". And strangely enough, none of them advocate rape and murder
If one of their "progressive" friends wishes that anyone who reads World Net Daily be raped with a spool of razor wire, then would they object? I would object to that. In fact, I did. Apparently, you think I'm sucky to object to that.
If you pick and choose random posts on a discussion site from strangers to bolster your preconcieved political notions about large swaths of the US population, you're a moron. Plain. And. Simple.
That's retarded. I maintain: wishes of murder, torture, and rape are common from "progressives" as is the tolerance of such hate speech on their "progressive" websites. I'm going to speak against it, and I don't give a shit if you disapprove.
I'm sure I can point to plenty of people in "conservative" circles advocating murder
And you would be right. But slashdot isn't a conservative site, correct? That's why conservative hate speech is pretty rare here. Instead, there's "progressive" hate speech here, as you and I have seen, "for fuck's sake".
I guess that means "conservatism" is bankrupt too, doesn't it?
I never said "progressivism" (those scare quotes are EARNED) was bankrupt. I said, and maintain, that it accommodates hate speech specifically involving wishing murder, torture, and rape on its hated enemies.
To your question, I do criticize conservatives when they accommodate such speech, and such criticism is merited. It does not excuse hate speech on behalf of "progressives" and I will stand against it, every time, without fail, and no matter how much you hate it.
Sure, make wild claims
... what a wild, bizarre claim! I'm sure most "progressives" you know just love singing patriotic songs and talking about American military victories.
"Progressives" don't like America all that much. I know
then proceed to detail common responses made in the past to other wild claims, in effort to head them off.
God it must just SUCK to be robbed of the opportunity to bitch about the war in Iraq!
You are a troll. Nothing else. You are trolling, not answering anything. Bitch.
That speaks for itself. Do you have a slashdot ID? I think you do.
Ironic that you're doing the same thing here that you accuse someone else of doing in this post [slashdot.org] (spotted while flicking through your history).
That's creepy. Don't you have better things to do?
Namely redefining words on your own terms. In this case, "progressive" as "commie America hater" (or whatever).
I never said that "progressives" were defined as "commie America haters". Rather, I stated (and maintain) that it is "progressive" to have some degree of negative feeling toward American and/or capitalism, ranging from mere skepticism to outright hatred. I'm describing, not defining. I don't know what the real definition of a "progressive" is anymore, especially after "progressives" started sucking up to fundamentalist Islam.
Not that criticism of the US here in general is undeserved
Very "progressive" of you.
I'd rather call you "a complete and utter moron".
Very "progressive" of you. I mean that completely un-sarcastically.
Man, you are just hung up on this "progressive==teh evilist" shtick, aren't you?
Wishing murder, rape, and torture on other people is evil, and I'm not backing down on that one bit. Whether or not such expressions are A) commonplace, and B) tolerated in "progressive" circles is the pertinent question. I think it's valid to ask that question. Maybe you hate it because it makes "progressives" look bad, and you just can't stand that one bit.
Uh, do you have to ask?
Yes, and I'm glad I did because your answer was very interesting.
People who believe they have their own value outside of a breeding couple (just joshin' ya, married friends)
No, you're not "just joshing" with that comment. You're a "progressive" person and thus you don't value the notion of "kept women" in marriage. Hence, you choose to denigrate marriage with the "breeding couple" comment. Should women be free to pursue whatever they want, or should they be forced into traditional gender roles which stipulates that a woman's job is merely to bear children for her husband?
And again, education comes into it: women with higher education - which correlates well with more liberal views - are more likely to delay marriage, staying longer in the "single" column.
While that is true, it doesn't speak to the fact that most women tend to get married, even those who choose to delay it. And, when they do, they tend to vote Republican after they get married. Why is that? There's no need to ask you because you answer it with your very next comment:
An additional factor is that single mothers also tend to rely more on the "social safety net", an issue that gives an advantage to Democrats.
And that's the sound of the hammer hitting the nail *SMACK* right on the head. Single mothers need more welfare. Hence, it's in a "progressive" interest to have more women giving birth and NOT getting married since, as you admit, it gives an advantage to Democrats.
So it's no small wonder you denigrate marriage: it makes women reliant upon their family, in particular, reliant upon their husband (if they choose to be a stay-at-home parent) instead of reliant upon government welfare and thus inclined to vote for Democrats. Is that untrue? If so, then why did you write the following:
I'd guess that most of the difference comes from conservatives putting more importance on mating
Here's your argument: "Evil conservatives merely want women to breed much like heifers than be fulfilled and educated women! Marriage sucks because it's only about mating!" It kind of rings hollow after you made the mistake of mentioning "single mothers" instead of "single women", because even liberals admit that a woman who has a child as a teenager has a much less chance of becoming successful than one who chooses to have an abortion.
I know you're going to want to pigeonhole me into a particular political belief, so here's an attempt to head you off at the pass.
1. I'm a gay man and a gay adoptive parent.
2. I've been a stay-at-home parent before.
3. I regard marriage rights as special rights for straights, and I don't support special rights for anyone.
Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. It's a pearl in a mountain of dung.
...
...
I can't help but think that your method of dealing with problems of this type tends towards, "Ignore it and it will go away". I want to introduce you to a different concept. Please forgive me if I'm telling you something that you already know.
A while back I read an extremely interesting book called Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, and it changed my outlook on life. Essentially, it was a scientific view of how humans are influenced to change their beliefs, and it described six different methods by which such change takes place. (Later, I found that the number of "influence techniques" is disputed among researchers, primarily because the psychology of influence is rather nascent.) One of these methods is called "social proof", and the anecdote used to illustrate it was a rape which occurred in an alley that dozens of tenants heard and witnessed, yet not one of them called the police. Why did no one call the police to help this woman? Because each one of them, individually, looked around and saw that no one else did anything to stop it. The psychology works like this: "Since no one else is doing it, I shouldn't do it, either." The book describes it as "a bug in the brain" which causes us to look for truth by looking at the individuals around us. We can't help it: we're social creatures.
And I think this is what has happened in the "progressive" movement since the 2000 election: "progressives" have started ideologically raping women in alleys, and the other "progressives" have stood by and watched it happen, either approving or not wanting to stand out and speak up against evil happening in their own ranks. When that happens, then the reward for the perpetrator speaks for itself. "No one opposed me, so there was nothing wrong with what I did."
After that, the behavior of the group becomes habitual. The next influence technique which comes into play is consistency, and I think that's a reason why so many "progressives" here didn't choose to criticize the horrible individual in the grandparent post. Since they haven't criticized many other exhortations of death, murder, torture, and rape that they've seen "progressives" do, then they would be acting inconsistently by doing so now. Instead, they choose to punish me for having the nerve to say what they should have said so long ago. I think it all makes sense, and it's all very human.
I don't doubt that you know many nice "progressives" in Austin. To me, they're like the Christians who are polite to my face and then will say, "He'll be dead soon" when I'm out of earshot. (I'm a gay man.) People are often much more open about what they believe on the Internet and outside of the rules of accountability and politeness. I have no doubt that you are among thousands of people who would have no moral issue with personally waterboarding Dick Cheney. They wouldn't say that at a dinner party, but it's how they feel. It's just like the Christians who are very polite and sweet to me, but would gladly vote to reinstate sodomy laws if given the opportunity to do so.
And I, like both of those groups, am very polite and sweet to everyone I meet. But I'm very wary of some of them.
I am forced to mention that not all "progressives" have been polite to my face. Consider these two following interactions:
My stepdad: (fuming mad) Well I think that about George Bush!
Me: It sounds like you're saying that George bush is Hitler.
My stepdad: (screaming) YES HE IS!!!
Me: You mean George Bush wants to kill all the Jews?
My stepdad:
My sister: (indignant) The United States has the WORST human rights record!
Me: Really? Worse than North Korea?
My sister:
And those are two rather personal conversations that made me have serious misgivings about what "progressives" have become: hateful and crazy. If I hadn't seen their hateful and crazy statements repeated and acc
And there may not be an enormous disagreement beyond that. Much like the duality of being a social individual, "public services" are "government intrusions". That does not make them bad. Or good. They have to be judged on their merits.
I agree that they must be judged on their merits, but according to whose values? You seem to be fond of making the "what works" argument, which merely begs the question "works toward what?"
My point is that I tire of hearing people shouting down public service/government intrusions in their entirety as though without these things everyone would live in a wonderful world with cheap education, low crime, and smooth highways. Because they wouldn't. It's been tried. It doesn't work.
Your argument is wholly based in the idea that "government is the solution to problems", and that is your article of faith. Naturally, I tend to tire of hearing what you're repeating, because it, too, is repeated many times by many other people.
The society we enjoy requires some degree of public service/government intrusion.
I think the government should defend individual rights to life, liberty, and property. I'm ambivalent on the issue of building roads. I also think the government should run the military. That about sums it up for me.
Of course, you didn't say "none", you said "very little".
I hope I clarified exactly what I mean by "very little" in the statement above.
I just want to see the conversation elevate beyond shouts of "communist!" and "anarchist!" or "all public service is good!" and "government intrusion is bad!".
Fair enough. Will you abandon your faith that government can inherently solve problems better than individuals can?
What's the news for nerds angle here?
This is a "progressive" site. This means that showcasing the haters of America (namely, China and the USSR/Russia) and their accomplishments is red meat. Call me "jingoistic" all you want, but there is no doubt that feeling some degree of negative feeling, from simple skepticism to full-blown hatred, toward America and/or capitalism is a very "progressive" thing to do.
And that's why you'll see articles like this posted on this site. Articles which extol the glory of China or the USSR are what "progressives" like to read, and there are lots of "progressives" here. Yes, it's not necessarily "news for nerds". It's red meat, and that's never a bad thing for keeping your site active and popular.
The responses to this post will probably attempt to appease chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm going to get called a "Bush lover" and they'll bring up the war in Iraq and all that. Or I'll just get modded a "troll" for answering your question in the entirely accurate and truthful way.
I didn't fuck it up, except that I probably should have amended it for this crowd. I doubt there's many Nazis here, but there sure are buttloads of communists. They generally call themselves "progressives" though, and they all view Nazis as "the opposite" of their own weird little religion.
I'm pro individualism, but I also recognize that pure individualism doesn't work.
Argument by assertion.
It's all about finding the sweet spot between being and individual and being a member of a group -- because that is what each of us is.
We are all individuals and social creatures (what you call "being a member of a group") by definition, so our disagreement lies outside of that space.
In other words: show me a country with zero public services and I'll show you a place you don't want to live.
Aha, there's the disagreement! What you call "public services" are actually government intrusions in the market which imply the suspension of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. To what degree shall the government intrude? The Nazis and Communists both wanted very, very, very large government intrusion. As you might imagine, I think the government should intrude very little.
I ignore assholes on the Internet. Someone goes off about rape and razor wire and such? They go onto my mental blacklist. To condemn them would be to acknowledge them -- and that's more than they're worth.
That's admirable of you. In short, you're reserving your attention for things that you believe are more important and worthy of your time. I understand that view, and it has its place.
The reason that I do what I do is because some people ("progresssives", namely) have become so bitter and so angry that exhortations of violence and outright hatred have become literally commonplace. If no one calls them on it, then who will? There needs to be a "progressive" reformation, a re-imagining from within, so that they can heal and become forces for good in our society instead of forces of evil (which is what they are, presently).
If I choose to ignore them, then they don't see that as the punishment that you wish it to be. Instead, they see nothing from me. They don't feel snubbed at all. They feel empowered because they were able to say something evil and they got away with it. They deserve social opprobrium for their evil wishes and I'm going to one who gives it to them. I will never stand by and watch someone glibly wish for painful death and violent rape on someone else. I am condoning evil if I say nothing in protest.
If you disapprove of my actions, then I suggest you take your own advice and snub me. Believe me, I won't mind.
Because reality has a well-known liberal bias
I can't believe people actually buy into that garbage.
Explain to me: how will banning guns remove guns from the hands of violent criminals, particularly considering that violent criminals, by definition, will not obey gun control laws?
Does reality have a liberal bias on *that* issue, o great liberal avatar?
educated and informed people tend to be more liberal
That only begs the question: educated in what, and informed in what? Is there no surprise that "progressives" have made great strides in inserting "progressive" dogma into every conceivable college subject?
Since you probably fancy yourself both educated and informed, tell me why single women tend to vote Democrat while married women tend to vote Republican.
It's very "progressive" to suggest that we all convert to a fundamentalist religion in order to avoid the fundamentalists killing us all. It's also "progressive" to tolerate such a suggestion. That's why you'll see that post at the Daily Kos, which is a very "progressive" site.
god i hate you.
Very "progressive" of you, hater.
one guy on slashdot flies off the handle and says he wants to rape people (99.9% sure it was a figure of speech and he didn't actually want to thrust his dick into someone) and you label all progressives as murderers and rapists.
"Progressives" "fly off the handle" all the time. Constantly. They're insane. Or they accommodate insanity.
And he didn't want to thrust his dick into somebody. He actually wanted them raped "by a spool of razor wire". Again, very "progressive" of him, and I don't mean that sarcastically.
you're gay (at least you said so in an earlier post)but i'm not going to say all gays hate progressives and are totally irrational retards.
That's because you can't go to any meeting of the gay community and find any such rhetoric either regularly expressed or regularly tolerated. Go to Democratic Underground or Daily Kos or Huffington Post and you will see exhortations of murder and destruction expressed and tolerated daily. That's what "progressivism" is.
dude, shut down the pussy wagon and dry your eyes
You first, "dude". That's the second "dude" you've given me. What are you, 16?
if you actually knew the history of the progressive party dating back to its roots you'd know how fucking retarded it is to say they're all a bunch of raping
History shmistory. I'm talking about what "progressives" ARE, not what they WERE.
you're just up your own ass about your self-righteous "omgz i hate rapists whaaaa!" tirade that is so fucking irrelevent to anything going on here
How dare I criticize someone for wishing death and violent rape on someone! My god, I was just so impolite to do that!
you're just not going to drop it are you?
No. I hate rape and murder, and anyone who wishes that on someone else is evil. I'm not dropping that, and I don't give a shit if you disapprove of me for failing to drop it.
if i wanted you to die
Do you?
too bad i'm a libertarian, bitch
Too bad I'm a libertarian too, cunt. Since when did libertarians start taking in rape and murder aficionados like you? They sure have gone downhill since I signed up!
http://zombietime.com/
Go there and look at the many anti-Semitic posters held up by rank-and-file "progressives".
This is where you'll say, "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm anti-Israel!"
You know what that sounds like? "Love the sinner, hate the sin". A thin veneer over regular old Jew hating.
We don't need to defend our economic policies because they're not disastrous.
Really? Wow, you *are* smart!
Compare Clinton to both Bushes and even Reagan
Please tell me which economic policies that Clinton was able to pass after the Republican takeover. (For that matter, which ones was he able to get through the Democratic special interest groups before the Republican takeover!) Do you know what libertarians call the battle between the executive branch controlled by one political party fighting the legislative branch controlled by the (hostile) opposing party? Gridlock. Ever heard of it? It basically means that the government spends all its time fighting itself and therefore never gets anything done. Libertarians love that. Can you fathom why? Since you're so smart, certainly you'll be able to tell me why libertarians love gridlock.
Smart people are usually liberal, that's just how it goes.
That's true only because you define "smart" as a synonym for "liberal". Convenient how that works out, isn't it? Golly, even a moron like me can noodle that one! I must be smarter just from being close to an avatar like you. May I lick your toes, o great one?
You're going against the tide of history and the overwhelming might of the available evidence in pretending otherwise.
My, what a big rhetoric you have! You must get lots of pussy with all that rhetoric. Do you get laid a lot?
Notice I don't need to resort to silly insults to get my point across.
Oh, give me time. Pretty soon you'll resort to silly insults because you're just that easy.
In any case, your points were:
1. Liberals don't have disastrous economic policies. (Really?)
2. Liberals are defined as smart. Therefore, they are.
Forgive me for failing to see how awesomely brilliant you are. Maybe your true intelligence will come out like a gay republican in subsequent posts.
Since you're also so smart, explain this to me. How will banning guns reduce violent crime, especially since violent criminals, by definition, will not obey gun-control laws? Additional, how will gun control laws be effective in light of the catastrophic failure to ban drugs? I'm sure a hyper-intelligent liberal like you can make it all very clear. Put it in black-and-white terms so an unnuanced mouth-breather like me can understand it.
Well by that token Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" protesters are the face of the conservative movement.
For a while, Fred Phelps *was* the face of the conservative movement. He was saying the things ("God hates fags" -- I'm gay, by the way) that Christians in large swaths thought but were too polite to say in public.
Once Fred Phelps started protesting at soldiers' funerals, then he became the bete noire of the right.
None of the justifies the exhortations of hate and rape which are de rigeur among "progressives". Not only that, but "progressives" are starting to become grade-A jew-haters as well. I despise it, it is evil, and I'm not backing down on that.
Casting the most radical of any faction as the norm is an easy way to dismiss any political movement.
Except that it's not "the most radical". It's common among "progressives" to express hate, murder, death, and rape. Extremely common.
Just look at this very thread. Did anyone besides me express disgust at what the parent post wrote (advocacy for murder and rape)? Did anyone condemn me for my expression of disgust? Very telling, don't you think?
You seem to be coming down on the side of, "expressing a desire for murder and rape is OK". My guess is that you are a "progressive". Do you want to murder/rape your hated enemies? Or do you merely accommodate those desires in your evil "progressive" brethren? Let me know where you fall on that "political spectrum".
dude get off your high horse
No. Rape and murder are wrong. I'm not backing down on that one.
stop derailing the topic to further your unmitigated bullshit tirade against people who disagree with your political views
It is the political view of "progressives" that their enemies should be murdered and that the associates of their enemies should be violently raped.
I disagree with that political view. It is NOT bullshit to disagree with it.
this whole bullshit about "*all* progressives do this
All "progressives" either do it or accommodate it. Yes, that is true. Obviously you are one of those who accommodates it. If you weren't, then you would be criticizing the guy who advocated for murder and rape instead of criticizing the guy who objected to those expressions.
*all* conservatives are great, my shit don't stink
I never said that bullshit and you know it. I'm not even a conservative, you black-and-white-thinking dipshit.
stupid, immature, and i'm saying this as an AC who can't capitalize the start of his sentences
Pot, kettle, black. Coward!
fuck you.
Right back at you, idiot.
They're also common, everyday expressions of 'conservatives'.
Believe me, I know. I'm a gay guy and an ex-Christian, and I often call out the Christians for their hateful attitudes against gay people and atheists.
Conservatives being evil does NOT excuse the "progressives" for advocating for murder and rape.
You can find any kook to quote and attribute to an entire political movement if you hate them enough, and it looks like you sure have the hate in spades.
I still notice you're criticizing me for calling out a "progressive" for advocating for murder and rape. I guess those things are okay by you?
Furthermore, why not call out the "progressive" for being so hateful? He was calling for his enemies to be murdered and for his enemies' associates to be violently raped. Are you going to criticize him for having "hate in spades"? Of course not -- because you agree with him, you bullshitting "progressive"!
I've seen demographic research that the Democrats tend to be either highly or poorly educated; Republicans tend to be in between. I would think that speaks to social standing being the distinguisher, rather than intelligence.
Well-said. Lots of people confuse education with intelligence.
Also, women are far more likely to be Democrat than men are.
No, *single* woman tend to vote Democrat. Once they get married, they tend to vote Republican.
No, just the cream of the crop.
I don't buy it. I think you're all a bunch of stupid pussies. I think you suck, and from a cock-sucking fag like me, that's saying a lot.
Basically we're smarter than you are. Smart people don't vote Republican.
That's because you have conveniently *defined* yourself that way. If you want to point to the tenured and unfireble professors of English, Sociology, and White Guilt in their cushy, low-work jobs as evidence of "smart people", then I will gleefully concede that argument to you.
That said, if you "progressives" really are so smart, then how in the hell do you defend your disastrous economic policies and strident failure to understand economics? In that regard, I don't see you people as "smart" at all. In fact, you're 100% head-in-the-sand dumbshits.
Who knows, maybe its a function of our monkey brain that we start seeing political opponents on the net as the same person. And then we start slinging feces.
"Slinging feces" is a too-polite way to describe advocating for painful death and violent rape. That kind of shit is evil, and it's part and parcel of being a "progressive" nowadays. And that is precisely why I think "progressivism" has strayed from its roots of standing up for the poor and the weak.
I advocate for a "progressive" reformation. It is a religion, after all.
Barring that, "progressivism" delenda est!
Reasons why modern conservatives are a joke:
I'm not a conservative, and I agree with many of your criticisms of conservatives. But you're trying to change the subject.
But the really funny thing that makes conservatives a joke is that you all claim that "Progressives" are evil and dangerous.
I think it's evil and dangerous for a person to wish violent, painful death on his enemies and violent rape on those who associate with them, and I'm not backing down on that.
Have fun murdering people
And what's wrong with murdering people? You had no problem with it when your "progressive" brother was advocating for it. You're not resisting murder as a moral principle -- you're only bothered when the *wrong people* get murdered. Your sick morality is as transparent as your stupid lies, you evil "progressive" bastard!