Stern: "Trump actually hates his own supporters".

[Saudade]

I'm a Social Democrat. We should have redistribution of wealth through social programs without giving up the mostly free market or private property.
Richard Spencer is surprisingly liberal when it comes to economics, but he's the exception. Most of the Alt-Right is against "giving people gibs." And Spencer definitely isn't a Social Democrat, since he doesn't believe in Democracy.

We already have redistribution of wealth. Many people just don't want to do even more of it, however.

From what I've seen, it's not that they call someone Alt-Right if they're a Capitalist. They call someone Alt-Right if they're a Trumpcuck. Now I don't think that's accurate either, but it does make some sense. The Alt-Right is still a small minority on the Right, but they're the ones controlling the narrative of the Right now.

Plenty of people that have been labeled as alt right aren't Trump supporters. Jordan Peterson has received that label despite being economically center left and socially center right. Carl Benjamin has received that label despite being a Classical Liberal.

They even tried to call Dave Rubin that at one point, and he's another Classical Liberal.

There's clearly a lot of the Overton Window strategy going on lately, where anyone that goes against open immigration, compelled speech, or just common progressive narratives is being painted with a broad brush of "alt right" or "far right."

 

[Saudade]

I obviously don’t agree with that. Take a trip to The Ozarks or Appalachia. Travel to Northern Idaho or Bozeman Montana, there is plenty of white tribalism.

How much of the white population do those people compose? Most of the white population is urban or suburban. In very rural areas, yes, there is more tribalism, but the difference with minorities is that even the urban ones tend to be tribalistic.

Now, there is a logical explanation for this. If you are a minority in a given society, there is more reason to be protective of your group. Oftentimes, there are historical reasons for tribalism. However, the ramifications are that ingroup bias is actually going to be worse among minorities than the majority (in a Western society). This is most clearly shown by the race relations between minorities. There is a lot of tension between Latinos and blacks in parts of California, for example.

 

[Phantasmal]

How much of the white population do those people compose? Most of the white population is urban or suburban. In very rural areas, yes, there is more tribalism, but the difference with minorities is that even the urban ones tend to be tribalistic.

Now, there is a logical explanation for this. If you are a minority in a given society, there is more reason to be protective of your group. Oftentimes, there are historical reasons for tribalism. However, the ramifications are that ingroup bias is actually going to be worse among minorities than the majority (in a Western society). This is most clearly shown by the race relations between minorities. There is a lot of tension between Latinos and blacks in parts of California, for example.

Sorry, I don’t agree.

 

[StoneByStone]

We already have redistribution of wealth. Many people just don't want to do even more of it, however.

We have the bare minimum when it comes to redistribution of wealth. That's why we have people working full jobs and still living paycheck to paycheck.

Plenty of people that have been labeled as alt right aren't Trump supporters. Jordan Peterson has received that label despite being economically center left and socially center right. Carl Benjamin has received that label despite being a Classical Liberal.

They even tried to call Dave Rubin that at one point, and he's another Classical Liberal.

There's clearly a lot of the Overton Window strategy going on lately, where anyone that goes against open immigration, compelled speech, or just common progressive narratives is being painted with a broad brush of "alt right" or "far right."

Like I said, I think it's inaccurate to say someone is Alt-Right just because they're a Trumpcuck, but the Alt-Right is controlling the Right's narrative now.
Jordan Peterson is a great example. He got famous because he stupidly misinterpreted Canadian law and the Alt-Right jumped on that. They turned him into this martyr who stood up to the imaginary threat of the LGBT agenda. And Peterson, being an entertainer first, has played along with the Alt-Right in order to get more attention. It wasn't until after the Alt-Right made him an icon that he started playing up his Authoritarian Incel ideas, such as forced monogamy. He also now thinks that the EU is experiencing a Muslim immigration crisis. For someone who isn't Alt-Right, he is letting the Alt-Right tell him where to go, which is how they're controlling the narrative. Yes, he hasn't gone full Fascist, but he's definitely helping build the path.

Dave Rubin is currently bitching about how nobody likes his book, comparing negative reviews to Nazi book burnings. Because, sure, not liking a book is the same as burning a book, that's a thing.
While this could just be Rubin being a snowflake, it plays into the hands of the Alt-Right's narrative that we've become a totalitarian society with Conservatives being persecuted. Rubin's not Alt-Right, but once again, his narrative is being controlled by the Alt-Right.
Rubin also defended Trump over his Ukraine scandal. Which means at the most, he's a Fascist, and at the least, he's being used by Fascists.

 

[Quasar44]

Stern is a drug addict pervert and maybe even more ugly than Harvey Weinstein

 

[Quasar44]

He is ugly filthy Whig is as ugly as his revolting face

 

[Saudade]

We have the bare minimum when it comes to redistribution of wealth. That's why we have people working full jobs and still living paycheck to paycheck.

Not really. We had a smaller welfare state in the 60s and 70s, yet living expenses took up a smaller percentage of income then than they do now.

The real reasons for economic struggle now have to do with multiple things.

1) We compete with the developing world in industry.
2) We spent the last several decades artificially inflating the cost of housing due to restrictive zoning laws and speculative markets connected to real estate.
3) We allowed the insurance industry to drive up the cost of doing business in healthcare.

The first of these reasons was inevitable. The second can be fixed by loosening zoning laws and ending Wall Street's connections to real estate. The third can be resolved by removing insurance's power over healthcare. We need more doctors to be free to operate as cash-only or at least to make their own payment plans.

Like I said, I think it's inaccurate to say someone is Alt-Right just because they're a Trumpcuck, but the Alt-Right is controlling the Right's narrative now.
Jordan Peterson is a great example. He got famous because he stupidly misinterpreted Canadian law and the Alt-Right jumped on that. They turned him into this martyr who stood up to the imaginary threat of the LGBT agenda. And Peterson, being an entertainer first, has played along with the Alt-Right in order to get more attention. It wasn't until after the Alt-Right made him an icon that he started playing up his Authoritarian Incel ideas, such as forced monogamy. He also now thinks that the EU is experiencing a Muslim immigration crisis. For someone who isn't Alt-Right, he is letting the Alt-Right tell him where to go, which is how they're controlling the narrative. Yes, he hasn't gone full Fascist, but he's definitely helping build the path.

Your understanding of Peterson seems to be driven more by the narrative he was denigrated with than his actual views. C16 very much does allow for compelled speech. A lot of people are in denial about that, but we see the same denial regarding grooming gangs in Britain. Also, Peterson was referring to socially enforced monogamy -- as in society encouraging people to be monogamous, not government. The media intentionally mischaracterized his reference to this, just like they always do. Peterson's cardinal sin is that he had the gall to question both legislation that aims for approval rather than tolerance and the inaccurate narratives of modern feminism.

Because Peterson can rationally counter a lot of what has become the LGBT narrative and the feminist narrative, that makes him a major threat to the left. They can't allow that, nor can they typically counter his arguments, so they instead demean his character.

Dave Rubin is currently bitching about how nobody likes his book, comparing negative reviews to Nazi book burnings. Because, sure, not liking a book is the same as burning a book, that's a thing.
While this could just be Rubin being a snowflake, it plays into the hands of the Alt-Right's narrative that we've become a totalitarian society with Conservatives being persecuted. Rubin's not Alt-Right, but once again, his narrative is being controlled by the Alt-Right.
Rubin also defended Trump over his Ukraine scandal. Which means at the most, he's a Fascist, and at the least, he's being used by Fascists.

See, there you go with that. You can't counter an argument, so you just go with labels. You're definitely part of the problem, but I suppose you might just be a product of your environment. The sad thing though, is that I can tell you have the capability of being smarter than this. You seem to rationally discuss economic policies, for example.

I just wish you'd realize that you use "fascist" far too loosely. It's like how progressives overuse "racist", "sexist," "homophobe," "Islamophobe," and "transphobe."

 

[StoneByStone]

Not really. We had a smaller welfare state in the 60s and 70s, yet living expenses took up a smaller percentage of income then than they do now.

The real reasons for economic struggle now have to do with multiple things.

1) We compete with the developing world in industry.
2) We spent the last several decades artificially inflating the cost of housing due to restrictive zoning laws and speculative markets connected to real estate.
3) We allowed the insurance industry to drive up the cost of doing business in healthcare.

The first of these reasons was inevitable. The second can be fixed by loosening zoning laws and ending Wall Street's connections to real estate. The third can be resolved by removing insurance's power over healthcare. We need more doctors to be free to operate as cash-only or at least to make their own payment plans.

Yeah, the reason we still have the bare minimum when it comes to wealth redistribution is because costs of living have changed. What worked in the seventies isn't working not because we live in a different more interconnected world. We also, as I said, failed to keep the rich from getting too rich. That's why we have things like the insurance industry doing whatever it wants.
Theoretically, we could simply remove the insurance's power over healthcare, but we'd have to elect politicians who aren't in the pockets of the 1%. And that's why we need wealth redistribution.

Your understanding of Peterson seems to be driven more by the narrative he was denigrated with than his actual views. C16 very much does allow for compelled speech. A lot of people are in denial about that, but we see the same denial regarding grooming gangs in Britain. Also, Peterson was referring to socially enforced monogamy -- as in society encouraging people to be monogamous, not government. The media intentionally mischaracterized his reference to this, just like they always do. Peterson's cardinal sin is that he had the gall to question both legislation that aims for approval rather than tolerance and the inaccurate narratives of modern feminism.

If Canadians had compelled speech, then Peterson would be in jail by now. All C16 did was add gender identity to the list of things you can't discriminate against a person for. You can't fire a person for being trans now, just like earlier you couldn't fire a person for their race.
Now there is some grey area here. If you fire a person who happens to be black, and at some point you call them a nigger, you could be penalized for racial discrimination even if race wasn't the reason you fired the person. Likewise, if you misgender a trans person to be a dick, while also refusing to hire this one person because your company is at full staff, you could be penalized for gender discrimination. But that isn't even close to what Peterson was saying the law was about. You could still legally misgender people to be a dick in Canada.

Peterson purposely uses the term "enforced monogamy" because it's vague, but that's not even the point. This is a right-wing talking-point that Peterson uses to suck up to the Alt-Right and the Rad Trads. Monogamy is already the norm in the West. He's just saying this stuff because it's red meat for the Alt-Right.
There's also the fact that enforced monogamy goes against his whole Top Lobster hierarchy bullshit, but it doesn't matter. This is feels over real. It's ok to dominate the weak, but if you can't get laid, blame loose women.

See, there you go with that. You can't counter an argument, so you just go with labels. You're definitely part of the problem, but I suppose you might just be a product of your environment. The sad thing though, is that I can tell you have the capability of being smarter than this. You seem to rationally discuss economic policies, for example.

My dude, it's not just going with labels when we're talking about literal Fascism. While I think that Conservativism leads to Fascism, I would never call someone a Fascist just for thinking conservative policies are good. But when someone believes the president should be allowed to do anything he wants, including cheating in elections, that's literally Fascism. It's rejecting Democracy and the checks and balances that we have in a Republic.

 

[Saudade]

Yeah, the reason we still have the bare minimum when it comes to wealth redistribution is because costs of living have changed. What worked in the seventies isn't working not because we live in a different more interconnected world. We also, as I said, failed to keep the rich from getting too rich. That's why we have things like the insurance industry doing whatever it wants.
Theoretically, we could simply remove the insurance's power over healthcare, but we'd have to elect politicians who aren't in the pockets of the 1%. And that's why we need wealth redistribution.

Watch "The Big Short". It's a good summary of what led to the financial crash in 2008 and also what happened long before it between Wall Street and real estate. When banks started engaging in securitization of real estate, that was the beginning of a lot of the problem.

Further wealth redistribution won't accomplish much beyond the elite finding new ways to evade taxes and businesses finding new ways to pass costs onto consumers.

If Canadians had compelled speech, then Peterson would be in jail by now. All C16 did was add gender identity to the list of things you can't discriminate against a person for. You can't fire a person for being trans now, just like earlier you couldn't fire a person for their race.
Now there is some grey area here. If you fire a person who happens to be black, and at some point you call them a nigger, you could be penalized for racial discrimination even if race wasn't the reason you fired the person. Likewise, if you misgender a trans person to be a dick, while also refusing to hire this one person because your company is at full staff, you could be penalized for gender discrimination. But that isn't even close to what Peterson was saying the law was about. You could still legally misgender people to be a dick in Canada.

Peterson purposely uses the term "enforced monogamy" because it's vague, but that's not even the point. This is a right-wing talking-point that Peterson uses to suck up to the Alt-Right and the Rad Trads. Monogamy is already the norm in the West. He's just saying this stuff because it's red meat for the Alt-Right.
There's also the fact that enforced monogamy goes against his whole Top Lobster hierarchy bullshit, but it doesn't matter. This is feels over real. It's ok to dominate the weak, but if you can't get laid, blame loose women.

If you really think it's about dominating loose women, you haven't read much of his argument or really much of the argument being made by anyone else that prioritizes monogamy. Mona Charen very succinctly has pointed out that the sexual liberation movement generally only benefited one group -- horny men. Women didn't benefit much at all. Polyamory is generally only beneficial to men in the long run, since women usually attach more emotion to sex. There are exceptions to this, but oxytocin is a powerful chemical.

Peterson advocates for monogamy over polyamory because of the effects of hypergamy. Women will naturally go for men that are more successful than themselves, and in an environment where an education gap is developing between men and women, that means women will have a harder time finding a desirable mate. As a result, there's a growing group of disillusioned men, some of whom either commit suicide or take out their aggressions on women. Some of these men could be described as incels. However, the general feminist response to these men seems to be to completely dismiss them, which only adds to their anger and nihilism. It doesn't justify the violence of some incels, but it should be obvious that dismissal isn't helping things.

Peterson believes some of this issue could be resolved if men and women were less focused on promiscuity and more focused on committing to someone. That's where this concept of socially enforced monogamy comes in. Monogamy is the norm among successful and educated people, but it's less that way among the poor and less educated. In short, even many of the progressives among the elite live in a more traditional way than the lifestyles they often advocate for others.

All Peterson is doing is trying to get more of the downtrodden to embrace more traditional values with the hope that they can achieve similar success to the elites.

My dude, it's not just going with labels when we're talking about literal Fascism. While I think that Conservativism leads to Fascism, I would never call someone a Fascist just for thinking conservative policies are good. But when someone believes the president should be allowed to do anything he wants, including cheating in elections, that's literally Fascism. It's rejecting Democracy and the checks and balances that we have in a Republic.

I think you'll find that most Trump supporters don't think he should be allowed to do anything. They just don't believe that these investigations have proven any of the claims being made.

 

[Quasar44]

Stern is the lowest of the low of humanity

 

[StoneByStone]

Further wealth redistribution won't accomplish much beyond the elite finding new ways to evade taxes and businesses finding new ways to pass costs onto consumers.

Maybe, but it would be a whole lot harder for them to do so if they weren't so rich. Jack up their taxes and they won't have the money to use all these loopholes.

If you really think it's about dominating loose women, you haven't read much of his argument or really much of the argument being made by anyone else that prioritizes monogamy. Mona Charen very succinctly has pointed out that the sexual liberation movement generally only benefited one group -- horny men. Women didn't benefit much at all. Polyamory is generally only beneficial to men in the long run, since women usually attach more emotion to sex. There are exceptions to this, but oxytocin is a powerful chemical.

Yes, I agree with all that. Monogamy is better for society. However, as I said, monogamy is already the norm. Peterson is only talking about it because it's what the Alt-Right wants to hear. And the Alt-Right blames the non-existent downfall of monogamy on sluts and women's rights. That's what Peterson is really talking about when he talks about enforced monogamy and such.

Spend enough time in the Alt-right Youtube hole, as I have, and you start to notice the talking-points and the dog whistles. It's like when Trump said the Squad should "go back" to their countries. Every adult in the room knew he was saying that for his racist supporters.

I think you'll find that most Trump supporters don't think he should be allowed to do anything. They just don't believe that these investigations have proven any of the claims being made.

They're obviously lying. If Obama did what Trump did with Ukraine, they'd be calling for his head. The truth is that Trumpcucks don't care what Trump does as long as he remains in power.

 

[Saudade]

Maybe, but it would be a whole lot harder for them to do so if they weren't so rich. Jack up their taxes and they won't have the money to use all these loopholes.

That's not how it worked in the 50s, and it's not how it works today either. Even the tax high countries of Europe just use the Netherlands as their tax haven. The bottom end of their upper class might pay more in taxes than ours, but their elite still funnel their cash into the Netherlands.

So, when you consider that even the most progressive nations engage in a shell game with taxation, it should be clear that any schemes involving more taxes on the elite will not function as intended.

Yes, I agree with all that. Monogamy is better for society. However, as I said, monogamy is already the norm. Peterson is only talking about it because it's what the Alt-Right wants to hear. And the Alt-Right blames the non-existent downfall of monogamy on sluts and women's rights. That's what Peterson is really talking about when he talks about enforced monogamy and such.

Spend enough time in the Alt-right Youtube hole, as I have, and you start to notice the talking-points and the dog whistles. It's like when Trump said the Squad should "go back" to their countries. Every adult in the room knew he was saying that for his racist supporters.

It sounds like you've spent too much time in said forums or with said videos to separate the alt right from the various other people that listen to Peterson. His base is not the alt right. He has a lot of female fans as well, contrary to what the media would like people to believe. Strangely, he even has a lot of people on the left that like him, even if they disagree with his economic views.

They're obviously lying. If Obama did what Trump did with Ukraine, they'd be calling for his head. The truth is that Trumpcucks don't care what Trump does as long as he remains in power.

Some people certainly fit that. By the same token, there are numerous Democrats that made exceptions for Obama every chance they could, like with his poor handling of Crimea and Syria. So, neither side has a monopoly on partisan sheep.

 

[StoneByStone]

That's not how it worked in the 50s, and it's not how it works today either. Even the tax high countries of Europe just use the Netherlands as their tax haven. The bottom end of their upper class might pay more in taxes than ours, but their elite still funnel their cash into the Netherlands.

So, when you consider that even the most progressive nations engage in a shell game with taxation, it should be clear than any schemes involving more taxes on the elite will not function as intended.

The point is that it happens less in Europe. And the Nordic countries do have much higher living standards than America. So yeah, their systems aren't perfect, but they do work better than what we have.

It sounds like you've spent too much time in said forums or with said videos to separate the alt right from the various other people that listen to Peterson. His base is not the alt right. He has a lot of female fans as well, contrary to what the media would like people to believe. Strangely, he even has a lot of people on the left that like him, even if they disagree with his economic views.

That's why I said the Alt-Right is a minority on the Right, but they're controlling the narrative. Most of Peterson's fans aren't Alt-Right, but the Alt-Right is shaping him and his message. This is how they're shifting the Overton Window towards Fascism. Same goes with Trump. Most Trumpcucks aren't Alt-Right, but they're being led by the Alt-Right.

Some people certainly fit that. By the same token, there are numerous Democrats that made exceptions for Obama every chance they could, like with his poor handling of Crimea and Syria. So, neither side has a monopoly on partisan sheep.

I guarantee that if Obama used the office of presidency to extort a foreign government in order to cheat in an election, most Democrats would have voted to impeach him too.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have created a situation where the Democrats must break the rules in order to win elections. If they don't, then they're handicapped, since Republicans have committed to cheating back when Obama was still president.
So now I do expect to see Democrats embrace Fascism at some point, unless Biden ends up winning. The chances of that are extremely slim, so enjoy the downfall.

 

[Saudade]

That's why I said the Alt-Right is a minority on the Right, but they're controlling the narrative. Most of Peterson's fans aren't Alt-Right, but the Alt-Right is shaping him and his message. This is how they're shifting the Overton Window towards Fascism. Same goes with Trump. Most Trumpcucks aren't Alt-Right, but they're being led by the Alt-Right.

Or maybe... the actual shifting going is that the far left has been doing its best through the media to characterize certain views as alt right despite them being popular and mainstream before the rise of the alt right.

If Bill Clinton ran for office today on the immigration policy he advocated in 1996, he would be labeled as alt right today. I remember when the average Democrat didn't advocate amnesty for illegals. Now, if you're against it, you apparently are a bigot and a fascist.

I remember when the average person would just look at you funny if you said someone with a penis that identifies as female should be referred to as a woman. Now, refusal to do so is also bigoted and alt right.

So, when things change this much toward the left, it leaves a lot of people who may have even been considered liberal in the past as being now considered "deplorable." That's the real reason for the rise of Trump. Many average people no longer recognize what this society has become in terms of norms.

I guarantee that if Obama used the office of presidency to extort a foreign government in order to cheat in an election, most Democrats would have voted to impeach him too.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have created a situation where the Democrats must break the rules in order to win elections. If they don't, then they're handicapped, since Republicans have committed to cheating back when Obama was still president.
So now I do expect to see Democrats embrace Fascism at some point, unless Biden ends up winning. The chances of that are extremely slim, so enjoy the downfall.

We already saw how few Democrats voted to impeach Clinton when he perjured himself. Impeachment is just a hollow partisan exercise at this point. It was pointless when the GOP did it to Clinton, and it's pointless now against Trump.

 

[StoneByStone]

Or maybe... the actual shifting going is that the far left has been doing its best through the media to characterize certain views as alt right despite them being popular and mainstream before the rise of the alt right.

If Bill Clinton ran for office today on the immigration policy he advocated in 1996, he would be labeled as alt right today. I remember when the average Democrat didn't advocate amnesty for illegals. Now, if you're against it, you apparently are a bigot and a fascist.

I remember when the average person would just look at you funny if you said someone with a penis that identifies as female should be referred to as a woman. Now, refusal to do so is also bigoted and alt right.

So, when things change this much toward the left, it leaves a lot of people who may have even been considered liberal in the past as being now considered "deplorable." That's the real reason for the rise of Trump. Many average people no longer recognize what this society has become in terms of norms.

The history of America is the history of people being scared of change. From Catholic immigration to women voting, we've always panicked over shifts in culture. So sure, I agree that the continual shift towards the Left is leaving some Liberals feeling like the Left has left them behind. And the increasing non-white population is a major reason for the rise of Trump.
What I'm saying is that the Alt-Right is exploiting this fear of change. They're using the fear of trans people to make people think their children are at risk during drag queen story hour. They're using the fear of powerful women to make people think males are oppressed by Feminism. They're using the fear of Muslims and Atheists to make people think Christians are under attack. I'm not saying the Alt-Right invented these fears all on their own. A lot of these fears are recycled from earlier movements, such as Cultural Marxism being based on the Nazi idea of Cultural Bolshevism. But the Alt-Right is why Cultural Marxism has become mainstream on the Right.
So while this fear that people have is natural, the specific narrative the Right now has is a result of the Alt-Right seizing on this fear and using it to bring them to Trumpian Fascism.

We already saw how few Democrats voted to impeach Clinton when he perjured himself. Impeachment is just a hollow partisan exercise at this point. It was pointless when the GOP did it to Clinton, and it's pointless now against Trump.

Clinton 100% should have been removed for lying under oath. But seriously, what did he do? He lied about cheating on his wife. Who cares?
Trump literally extorted a foreign government to try cheating in an election. This is not even close to being the same. The Democrats were wrong for sticking up for Clinton, but the Republicans have gone full Fascism to stick up for Trump.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

 

[Saudade]

The history of America is the history of people being scared of change. From Catholic immigration to women voting, we've always panicked over shifts in culture. So sure, I agree that the continual shift towards the Left is leaving some Liberals feeling like the Left has left them behind. And the increasing non-white population is a major reason for the rise of Trump.
What I'm saying is that the Alt-Right is exploiting this fear of change. They're using the fear of trans people to make people think their children are at risk during drag queen story hour. They're using the fear of powerful women to make people think males are oppressed by Feminism. They're using the fear of Muslims and Atheists to make people think Christians are under attack. I'm not saying the Alt-Right invented these fears all on their own. A lot of these fears are recycled from earlier movements, such as Cultural Marxism being based on the Nazi idea of Cultural Bolshevism. But the Alt-Right is why Cultural Marxism has become mainstream on the Right.
So while this fear that people have is natural, the specific narrative the Right now has is a result of the Alt-Right seizing on this fear and using it to bring them to Trumpian Fascism.

If that's your argument, then why stop at the current norms? The actions of Foucault and his friends in supporting NAMBLA in the 70s made it clear what the next step is. Why not normalize necrophilia and zoophilia? Why not end all prisons? Why not end all immigration controls?

At some point, resistance to "tolerance" or change of all these kinds will become "bigoted." So if it really is just a matter of people being irrationally fearful of change, then why not push for faster changes?

I don't think it's really about any coherent moral framework being supported by the left. It's really about political opportunism. The left sees a group that is disadvantaged for one reason or another and automatically assumes the reason is unjustified. They also see the utility in taking up their cause in order to get their support. The only consistent principle the left seems to have is a complete willingness to move the goalposts to whatever becomes convenient for their identity politics.

So, in the meantime, we arbitrarily decide who is bigoted and who isn't by whatever place the Overton Window happens to be sitting at.

Clinton 100% should have been removed for lying under oath. But seriously, what did he do? He lied about cheating on his wife. Who cares?
Trump literally extorted a foreign government to try cheating in an election. This is not even close to being the same. The Democrats were wrong for sticking up for Clinton, but the Republicans have gone full Fascism to stick up for Trump.

Again, none of that has been proven.

 

[StoneByStone]

If that's your argument, then why stop at the current norms? The actions of Foucault and his friends in supporting NAMBLA in the 70s made it clear what the next step is. Why not normalize necrophilia and zoophilia? Why not end all prisons? Why not end all immigration controls?.

Because all of those things would be harmful. LGBT rights aren't harming anyone.
Actually, necrophilia would probably be ok if the dead person gave consent while they were still alive. Maybe have a program where people donate their bodies to necrophiles or something. But there's no way child molestation is ever ok.

At some point, resistance to "tolerance" or change of all these kinds will become "bigoted." So if it really is just a matter of people being irrationally fearful of change, then why not push for faster changes?

We should, as long as the changes are positive. I think we should also have state-enforced veganism, but holy shit will that cause a lot of butthurt when it happens.

I don't think it's really about any coherent moral framework being supported by the left. It's really about political opportunism. The left sees a group that is disadvantaged for one reason or another and automatically assumes the reason is unjustified. They also see the utility in taking up their cause in order to get their support. The only consistent principle the left seems to have is a complete willingness to move the goalposts to whatever becomes convenient for their identity politics.

So, in the meantime, we arbitrarily decide who is bigoted and who isn't by whatever place the Overton Window happens to be sitting at.

I'm sure there are some opportunists who don't care about any of these groups and are just supporting trans rights because it's in, but that's besides the point. The point is that trans people deserve rights. It would be nice if everyone was altruistic, but I'll work with amoral opportunists to make the country better. I'm not one of these purity-spiraling Leftists who refuses to support someone who wants to help the LGBT crowd because said person doesn't pass the purity test.
But no, I don't think it's arbitrary or that there is no moral framework. If a group of people is oppressed, and ending their oppression hurts nobody, then we should end their oppression.

Again, none of that has been proven.

Yes it has. Nobody who defends Trump on this issue honestly believes it hasn't been proven. That's why during the impeachment process, Trumpcucks had nothing but #whataboutism, moving goalposts, and outright lying. I posted proof that the White House refused to release the full transcript of the call and the only thing Trumpcucks could do is deny it.

 

[Saudade]

Because all of those things would be harmful. LGBT rights aren't harming anyone.
Actually, necrophilia would probably be ok if the dead person gave consent while they were still alive. Maybe have a program where people donate their bodies to necrophiles or something. But there's no way child molestation is ever ok.

When considering how the state is being used to force religious people to go against their beliefs over supposed LGBT issues, yeah, I'd say that definitely causes harm.

When the norm is to encourage parents to use hormone blockers on children that are likely just going through a phase rather than actually exhibiting signs of transgender identity, that's also harm. And don't even start with the "there are no signs it causes harm" argument. If you postpone puberty in a given person, that has a lot of ramifications for someone, not the least of which is the problem of the person experiencing puberty much later than they should be -- which leads to social issues.

We should, as long as the changes are positive. I think we should also have state-enforced veganism, but holy shit will that cause a lot of butthurt when it happens.

Well, at least you're honest in your authoritarian stances. It is consistent with the authoritarianism you've shown on the gun issue, although it does make your complaint about fascism in others rather humorous.

I'm sure there are some opportunists who don't care about any of these groups and are just supporting trans rights because it's in, but that's besides the point. The point is that trans people deserve rights. It would be nice if everyone was altruistic, but I'll work with amoral opportunists to make the country better. I'm not one of these purity-spiraling Leftists who refuses to support someone who wants to help the LGBT crowd because said person doesn't pass the purity test.
But no, I don't think it's arbitrary or that there is no moral framework. If a group of people is oppressed, and ending their oppression hurts nobody, then we should end their oppression.

Well there is a lot of harm in many of the positions currently being pushed by the left. Many of them are the ones I mentioned in the previous post.

Yes it has. Nobody who defends Trump on this issue honestly believes it hasn't been proven. That's why during the impeachment process, Trumpcucks had nothing but #whataboutism, moving goalposts, and outright lying. I posted proof that the White House refused to release the full transcript of the call and the only thing Trumpcucks could do is deny it.

Refusing to release something is not proof of anything.

 

[StoneByStone]

When considering how the state is being used to force religious people to go against their beliefs over supposed LGBT issues, yeah, I'd say that definitely causes harm.

When the norm is to encourage parents to use hormone blockers on children that are likely just going through a phase rather than actually exhibiting signs of transgender identity, that's also harm. And don't even start with the "there are no signs it causes harm" argument. If you postpone puberty in a given person, that has a lot of ramifications for someone, not the least of which is the problem of the person experiencing puberty much later than they should be -- which leads to social issues.

The state has always forced people to go against their religion when their religion infringes on someone else's rights. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all say gay people should be killed. Well, too bad. In America, we will stop you from practicing this aspect of your religion, because it harms other people. If they don't like it, they should try praying.

I don't really think kids should be taking hormone either, even though there really is no evidence of long-term damage.
But I'm talking about trans rights for adults. That really can't be compared to rights for child molesters. This is why the Left has rejected MAP rights, but accepts LGBT rights.

Well, at least you're honest in your authoritarian stances. It is consistent with the authoritarianism you've shown on the gun issue, although it does make your complaint about fascism in others rather humorous.

Is it authoritarianism to say it should be illegal to kill people?

Well there is a lot of harm in many of the positions currently being pushed by the left. Many of them are the ones I mentioned in the previous post.

The only ones I agree with are hormone blockers being used on kids and mass immigration.
Other than that, what harmful things are the Left pushing for? Calling someone bigoted when they actually are being bigoted? Stopping someone from practicing their religion when their religion is a violent threat to society?

Refusing to release something is not proof of anything.

Sure, but it's evidence that they have something to hide. And the fact that Trumpcucks are lying about this shows that they don't really believe the arguments they're making. They know that the White House hasn't released the transcript, they're just in denial.