The Four Stages of Republican Misinformation

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 170
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
even iff you "prove" one side is less-wrong than the other

that does not make the less-wrong side "objectively good"
He never claimed it did, neither has anyone I am aware of.

This was literally the point he was making about democrats being held to a higher standard. Falling short of being “objectively good” is not an argument against voting for them or for voting republican. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
even iff you "prove" one side is less-wrong than the other

that does not make the less-wrong side "objectively good"
He never claimed it did, neither has anyone I am aware of.

This was literally the point he was making about democrats being held to a higher standard. Falling short of being “objectively good” is not an argument against voting for them or for voting republican. 
and i never claimed anyone was making that claim either

the key "problem" here is that some people think we should rally behind "democrats" because they are "less wrong"

and other people

don't see the point in voting for people who continually break their promises and own stocks in the industries they set the rules for

they are technically corrupt

we can do better
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
the key "problem" here is that some people think we should rally behind "democrats" because they are "less wrong"
We should. In our current system there are only two practical options, so if you don’t get one you’re going to get the other.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
even iff you "prove" one side is less-wrong than the other 

that does not make the less-wrong side "objectively good"

I feel we are talking at two different levels. Practical and theoretical. In some theoretical future with no consideration of how to get from A to B: does the party political system need to be completely overhauled, and new parties exist and share power: I have some concerns - but I largely agree. I am not talking about the theoretical in this thread, but the very immediate practical political environment we are in today.

The only way I can describe the current political environment, is that we are locked in a room that has two bombs on timers - the one on the right is filled with 50kg of TNT. The one on the left, is filled with cow sh*t. You don’t know when they will go off, maybe now, maybe later, but you think you may able to defuse them.

You don’t want to be in that room, neither do I. You don’t want to be covered in cowsh*t, neither do I.

Let’s stop arguing about how bad the cowsh*t is, whilst not mentioning that there is a bomb containing TNT in the room too - and defuse the bomb on the right containing the TNT.

strangely, i've actually been listening to FOX radio and other "conservative" talk radio stations over the past year

If you want to have a broadly accurate run down of beliefs in the right; you can look at the platforms many candidates are running on - there are open QAnon conspiracists - large number of election denying republican candidates at all level. The various larger Republican news organizations - including fox (specifically Tucker) - have shared a multitude of vaccine and election misinformation multiple times though some are worse than others. There is a robust misinformation ecosystem in social media in the forms of manufactured memes and information that often stem from them. While I know QAnon is probably not a majority or even more than a small minority of the Republican Party - the crazies in general, the ones that believe the more outlandish lies are not.

While individual radio channels being rational
Is a good thing; the idea that this is instructive of the wider media, or right wing ecosystem is belied by many of the facts on the ground.

the point here is that when people donate money to the "democrats" i'm sure they never intended that money to be funneled into the coffers of the most extreme lunatics on the "right"

which is clearly amplifying their voices and in some cases, actually getting them elected

Correct - that’s absolutely an issue; it’s not the issue. The issue is the widespread existence and relatively broad support of said crazies; that they are cropping up everywhere, and whose support base is large enough to win a primary. You should also look at some of the ads - democrats are often getting several of the crazies to win primaries - by painting them as crazy - pointing at election denial, ultra conservative beliefs, support for Trump, etc.

Whilst not every case for sure - the issue is that the volume of crazies running for office, commanding large amounts of support from the base despite being crazy, and in some case because of it - is the issue that should absolutely be more concerning.

One critical thing, there is huge blow back for democrats here - internally, in the media, from supporters. It’s unethical behaviour - and the DCCC is being called on it by democrats.

If the roles were reversed, and a Republican candidate started ratf*cking, by trying to knock out the Democratic primary candidate who posed the biggest threat in the general election - republicans would be fine with it. 

I know that - because in 2019 when Trump tried to get Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden to harm is electoral chances : or when he ran millions in negative ads against Biden in Iowa 4 months before the first primary votes - republicans didn't give a shit.

Again - this is yet another example of how democrats are held to an absurdly high standard compared to Republicans - who could all literally cloaca f**k the last remaining bald eagles on the planet; on the back of Humvee running donuts paved over Amazon rainforest parking lot that they just had Exxon pay for - and the front page headlines would be “scandal as AOC admits wiping with toilet paper rather than reusable hemp” and all the republicans would go on Twitter, or start threads about it here proclaiming “how dare she!”

IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan "would cost more than the entire federal budget that we spend now."
 Medicare for All costs less than what the country is currently spending for healthcare for some.

IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
We’re sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.”
We should have sent your family back

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
This entire thread is so stupid.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,051
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I guess you are not smart enough to spot a Biden quote when you see one.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
I feel we are talking at two different levels. Practical and theoretical. In some theoretical future with no consideration of how to get from A to B: does the party political system need to be completely overhauled, and new parties exist and share power: I have some concerns - but I largely agree. I am not talking about the theoretical in this thread, but the very immediate practical political environment we are in today.
it's not even that big of an obstacle to overcome

RCV FTW
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Let’s stop arguing about how bad the cowsh*t is, whilst not mentioning that there is a bomb containing TNT in the room too - and defuse the bomb on the right containing the TNT.
phenomenal example

i think we're nearly on the same page here

but you're overlooking one very important detail

if you're afraid of the "crazy conspiracy nutjobs"

voting for CORPORATE OLIGARCH DEMOCRATS

instead of CORPORATE OLIGARCH REPUBLICANS

will not somehow magically make all the "crazy conspiracy nutjobs" disappear

the only reason you fear the "republican establishment" more than you fear the "democrat establishment" is because the democrats are doing everything in their power to make you think that every single republican is an alex jones fanatic

this is nowhere near the truth

alex jones doesn't even support the republican establishment

THEY'VE LOCKED EVERYONE INTO THINKING IN BLACK-AND-WHITE

so we don't notice how simple the solution to all of this is

RCV FTW
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@3RU7AL
if you're afraid of the "crazy conspiracy nutjobs"

voting for CORPORATE OLIGARCH DEMOCRATS

instead of CORPORATE OLIGARCH REPUBLICANS

will not somehow magically make all the "crazy conspiracy nutjobs" disappear

Correct - but it will, of course, prevent them from taking over. Even if I accept the premise - the choice is not oligarchy, vs oligarchy - it’s “oligarchy” vs “oligarchy that may well deteriorate into authoritarianism”.

That aside - I will absolutely contest the idea that both sides are equal even in terms of various support for oligarchy - they aren’t.

The oligarchy is the result of decades of market capitalism in which various companies, individuals and investment groups have ended up “winning” capitalism, centralizing vast amounts of economic power; that they use to leverage into political power to maintain that economic power. Both sides professes to be against this corrupt elite - but one side is overwhelmingly and comprehensively worse. Their name starts with R and ends with Epublicans.

Let’s not kid ourself : the policy and the individual voters on the right - broadly support an approach that if we should take away all the restrictions on the oligarchy, allow them to keep more of their money, disempower the only legal institutions that exist which could potentially keep them in check - disempower normal individuals ability to push back collectively - then the oligarchy will magically disappear because plucky start ups that will now - somehow - have an easier time competing against multi-billion dollar investment conglomerates once those conglomerates have reduced oversight, more money, fewer restrictions, less transparency, and more control over the individuals in their work force - and totally won’t simply produce other oligarchies. You have idiots spending all their time railing upon the corrupt elite in abstract terms - and yet support top to bottom  every conceivable policy that empowers them.

And worse - if anyone dares to suggest anything that actually harms the interests of that elite - wealth tax, corporate tax, more oversight, patent reform, breaking up too successful companies, empowering unions to bolster individuals economic power, reduce military spending. The right, and all their supporters - all suddenly bat for that elite - due to the collective dependence upon them. “We must do something about the elites - except anything - we can’t do anything against the elites - that would be radical socialism - and would harm the economy”

I mentioned this to a Trump supporter railing on Bill Gates and George Soros, and how much power they have, and how they’re destroying America - I suggested taxing their wealth to reduce their power. With a click of my fingers - this Trump supporter became the staunchest supporter of their own bogeyman’s best interests.

All of this driven by the very misinformation machines we’ve been talking about.

Compare and contrast to democrats. They are the only ones making any practical moves to reduce the power of these oligarchies. They are the only ones with policies aimed at reducing the power of these oligarchies. They are the only ones specifically trying to address social and environmental issues brought about by these oligarchies. 

You are absolutely right - you have democrats who refuse to kill tax loop holes for the mega wealthy; or ones who prevent the death of coal because of business interests, you assuredly have donations from big corporations - and many rich democrats with limited blindness in their trusts and have to vote against their interests. But everything from their enacted policy, internal party factions, to their donation structure, supporters and attempted policy are all supremely more hostile to the actual economic elite than the republicans could ever be.

Even look at the actions they took. Reducing job killing regulations, and increasing competition by reducing regulations - which take the form of how many toxic chemicals coal companies can dump into rivers - or reducing enforcement of consumer protections - or lowering emissions standards - or enacting massive tax cuts that companies can use for share buybacks. That sure shows the elites!


So in that case: no it’s not choosing between oligarchy and oligarchy - it’s a choice between “explicitly support for empowering the oligarchy coupled with the risk of authoritarian government you cannot vote away” and “openly hostile, but partially beholden to the interests of the oligarchy, pulled in the opposite direction by the base - and who frequently pushes, and often pass laws and changes antithetical to the power of that oligarchies.”

These two choices are clearly and absolutely  not the same.

the only reason you fear the "republican establishment" more than you fear the "democrat establishment" is because the democrats are doing everything in their power to make you think that every single republican is an alex jones fanatic

The reason I am concerned about the “Republican establishment” more than I fear the “democrat Establishment” - is because of the things they do - many explicitly listed and described in the many detailed posts I’ve made above. The democrats are not becoming functionally fascist, are not overtly corporatist in either words or actions.

I am concerned about them because of the media and supporter ecosystem of misinformation that they have cultivated - that is tending more and more authoritarian. I don’t need the democrats to tell me the broad level of support in the Republican Party of election deniers, or outright crazies - I can gauge this by the things their candidates say, and the things their candidates do.

If you feel that my reasoning is because of what I’m being told by the democrat - then you absolutely and clearly have not understood a single word of any of my posts in this thread.

RCV FTW

This is exactly the problem - we shouldn’t chose between democrats or republicans - we need RCV. Your calling for RCV, and trashing parties as equivalent - but when you look at RCV - they’re not.

Where in the USA is RCV implemented? Maine: passed by democrats. It was used in multiple states in the democratic primary - and republicans are now trying to veto it.

Alaska recently passed RCV - state Republican leadership ran against it - and the organization that campaigned for it, contained a substantial number of democrats. 

HR-1, which has provisions for supporting RCV, and fair representation acts all introduced by democrats and comprehensively opposed by republicans.

On a state by state levels - the states that have passed RCV at municipal levels  are predominantly blue states - and most of the state level legislating supporting it - coming from democrats. https://www.fairvote.org/2021_state_legislation_advancing_ranked_choice_voting. And, unsurprisingly - the people actively opposing it are, you guessed it, republicans: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/04/29/despite-broad-popularity-gop-moves-ban-ranked-choice-voting-local-level

This is likely being driven by the fact that 73% of democrats support it (https://publicconsultation.org) as opposed to 49% of republicans. On the left - I am one of them. 

So even on these grounds - this should be a clear cut reason that even if all the other stuff above is not true - if RCV is your main goal - then you should absolutely support democrats - they’re the ones that are primarily pushing it.


This is absolutely not an issue of me having binary thinking - one side is objectively better - one side is objectively worse in almost every respect, and almost every way - as it is on almost every topic and almost every subject.

If your speculating that the democrats have altering my perception of republicans (though this is not the case), let me also speculate - that you believe both sides are as bad as each other, solely because of the constant and repeated whataboutism and misinformation from the right, how they’ll right acts and reacts with equal disdain and equal fervour to everything the democrats do; and you are drawing blame based on how loudly both sides shout - rather than the details of what they’re shouting about.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Correct - but it will, of course, prevent them from taking over. Even if I accept the premise - the choice is not oligarchy, vs oligarchy - it’s “oligarchy” vs “oligarchy that may well deteriorate into authoritarianism”.
Los Angeles mayor threatens to cut power and water to nonessential businesses remaining open [**]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
If you feel that my reasoning is because of what I’m being told by the democrat - then you absolutely and clearly have not understood a single word of any of my posts in this thread.
where are you receiving the data that informs your opinions of "the republican party" ?

are you receiving your data from "self described republicans" ?

are you receiving your data from "official republican sources" ?

i agree with you that the republicans are dangerous

but they are NOT "more" dangerous than the democrats

biden is pushing more "tough on crime" bs (which is a traditionally republican talking-point)

and 100% of them voted for the patriot-act and 100% of them voted for the war-in-ukraine and iraq and afghanistan and syria

By refusing to prosecute Bush-era officials for their culpability in major human rights abuses such as the CIA program and Abu Ghraib, [**]

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions [**]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
So even on these grounds - this should be a clear cut reason that even if all the other stuff above is not true - if RCV is your main goal - then you should absolutely support democrats - they’re the ones that are primarily pushing it.
this is certainly good news

but not ALL democrats are in support of "leveling the playingfield"

Democratic Party leads nationwide purge of Green Party candidates from November ballots [**]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
solely because of the constant and repeated whataboutism and misinformation from the right,
you'd think if i was buying the republican bullshit

i'd be in love with republicans

and that is certainly not the case
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
 and who frequently pushes, and often pass laws and changes antithetical to the power of that oligarchies.
citation please
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
And worse - if anyone dares to suggest anything that actually harms the interests of that elite - wealth tax, corporate tax, more oversight, patent reform, breaking up too successful companies, empowering unions to bolster individuals economic power, reduce military spending. The right, and all their supporters - all suddenly bat for that elite - due to the collective dependence upon them. “We must do something about the elites - except anything - we can’t do anything against the elites - that would be radical socialism - and would harm the economy”
i wonder why clinton and obama didn't do any of these things
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
i agree with you that the republicans are dangerous

but they are NOT "more" dangerous than the democrats
Do you believe in democracy?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
i agree with you that the republicans are dangerous

but they are NOT "more" dangerous than the democrats
Do you believe in democracy?
Democratic Party leads nationwide purge of Green Party candidates from November ballots [**]
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
That’s not an answer.

If you want to argue that there’s an equivalence between the two parties then by all means go right ahead. In the absence of that case my question is still relevant and still unanswered.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe in democracy?
if by "democracy" you mean "tyranny of the 51%" then the answer would be "no"

if by "democracy" you mean "consensus government" then the answer would be "yes"

The Northwest Territories is one of only two jurisdictions in Canada with a consensus system of government instead of one based on party politics.

In our system, all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected as independents.

Shortly after the election, all Members meet as a Caucus to set priorities for that Assembly.

The Caucus remains active throughout their term as the forum where all Members meet as equals.

Members who are not in Cabinet are referred to as Regular Members. They become the “unofficial opposition.”

They are responsible, through questioning in the House and the work of standing committees, for holding the government accountable and responsive to the people of the Northwest Territories.

Compared to the party system, there is much more communication between Regular Members and Cabinet.

All legislation, major policies, and proposed budgets pass through the Regular Members’ standing committees before coming to the House.

This gives Members a chance to make changes and put their “fingerprints” on initiatives before they’re made public, unlike in other systems.

This influence comes at a price for Regular Members: they often get advance notice of announcements and issues before the public does, but can’t tell their constituents.

The 11 Regular Members also hold the balance of power, as only seven Cabinet Ministers are elected.

A Cabinet that ignores the direction favored by the majority soon runs into trouble.

Even so, consensus government does not mean that unanimous agreement is necessary for decisions to be made, motions passed, and legislation enacted. A simple majority carries the vote. [**]
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
While I’m sure there are many on the left who do that; the magnitude, and severity is not the same.

If you shared a Fox News article about a reported fact: an inflation report, economic indicators, or a leaked email - you’ll probably not get far less push back on the facts (based on the source) on the left as you would on the right.

You’d get a lot of push back on the left if you shared oann, newsmax or fox articles for which there is a clear bias or pro trump opinion about some element that is highly factually contested - and you would certainly get push back on any source that has a clear history of lying on multiple issues. Which is almost all of the cases I have seen when a Fox News link has been rejected.

So sure: A significant number of Trump supporters will reject everything any unflattering news article says - but this is not necessarily the same thing as most left wing individuals saying “I’m not watching your Tucker Carlson video on white replacement theory because I think he’s lying sack of sh*t” 
This is basically you’re entire double post. “Sure, you can point out things the left does but I will dismiss it because I sort of agree with it or at least understand where they come from, whereas I subjectively find what the right does to be disgusting and will talk about it in scary terms” 

THATS MY POINT! I subjectively believe that what the left does is worse. I roll my eyes at people who think that the election was stolen but I could never be in a coalition with people who think I’m evil because of the way I was born, want to give mentally ill kids puberty blockers/opposite sex hormones/surgeries, support censorship…we each have red lines about what we adamantly oppose and what we are willing to overlook, based on our values. Wouldn’t that be a more interesting conversation to have than finger pointing?

Your entire post has zero data, just anecdotes about things you’ve seen and the kind of “misinformation” that bothers you the most. Why you have those opinions would be a more interesting discussion. Frankly I have zero interest in defending the honor of the Republican Party or Republican voters, it’s purely a lesser of two evils decision for me and I absolutely do view it as an evil. So the “Your sides worse! No YOUR sides worse!” doesn’t do it for me

In other words, I’m too cool and above it all. For what it’s worth it’s not arguable that right wing media is worse than left wing media. You can literally just look at it, it’s obvious. But that’s what happens when almost every institution is ideologically captured and opposing opinions are ghettoized. That doesn’t mean there aren’t things the left is VERY wrong about. The things the left is wrong about are much more important due to their widespread institutional capture. As a few examples it’s difficult to find information on who is more empirically grounded, and I can dig up the sources if you want (but I’m having to post on my phone so it’s more of a challenge) polling data indicated that conservatives were overwhelmingly more correct than liberals on empirical questions like what is the risk of hospitalization and death following a Covid infection and how many unarmed black men are shot by police on an average year (liberals thought over 1000, conservatives almost universally thought less than 100, correct answer around 20) 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Almost the entire underpinning of Republicans politics for the last 30(?) years has been almost invariably based upon this fear. The Republican base is being attacked, your identity is under threat, specific people - terrorists - illegal immigrants - are coming to take your things. It’s pervasive through the fabric of conservatism.
Yeah have you ever noticed that poorer or more primitive societies tend to be more “right wing” behaviorally? Oh they couldn’t care less about whatever nonsense we are currently arguing about but in terms of behavior…lower openness, tight knit social structures, strong and inflexible mores etc. I think “right wing” is kind of the default state of unsocialized man. Or rather, a narrative has to be taught, man must be socialized, or he reverts back to the behavior of unsocialized man. This is why the Republican base is so open to fear based motivation. Unsocialized man spends much of his mental and physical resources on alert for threats and figuring out ways to survive. Of course the USA in the current year offers very little threat to a persons physical safety, but good luck telling that to your lizard brain. It’s only when man feels safe and contented that he can begin focusing on not just surviving in the world as it is, but shaping the world into what he wants it to be. 

That’s what I think the “rvturn to trvdition” people miss. Traditional societies weren’t traditional because it was a cool vibe, they were “traditional” because that was how you survived. The right wing is attracted to the past in a large part because people in the past had actual problems of survival they had to deal with, and navigating these challenges often resulted in useful (and aesthetic) cultural institutions. So many cultural institutions come from suffering or seeing others suffer, and creating institutions to preempt that suffering. Like marriage, tight knit social groups, fraternal organizations, a weapon/warrior culture etc. Of course, at least some of those institutions ARE still necessary (compare kids in two parent households to kids without that) but since the circumstances aren’t literally life or death it isn’t quite so obvious. 

This is why the right is so ineffective today. You can complain about “minority rule” but honestly that’s just so silly. Yes, some parliamentary tricks (like holding up Obamas last scotus nominee) went in their favor but the trajectory of the overall march of the culture is incredibly obvious. And when the right does win they usually get nothing out of it. There has to be a counter narrative but all narratives must be taught. I’ve constantly been frustrated throughout my life at pretty much having to come up with everything on my own because there isn’t really an effective counter narrative to what the left wants. The state of the right currently is basically a smorgasbord of people who don’t believe in the progressive narrative but also don’t know what they actually want being managed by cynical hucksters who just want to utilize that energy to cut taxes and otherwise give handouts to their donors. A healthy right wing is one that embraces change when necessary while safeguarding a social and cultural legacy from destruction by ideologues and resentful people who only want to destroy and not to build. We don’t have that right now but it’s what I hope emerges and what I’m trying to build in a tiny way with my own family and of course through poasting online
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
I’ll write more later if I can (but probably can’t) but the leftist worldview has two gigantic conflicts with reality that drive much of their psychosis

The first is the idea of the blank slate. To the leftist, men are fundamentally equal outside of a few trappings and any differences are due to societal or economic pressures. In reality every single individual has different levels of abilities on any given trait. Individuals being more or less random selections of genes from the groups they come from this translates to every group of people having different but overlapping distributions on any given trait. These genetic differences in trait distributions, not culture, explains why for example 100% of starting NFL cornerbacks in the last 30 years have been black but around 2/3rds of starting centers have been white. 

The second is the idea of a “true self.” Basically, much of leftist activism is rooted at the idea of trying to remove constraints upon the individual. While this is good when you’re talking about something like a feudal peasant being tied to the land due to birth this is bad when it’s extrapolated to the point that a six year old can “choose” their gender. The reality is that there isn’t really a “true self” that’s separate from other people. Fundamentally we are social animals and  a positive and healthy self conception emerges through interactions with others. You can only liberate people from social expectations so much before they start to wither away 

There has to be a counter narrative that takes into account these facts but doesn’t dispense of liberal values wholesale, or just says nothing at all other than “those guys are wrong” because these realities being in conflict with the ideas most people are brought up in is tearing society apart
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
if by "democracy" you mean "tyranny of the 51%" then the answer would be "no"

if by "democracy" you mean "consensus government" then the answer would be "yes"
Let’s try this again. Do you believe in the idea that the people should be able to choose who represents them within their government?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
I subjectively believe that what the left does is worse. I roll my eyes at people who think that the election was stolen but I could never be in a coalition with people who think I’m evil because of the way I was born, want to give mentally ill kids puberty blockers/opposite sex hormones/surgeries, support censorship…
The examples you gave have almost nothing to do with the left. As a hard leftist myself, I’ve never met anyone who thinks anyone is evel because the way they were born (are you saying because your white?), I’ve never actually seen a situation in real life of giving kids puberty blockers or whatever, and censorship is not a left wing thing. These are all right wing boogeymen concocted by Fox News and OANN.

Meanwhile the election was stolen claims are not some lunatic fringe thing. We have republican candidates running for high offices all over the country and winning republican primaries in some cases almost exclusively on this platform. If they win their races they will do everything they can to ensure elections are fixed for their side. That’s not hyperbolic and that’s not some left wing bogeyman. These two things do not compare.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
The examples you gave have almost nothing to do with the left. As a hard leftist myself, I’ve never met anyone who thinks anyone is evel because the way they were born (are you saying because your white?), I’ve never actually seen a situation in real life of giving kids puberty blockers or whatever, and censorship is not a left wing thing. These are all right wing boogeymen concocted by Fox News and OANN.
Leftists casually use the term “white male” or “white people” as an insult or a term of invective, so it would take quite a bit for me to put in with the side that does that. I’m sure you can understand. There is good evidence that this rhetoric is having some negative effects. To name just one example, since 2018 the number of white men admitted into medical school has declined by 20% while all other demographics have seen their numbers stay more or less the same or increase


You may not have experienced the trans mania but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Dramatic increases in confused youth identifying as trans has occurred all over the anglosphere in the last half decade or so, and the American leftist position is firmly that these children should be offered puberty blockers and other “gender affirming care” up to and including surgeries. Double mastectomies have been performed on girls as young as 13 years old: https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/12/u-s-doctors-performing-double-mastectomies-healthy-13-year-old-girls/#.W5k3OgwZx4g.twitter

Censorship is unfortunately much more of a left wing value than a right wing value in todays politics. For example, 65% of democrats believe that the government (!) should intervene to suppress “false” information compared to 28% of republicans. 


Meanwhile the election was stolen claims are not some lunatic fringe thing. We have republican candidates running for high offices all over the country and winning republican primaries in some cases almost exclusively on this platform. If they win their races they will do everything they can to ensure elections are fixed for their side. That’s not hyperbolic and that’s not some left wing bogeyman. These two things do not compare.
I wish that none of those people were winning primaries. Does it bother you at least a little bit that the Democratic Party has spent millions boosting “election deniers” because they think they’ll be easier to beat? 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Let’s try this again. Do you believe in the idea that the people should be able to choose who represents them within their government?
generally, yes

but there are a lot of different types of selection, and many of them are less than ideal
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
I wish that none of those people were winning primaries. Does it bother you at least a little bit that the Democratic Party has spent millions boosting “election deniers” because they think they’ll be easier to beat? 
bingo