FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot

[SuccubusYuri]

Dave Rubin former TYT big gun good enough for you?

[Karha of Honor]

Dave Rubin former TYT big gun good enough for you?

That is gonna help you...

How exactly?

[Admiral X]

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.

Pretty immaterial, and not really the way the term is used in the context under discussion.

"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".

If that were the case then it wouldn't really bother anyone, would it?

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.

I wouldn't know much about Alex Jones beyond some of the clips I've seen of him. The distinction I make is between a liberal and a regressive (who try to claim they are "progressive").

[Admiral X]

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.

I have to refer to the ideology in some way. I guess some of them actually use the term "Cultural Marxist." I tend to favor that whole brevity thing, so I like to be concise in exactly what it is I'm discussing, and for me "regressive left" sums it up perfectly. And when I use the term, I am in no way claiming no one should listen to them. Quite the opposite, actually - I want people to see regressivism for what it is, and not allow that ideology to paint itself as something it isn't.

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

I do not "declare" someone something just because they disagree with me on something. You'll note I generally don't refer to individuals here directly, but rather refer to the ideology. I'm also pretty good about using examples and explaining why I think a viewpoint or action is regressive.

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

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but from what I can remember of your posting history here, you seem to be rather left-leaning.

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.

Can't say much about TRR as I don't know them well enough, but the regressive left has certainly shown that they are anti-free speech and do indeed wish to suppress civil rights that they don't agree with, or at least on the basis of arbitrary attributes people were born with (much like their counterparts on the regressive right). This is why I refer to them both as regressive and differentiate between the two depending on what side of the political compass they are on. "Moral crusader" is another term that applies to both given their tendency to police others based on their own sense of moral certitude. The fact it really seems to both those on the left whom the term applies to because they don't like to be compared to the other side of the coin is just an added bonus point.

[Admiral X]

"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".

It's not that it's the real bigotry, it's that it can also be bigotry. As in, the proclivity to treat people differently based on those arbitrary attributes they were born with, which isn't any more right if you change the attributes that are being targeted. The same could be said for double standards for things like religion.

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

The funny thing is that this term, along with ones like "cultural Marxism" and "fake news" were both used by the extremist left before catching on and being used in a mocking manner by others. The really funny thing is that I actually see the term "social warrior" being self-applied by the same people.

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.

And yet it doesn't carry the same stigma that being accused of racism or white supremacy has. Its main "problem" seems to be that people who have used the terms for years against their political opponents don't like having the term flipped back on them, to which I can only respond with "if the shoe fits." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You'll notice that at least when I use the term, that I don't only apply it to one side of the political compass.

[Steve]

I have to refer to the ideology in some way. I guess some of them actually use the term "Cultural Marxist." I tend to favor that whole brevity thing, so I like to be concise in exactly what it is I'm discussing, and for me "regressive left" sums it up perfectly. And when I use the term, I am in no way claiming no one should listen to them. Quite the opposite, actually - I want people to see regressivism for what it is, and not allow that ideology to paint itself as something it isn't.

I do not "declare" someone something just because they disagree with me on something. You'll note I generally don't refer to individuals here directly, but rather refer to the ideology. I'm also pretty good about using examples and explaining why I think a viewpoint or action is regressive.

You've always struck me as one of the better-spoken posters here, so I get that you're not doing these things. But you're not the sum of all posters, unfortunately.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but from what I can remember of your posting history here, you seem to be rather left-leaning.

I'm going to take this to PM, since we're already well off-topic.

Can't say much about TRR as I don't know them well enough, but the regressive left has certainly shown that they are anti-free speech and do indeed wish to suppress civil rights that they don't agree with, or at least on the basis of arbitrary attributes people were born with (much like their counterparts on the regressive right). This is why I refer to them both as regressive and differentiate between the two depending on what side of the political compass they are on. "Moral crusader" is another term that applies to both given their tendency to police others based on their own sense of moral certitude. The fact it really seems to both those on the left whom the term applies to because they don't like to be compared to the other side of the coin is just an added bonus point.

I don't disagree with that, but this entire bit started because someone declared he was a regressive leftist even though he has often stated his own support for democratic principles and free speech. IOW, someone threw a label on him. He threw labels as well, which is why I warned them both about it, because labeling opponents serves no constructive purpose in these discussions. It just riles people up, and people are already riled up enough. That's why I'm asking people to not use the labels.

[The Romulan Republic]

Way easier to deal with than being called a racist.

That is debatable, especially since, as I said, it is my experience that "regressive" and "SJW" are basically dog-whistles for "progressives/liberals/Democrats are the REAL racists". Its a less direct attack, perhaps, but arguably more dangerous for being insidious.

In any case, I do not, as a rule, accuse people of racism as a way of stigmatizing and shutting down any position to the Right* of my own, and if I have ever given an impression to the contrary, I apologize. Generally, if I accuse someone of something, I am either being sarcastic/employing hyperbole as a rhetorical device or, more likely, believe that it is a valid accusation to make against them.

But apparently its not permissible to do so here so, while I personally feel that that is a rule that hands the advantage in any debate to the bigot (since they can express their views without being directly called on it), I will endeavor to desist from doing so.

*I do regard the Republican Party as a racist organization, because its leadership and membership has overwhelmingly, for a period of decades, either engaged in bigotry, or encouraged or at least tolerated bigotry in its ranks for the sake of political advantage. However, "Republican" is not synonymous with "conservative".

I'm prepared to respect anyone of conservative ideology as long as they are prepared to respect the rules of the democratic system- essentially, a fair vote, freedom of belief and expression, due process and the rule of law, and equality under the law. My greatest grudge against the Republican Party, and many conservatives, is not an honest difference in philosophy on the best economic system or role of government- it is that so many of them seem no longer to respect the rules of the democratic system.

Opposition is essential to democracy, but when a major party (particularly if you only have two of them to begin with) routinely attempts to undermine the democratic system and the rule of law for political advantage, and makes it a point of ideology to do so (as I am sorry to say that some on the Left have increasingly done as well over the last couple of years), that is an untenable situation. They cease to be a functioning opposition, and become an existential threat, to all parties and factions.

It is also extremely short-sighted, because the rule of law and the democratic system essentially function as political pressure release systems- ways to resolve conflict, allow people to vent their frustrations, and facilitate changes of power without bodies in the street.

Undermine those mechanisms, and the pressure builds until a violent outburst becomes increasingly likely. Which is not, ultimately, in anyone's best interests.

Edit: And to clarify, no, I'm not saying that all Republicans are racist, so if you're a Republican, no need to report me. I am referring to the party leadership, organization, platforms, and policies. But if you are a Republican and do not have racist intent, then I respectfully suggest that you find a new party that better fits your ideals.

[Antiboyscout]

-Sessions says Justice to review Russian uranium deal:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... anium-deal

-Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... an-nuclear

[TGLS]

From the National Post
[quote"The National Post"]There are undeniably separate elements of a theoretical scandal:

A questionable decision — made in part by the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton — to approve the sale of a strategic asset to a once-and-future arch-rival.

Donations to the Clinton charity by someone who stood to profit from the sale.

A largely secret FBI investigation that would have provided more reason to think twice about the deal.

But there is still no evidence that Hillary Clinton even played a personal part in the sale’s approval, let alone exerted undue influence on the process — and did so because of donations to her husband’s foundation.[/quote]
Link


There seems to be bits and pieces, but nothing yet.

[Admiral X]

You've always struck me as one of the better-spoken posters here, so I get that you're not doing these things. But you're not the sum of all posters, unfortunately.

I don't disagree with that, but this entire bit started because someone declared he was a regressive leftist even though he has often stated his own support for democratic principles and free speech. IOW, someone threw a label on him. He threw labels as well, which is why I warned them both about it, because labeling opponents serves no constructive purpose in these discussions. It just riles people up, and people are already riled up enough. That's why I'm asking people to not use the labels.

I appreciate the compliment - it's not often I'm referred to in those terms.

As for what made me perk up in this instance was the suggestion that the label stop being used altogether. I don't really want to constantly have to refer to "the toxic element of the left which is every bit as bigoted as the people they complain about on the right while also trying to undermine the freedoms this nation was founded on" when "regressive left" has that pretty much covered. The other aspect of that is that any other term I substitute could then be referred to in the same way by those who don't like it, and would be undoubtedly be treated the same way. This has the effect of limiting discussion, which really only serves the goals of the regressive elements on both sides. Of course I'm anti-censorship in general for that reason. I guess my response to such accusations of being or supporting the white supremacist cause is to mock them and essentially ask them to prove it. I generally don't like to pull the race card, but being accused of being a white supremacist is basically the perfect time to do so.

I don't know, perhaps I should suggest another board for people if they want a good political discussion board they can direct all their internet hate at so they can leave it out of this one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯