Is the left prepared to beat a socially liberal right?

[Admiral X]

Really it's just a way of dividing people up and assigning stereotypes to these groups which are used as a basis for discrimination. Mostly this is aimed at the "straight white male" group, but I've seen plenty of instances of hate and bigotry being used against others who don't fit the stereotype of whatever group the moral crusaders have decided they belong to. For example, conservative black people being referred to as "coon," "Uncle Tom," and other epithets by those claiming to be "progressive." If they were truely progressive, not only would they not do shit like that, but they'd seek an egalitarian, merit-based system, where everyone is treated equally under the law no matter what arbitrary attributes they happened to have been born with.

[The Romulan Republic]

So the USA was a fascist country fighting fascists?

No. Because the criteria I listed would only partially apply to the United States.

I don't consider okay but it should be legal unless it's a government does it because of mission creep bs.

I find that conservatives and libertarians often focus too much on government oppression (especially by the Federal government), and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression as long as its done by private organizations (or state governments, etc.).

Now, its fair to say that maybe different kinds of oppression need to be handled in different ways, but surely, the problem should be that people are being oppressed, not that its the government that's doing it? The victim still suffers, weather its a government or a corporation or a church or whatever that is persecuting them.

Why all this focus on color and sexual identity? Plenty of people became corpses in history for thinking the wrong thing.

Because people are still being persecuted on a wide scale over colour and sexual identity (among other things).

That's not to say ideological persecution doesn't matter, but again, its not conservatives who are the most oppressed here (in the contemporary US, at least, that'd be Muslims, probably followed by atheists).

[The Romulan Republic]

Really it's just a way of dividing people up and assigning stereotypes to these groups which are used as a basis for discrimination.

Acknowledging bigotry exists and trying to address the problem makes you a bigot? Or am I somehow misunderstanding this point?

Mostly this is aimed at the "straight white male" group, but I've seen plenty of instances of hate and bigotry being used against others who don't fit the stereotype of whatever group the moral crusaders have decided they belong to.

Yeah, straight white men are definitely the most persecuted.

That's why a cabal of racist, misogynist, xenophobic white men currently controls two (likely soon to be all three) branches of the Federal government of the United States, as well as most state governments.

This, this is the Right wing persecution complex, one of the great lies of our time: That they are not only being persecuted, but persecuted far more than anyone else, because people are actually allowed to criticize them, and they do not control everything.

This post right here: this is "The uppity n***ers should know their place.", dressed up in modern language.

For example, conservative black people being referred to as "coon," "Uncle Tom," and other epithets by those claiming to be "progressive."

You know, I've never once seen a progressive use those terms to refer to a Conservative, and most progressives would probably consider those terms bigoted (which they are).

I smell Fake News. Or, at best, one or two rare examples being cherry-picked and then treated as the norm.

If they were truely progressive, not only would they not do shit like that, but they'd seek an egalitarian, merit-based system, where everyone is treated equally under the law no matter what arbitrary attributes they happened to have been born with.

Its hard to have a merit-based system when members of some groups generally start from a disadvantaged position.

This argument amounts to "Okay, now that I've knee-capped you, let's run a fair race."

But even leaving that aside, I've noticed that a lot of people on the Right start raging any time a minority or woman gets picked for a high-profile job (like, say, a starring role in a film), immediately assuming that they got the job because of political correctness and affirmative action. The obvious implication being that no woman or minority could possibly have earned the job based on their merits. I make no accusation against you specifically on this point, but I find that often those who demand a merit-based system will not accept the merits of anyone who does not fit their preconceptions.

While I would love to have a truly egalitarian system, this is made harder by the number of people who use egalitarianism as a smoke screen for bigotry. To the point that in progressive circles, one often cannot argue for egalitarianism without being seen as a bigot, not because progressives are generally opposed to everyone having a fair shot, but in part because that is how egalitarianism has been used by the disingenuous on the Right.

[Admiral X]

dividing people up and assigning stereotypes to these groups which are used as a basis for discrimination.

Acknowledging bigotry exists and trying to address the problem makes you a bigot? Or am I somehow misunderstanding this point?

It really is fun seeing how things get twisted around by ideologues such as yourself.

This post right here: this is "The uppity n***ers should know their place.", dressed up in modern language.

Yeah, tell that to Kanye West and Joy Villa.

You know, I've never once seen a progressive use those terms to refer to a Conservative, and most progressives would probably consider those terms bigoted (which they are).

I smell Fake News. Or, at best, one or two rare examples being cherry-picked and then treated as the norm.

Maybe ask Ben Carson, or again, tell that to Kanye West and Joy Villa.

Its hard to have a merit-based system when members of some groups generally start from a disadvantaged position.

Which is a bigoted position based on stereotypes. You seem to be living in a perpetual fantasy of the 1950s.

To the point that in progressive circles, one often cannot argue for egalitarianism without being seen as a bigot, not because progressives are generally opposed to everyone having a fair shot, but in part because that is how egalitarianism has been used by the disingenuous on the Right.

No, it actually is because the regressives do oppose egalitarianism, because it does not suit their narrative, which empowers them and gives them a sense of elitism. They lose their shit any time someone brings up meritocracy and/or King's quote about being judged by the content of one's character rather than the color of their skin. Of course they can't directly refute that quote thanks to King's status as a major figure of the civil rights movement, so they'll simply attack whoever brought up the quote and accuse them of misusing it, while doing everything they can to not live up to the idea being expressed there.

[Steve]

Then the question is... is censorship actually the best means to protect the rights of minorities that are even now facing abuse and mistreatment? If so, then how do you set that law up so that it doesn't get turned toward other purposes by other groups that might come into power? And how do you place guarantees to ensure that your measure only affects those it is meant to suppress (presumably the violent hate speech types) and won't be expanded to encompass other things like "you criticized a minority politician for a policy he's supporting, that's hate speech!"?

Censorship is a tricky tool to use. If it is to be applied, it must be applied carefully and with a delicate touch. Otherwise you could end up doing more damage to your own cause than to the cause you feel is so toxic to society that it must be gagged.

And I honestly do not think censorship is going to accomplish what you wish it to accomplish. Forcing the hateful assholes of the human population to shut up or face the power of the State is something I feel will backfire on us all, and to horrendous effect.

[Steve]

TRR: I am reminded of the occasion when conservative blogger Michelle Malkin was referred to as a "little brown fuck machine". Sadly, there are dumbass idiots on the progressive side who say shit like that because, well, Human beings are imperfect creatures and that means every group, no matter how noble its intent, will get adherents who act like idiots when something doesn't fit the narrative of life that enters their head.

Admiral-X: I've always loved that King quote, and I do long for the day when things like Affirmative Action aren't necessary. And yes, identity politics have a terrible potential to become toxic, because they play to our tendency to define ourselves in contrast to an "Other". But I also can see the argument of TRR and co. Namely, if the system is still engineered to be weighted against specific groups of people, declaring that "everyone has an equal chance" and denouncing measures intended to undo that weighing is not supporting an egalitarian outcome.

And that is the key issue: is our current system sufficiently purged, or at least proofed against, bigotry? Or do we need to maintain mechanisms to give people who have a disadvantage socially a chance to compete against those who do not?

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR: I am reminded of the occasion when conservative blogger Michelle Malkin was referred to as a "little brown fuck machine". Sadly, there are dumbass idiots on the progressive side who say shit like that because, well, Human beings are imperfect creatures and that means every group, no matter how noble its intent, will get adherents who act like idiots when something doesn't fit the narrative of life that enters their head.

Yeah, but they are not (contrary to what Admiral-X claims) representative of all progressives.

You want to know the most crucial difference between the Left and the Right?

On the Left, we have idiots, and assholes, and bigots, but they are largely relegated to whining on the internet, or relatively obscure activism.

On the Right, they put them in the White House.

And that is the key issue: is our current system sufficiently purged, or at least proofed against, bigotry? Or do we need to maintain mechanisms to give people who have a disadvantage socially a chance to compete against those who do not?

If our system were sufficiently guarded against such things, a Klan-endorsed pussy grabber wouldn't be President.

And no, that's not me saying he should not have been legally allowed to run. That's me saying that if their were not systemic prejudice in our society, he wouldn't have gotten more than five percent of the vote, and in fact would never have won the nomination.

[Steve]

Trump winning wasn't just a bunch of angry racists, though, since he won states that went for Obama. If anything his victory was fueled by desperate Rust Belters who felt like nobody in Washington cared about their economic plight.

Of course, the joke is on them, because Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about the economically decayed Rust Belt towns. But make people desperate enough and they'll go for whoever sounds like he'll help, even if they should fucking know better.

[Rasp]

Admiral-X: I've always loved that King quote, and I do long for the day when things like Affirmative Action aren't necessary. And yes, identity politics have a terrible potential to become toxic, because they play to our tendency to define ourselves in contrast to an "Other". But I also can see the argument of TRR and co. Namely, if the system is still engineered to be weighted against specific groups of people, declaring that "everyone has an equal chance" and denouncing measures intended to undo that weighing is not supporting an egalitarian outcome.

Yeah it basically impossible to look at the numbers and say everyone has an equal shot - those at the bottom are drowning in debt because they are being paid functionally a slave wage and cant get an affordable education - even if they do come from a family that can afford to help them in some way - which the vast majority of people - don't they come from families that live paycheck to paycheck because minimum wage work is all they can find since all the factory jobs got taken over by robots moved overseas. and one cant simply create new jobs in a system where the core ethos - labor-for-income is rendered useless by automation and technology which is only making the problem worse.

Trump winning wasn't just a bunch of angry racists, though, since he won states that went for Obama. If anything his victory was fueled by desperate Rust Belters who felt like nobody in Washington cared about their economic plight.

Of course, the joke is on them, because Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about the economically decayed Rust Belt towns. But make people desperate enough and they'll go for whoever sounds like he'll help, even if they should fucking know better.

This was probably the biggest factor - Clinton was the same old same old and she didn't give a shit about the rustbelt either and they knew it. she didn't even make a token effort to make it look like she cared. the rustbelt is an absolute disaster right now and its only going to get worse. Trump was at least against TPP and the one good thing I'll give him credit for is that he KILLED it at least for now.

Clinton told us that things were fine as they were and that we didn't need change.... yeah those suffering in debt weren't gonna take that and many just wanted to throw a brick through the window of the whitehouse no matter how racist it was.

I remember the video of a woman half in tears because she thought Bernie Sanders cared more about West Virginia than anyone else... and he's still from Vermont! the democrats are so out of touch its amazing and they are still less popular than trump in some polls. You needed someone who could speak to the unions could speak to the working class struggling to get by and say - things will get better.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump winning wasn't just a bunch of angry racists, though, since he won states that went for Obama. If anything his victory was fueled by desperate Rust Belters who felt like nobody in Washington cared about their economic plight.

The two things are not unrelated. Republicans took economic frustration, and pointed the blame at immigrants.'

And of course, the most immediate and direct cause of Trump's "victory" was the Electoral College overturning the popular vote, again.

I daresay the FBI meddling right before election day probably helped, too.

Of course, the joke is on them, because Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about the economically decayed Rust Belt towns. But make people desperate enough and they'll go for whoever sounds like he'll help, even if they should fucking know better.

Oh yes. Every one of his voters is expendable to Trump.