FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot

[Steve]

*rubs forehead*

And if you don't have the time to do that... then why are you arguing on the Internet in the first place? Go do something more productive with your time. Be like me, spending your spare moments writing tens of thousands of words of fanfic that will probably be read by a hundred people max. Or get into an MMO or something.

Woah, hold up there... You get a hundred people to read your fanfics? My last one got read by 40 people, and that's only if my dog glancing at it counts. And I had to put a chew treat on the pad for that.

Notice I said one hundred max. My readership for what I'm doing now is probably lower than that, I was just rounding up to account for the usual "lurks but does not remark, click like, or leave feedback" readership.

Calling someone a regressive leftist is nothing like calling someone a racist. Calling someone a racist is like calling someone a child molester. Calling someone a regressive is like calling a Crusader out for sacking Constantinopole. If you don't live up to your stated principles...

....and yet that does not detract from my point that it is being used as a means to shut down discussion, and that ultimately it accomplishes the same thing as the other attacks: absolutely nothing of constructive use. Which is why I would like people to please stop using it. They don't call you a white supremacist, you don't call them a regressive leftist or whatever other label you use to insist someone is an extremist.

[Admiral X]

....and yet that does not detract from my point that it is being used as a means to shut down discussion,

1) It has never shut down discussion (unlike say trying to ban the use of the term itself).
2) It is an accurate term which applies to a specific ideology that finds itself at odds with liberalism in spite of claiming to be a form of it.
3) It is not equivalent to calling someone a white supremacist, which is just a debate hand grenade, which truly is used to try to shut down discussion. And while I can readily explain why I might apply the term to someone based on their actual statements and/or actions, I doubt anyone flinging the term white supremacist can do the same beyond someone else not going along with their "social justice" -based ideology. I mean, back before the hack, there was someone who literally claimed that color-blindness was a form of racism.

This looks more like a case of a left-leaning admin having the term "regressive" stick in their craw because it's being applied to those on the left rather than the right.

As for the OP, classic case of a double standard. Also somewhat hilarious in view of the ongoing investigation into the claim that the Trump administration was helped through Russian collusion. It kind of reminds me of that anti-abortion politician who was recently revealed to have pressured his mistress into getting one.

[SuccubusYuri]

Well you are right about one thing, it is nothing like calling people white supremacists. People actually self-identify as white supremacists, therefore making the term actually mean something as a label. "Regressive left" can be replaced with "weiner weiner pumpkin eater" and often achieves the same result because no one actually has a working definition of what it actually means, and people are left scratching their heads trying to infer a practical meaning other than "hey someone just insulted a value system that I may vaguely identify with on wednesdays".

I mean I'm sure Alex Jones has some gripping political theory about the difference between "the left" and "the regressive left"...but most sane persons don't get their political philosophy from info wars' high chair reporting.

[Steve]

....and yet that does not detract from my point that it is being used as a means to shut down discussion,

1) It has never shut down discussion (unlike say trying to ban the use of the term itself).

And yet, just like the other inflammatory terms I asked people to stop using, it is used to declare "you are an extremist and nobody should listen to anything you say", which is why I asked people to stop using it.

2) It is an accurate term which applies to a specific ideology that finds itself at odds with liberalism in spite of claiming to be a form of it.

Alright.

3) It is not equivalent to calling someone a white supremacist, which is just a debate hand grenade, which truly is used to try to shut down discussion. And while I can readily explain why I might apply the term to someone based on their actual statements and/or actions, I doubt anyone flinging the term white supremacist can do the same beyond someone else not going along with their "social justice" -based ideology. I mean, back before the hack, there was someone who literally claimed that color-blindness was a form of racism.

And declaring that someone is just an extremist because they disagree with you on a point isn't similar to this?

This looks more like a case of a left-leaning admin having the term "regressive" stick in their craw because it's being applied to those on the left rather than the right.

Well, now I know how Chuck feels when it comes to people making assumptions about one's political persuasions.

All I'm trying to do is get people to stop calling each other names and live up, at least a bit, to what Chuck has asked the posters to be. TRR declaring someone a protector of white supremacists or a traitor is not conducive to that, but neither is calling him or anyone arguing for the Russian interference theory a regressive leftist. He can be wrong without being some free speech-hating lunatic who wants to suppress your civil rights.

[Antiboyscout]

OK. Why isn't there a second source for The Hill story that doesn't cite The Hill?

The Hill article cites primary FBI documents along with the account of a whistle-blower making the article itself a mix between a primary and secondary source.

also, news media has proven to be incredibly lazy nowadays.

[Antiboyscout]

Well you are right about one thing, it is nothing like calling people white supremacists. People actually self-identify as white supremacists, therefore making the term actually mean something as a label. "Regressive left" can be replaced with "weiner weiner pumpkin eater" and often achieves the same result because no one actually has a working definition of what it actually means, and people are left scratching their heads trying to infer a practical meaning other than "hey someone just insulted a value system that I may vaguely identify with on wednesdays".

I mean I'm sure Alex Jones has some gripping political theory about the difference between "the left" and "the regressive left"...but most sane persons don't get their political philosophy from info wars' high chair reporting.

Just because a group doesn't self-identify doesn't mean it is exempt from identification.

Abuse of a term doesn't remove meaning from a term. NAZI still has a definition despite all the abuse it has gotten.

In some small manner, the term is a kindness designed to separate Progressives and Regressives the same way Islam and Radical Islam are separated. They come from the same source, one is just the extreme version of the other.

What other term could be used to describe groups or activities such as:

Ex1)A BLM branch advocating for racially segregated facilities on college campuses.

Ex2)Feminist groups declaring Islam a Feminist religion and the Hijab a symbol of women's liberation.

[SuccubusYuri]

Just because a group doesn't self-identify doesn't mean it is exempt from identification.

Abuse of a term doesn't remove meaning from a term. NAZI still has a definition despite all the abuse it has gotten.

In some small manner, the term is a kindness designed to separate Progressives and Regressives the same way Islam and Radical Islam are separated. They come from the same source, one is just the extreme version of the other.

What other term could be used to describe groups or activities such as:

Ex1)A BLM branch advocating for racially segregated facilities on college campuses.

Ex2)Feminist groups declaring Islam a Feminist religion and the Hijab a symbol of women's liberation.

Well, the MEANING of a 'regressive leftist' in its conception is related specifically to liberal opinions about Muslims, and more generally, someone so dedicated to one set of inclusive principles they ignore another of THEIR constituencies, but do go on how we can now apply it to anything on the left that seems funny.

But with Islam/Radical Islam, and the Right/Alt-Right, there are people who identify within those groups, and create the dividing line between they and the other. There are Muslims who come out after every terror attack by RI and say "This isn't what we are about." THEY are deciding the border, and it has, comparatively, pretty dark and tangible lines that we can apply and note when someone crosses between.

It is like the shift over the past few decades that historians are starting to acknowledge the Byzantines as the Roman Empire. They always called themselves "Roma", but western europeans gave them a new designation because the "Real" Rome fell, and that would make Latin peoples look weak in the grand scope of things. And that's an example where everyone slighted by outside labeling is DEAD. And we're still saying "Wow, dick move guys, dick move."

But being used as a term to sling at someone who asked questions about Trump firing Comey is about as baseless and unhelpful as the term can get. It's just a replacement for "Cultural Marxism" and thrown on things the alt-right doesn't understand, like, or agree with.

For those who just joined us after last year's elections, "Cultural Marxism" was used by the alt-right a couple of years ago until someone realized it was a carbon copy of the Nazi theory "Cultural Bolshevism", which stated that feminism, racial justice, socialism, and Zionism were all branches of Marx's philosophy and thus a giant Jewish plot to ruin everything German. It conveniently tied modern Feminists, "SJWs", BLM, Jews, and college professors in a grand web of....trying to criticize society with the intent of changing it.

[Antiboyscout]

The difference between Progressive and Regressive is the difference between Lifting Someone Up and Tearing someone down.
There is the line.

[The Romulan Republic]

"regressive" as a label for Left-wing ideologues or activists is usually just used as a cheap slur to mock progressives. The implication, in my experience, tending to be something to the effect of "Your efforts to address bigotry and inequality are actually the REAL bigotry". In short, its a dog-whistle for "Us conservatives/white people/men/Christians are the REAL victims." Or "progressives are the REAL bigots", to come at the same point from a different direction. With a side of overgeneralization, taking the most extreme elements of the Left and treating them as equivalent to the whole.

Maybe its not always intended in that manner, but that's how I generally see it being used, in my experience.

"SJW" is pretty much used in the same manner.

They're ideological slurs, meant purely to mock, denigrate, and stigmatize the Left- to discredit us via association and negative branding rather than by refuting our positions or arguments.

[Karha of Honor]

Calling someone a regressive leftist is nothing like calling someone a racist. Calling someone a racist is like calling someone a child molester. Calling someone a regressive is like calling a Crusader out for sacking Constantinopole. If you don't live up to your stated principles...

....and yet that does not detract from my point that it is being used as a means to shut down discussion, and that ultimately it accomplishes the same thing as the other attacks: absolutely nothing of constructive use. Which is why I would like people to please stop using it. They don't call you a white supremacist, you don't call them a regressive leftist or whatever other label you use to insist someone is an extremist.[/quote]
Does it detract more than someone calling for no platforming? Someone saying that right win positions have 0 value? More than someone calling the American Revolution just a rich people heist? Calling someone an extremist like that is supposed to disqualify ideas?

Well you are right about one thing, it is nothing like calling people white supremacists. People actually self-identify as white supremacists, therefore making the term actually mean something as a label. "Regressive left" can be replaced with "weiner weiner pumpkin eater" and often achieves the same result because no one actually has a working definition of what it actually means, and people are left scratching their heads trying to infer a practical meaning other than "hey someone just insulted a value system that I may vaguely identify with on wednesdays".

I mean I'm sure Alex Jones has some gripping political theory about the difference between "the left" and "the regressive left"...but most sane persons don't get their political philosophy from info wars' high chair reporting.

Dave Rubin former TYT big gun good enough for you?

"regressive" as a label for Left-wing ideologues or activists is usually just used as a cheap slur to mock progressives. The implication, in my experience, tending to be something to the effect of "Your efforts to address bigotry and inequality are actually the REAL bigotry". In short, its a dog-whistle for "Us conservatives/white people/men/Christians are the REAL victims." Or "progressives are the REAL bigots", to come at the same point from a different direction. With a side of overgeneralization, taking the most extreme elements of the Left and treating them as equivalent to the whole.

Maybe its not always intended in that manner, but that's how I generally see it being used, in my experience.

"SJW" is pretty much used in the same manner.

They're ideological slurs, meant purely to mock, denigrate, and stigmatize the Left- to discredit us via association and negative branding rather than by refuting our positions or arguments.

Way easier to deal with than being called a racist.