Truly bizarre NRA ad...

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Kindly elaborate on how you define "the Left", then explain why you consider it an existential threat, and to what.

Then tell me weather you feel that portraying the Left in that manner, in the current political climate, makes you complicit in encouraging violence against us, and if not, why.

Edit: I'll also note that you have not really refuted any of the points in my last post. Everything you posted is either assertions without much explanation or support, while your claim about salesmanship hardly seems relevant.

The left has the most of the press, tv and movies, the majority of education especially the prestige universities. Recently for profit corporations started to break norms to cape for them.

The facts are facts and they should be presented as such.

The left is an existential threat. at the moment but i have my doubts how relevant this one video is in the current new cycle.

With respect, Vinod, this statement is ridiculous - if only because it's hopelessly vague. The 'left' and the 'right' are not only omnipresent, they're very broad and ever-shifting.

Could you clarify what about the left has you so concerned?

Left identitarainism running wild before collapsing because of it's contradictions.

Lots of right-wing speakers get kicked out of colleges because they push discredited theories like Creationism or the Bell Curve. It's not the left's fault that the hard right has an anti-intellectual and anti-academic streak.


You introduce the dubious term of "Identititarianism" without even offering a definition for us to use, and in such an abstract way as to give us no clue what you mean in practical terms, or why such a thing running wild and then collapsing would pose an EXISTENTIAL threat.

Existential threats are things that can utterly destroy a society, a nation, or a human population. Existential Threat is the kind of thing that leads to Mad Max scenarios. You've got a lot of legwork to do to even explain why you think "the Left" poses such a threat, nevermind why we should treat such an assertion as credible.

[LittleRaven]

Left identitarainism running wild before collapsing because of it's contradictions.

To the extent that this is true, it's mostly a problem for leftist candidates, who lose at the ballot box when the left is perceived as going crazy. If you actually think it represents an existential threat to America itself...well, you don't think much of America.

[Admiral X]

Lots of right-wing speakers get kicked out of colleges because they push discredited theories like Creationism or the Bell Curve. It's not the left's fault that the hard right has an anti-intellectual and anti-academic streak.

It is the left's fault that it's so anti-free-speech, though.

You introduce the dubious term of "Identititarianism" without even offering a definition for us to use, and in such an abstract way as to give us no clue what you mean in practical terms, or why such a thing running wild and then collapsing would pose an EXISTENTIAL threat.

Since identity politics are based on stereotypes ascribed to groups based on attributes they have no control over (such as race, sex, and sexual orientation) it is by definition based on prejudice and is thus a threat to the meritocracy that has been built up within our society. It has taken a very long time to get to the point where people are treated equally under law, and now identity politics seeks to return us to a point where people are judged on how they look again, with some segregationist attitudes thrown in for fun. And considering how this has been picked up and pushed by popular media and by politicians within the Democratic Party, yeah, I'd say that's a threat. Not to mention the dehumanizing those who use identity-based politics use against their political opponents, and their proclivities toward censorship and toward ignoring civil rights in general, which makes them a threat to the concept of a free and open society. I'd honestly still view this in the same lines of the crap the Nazis and KKK say, if not for the mainstreaming and continued efforts to mainstream identity politics. Say what you will about the extreme right - their views will never be mainstream.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Lots of right-wing speakers get kicked out of colleges because they push discredited theories like Creationism or the Bell Curve. It's not the left's fault that the hard right has an anti-intellectual and anti-academic streak.

It is the left's fault that it's so anti-free-speech, though.

It's not anti free-speech to request that people who teach things be qualified and that material presented be peer-reviewed. Opposing crackpot theories and discredited ideas isn't anti-free speech, it's pro-academic.

You introduce the dubious term of "Identititarianism" without even offering a definition for us to use, and in such an abstract way as to give us no clue what you mean in practical terms, or why such a thing running wild and then collapsing would pose an EXISTENTIAL threat.

Since identity politics are based on stereotypes ascribed to groups based on attributes they have no control over (such as race, sex, and sexual orientation) it is by definition based on prejudice and is thus a threat to the meritocracy that has been built up within our society. It has taken a very long time to get to the point where people are treated equally under law,

...except they aren't. They totally aren't, and that's why we have a problem with the status quo. I could run off a laundry list of ways that oppressed people are STILL NOT treated equally under the law, but I think I'll call on an old literary classic to summarize my case.

How just it is that the poor as well as the rich are jailed for stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.

And considering how this has been picked up and pushed by popular media and by politicians within the Democratic Party, yeah, I'd say that's a threat.

But is it an EXISTENTIAL threat? I really don't think so, and we're not even clear that this is what Vinod meant by "existential threat.

Say what you will about the extreme right - their views will never be mainstream.

What could you possibly have that would prove or even support that statement?

Anyway, I'm still not sure if any of these comments are relevant to Vinod, because he still has yet to explain what he means beyond short, vague sentences. You don't know what you're defending and I don't know what I'm refuting.

[Admiral X]

It's not anti free-speech to request that people who teach things be qualified and that material presented be peer-reviewed. Opposing crackpot theories and discredited ideas isn't anti-free speech, it's pro-academic.

It is anti-free speech to demand people be deplatformed because you don't agree with what they have to say. And we all know this hasn't been creationist crackpots who have had this done to them.

...except they aren't. They totally aren't, and that's why we have a problem with the status quo. I could run off a laundry list of ways that oppressed people are STILL NOT treated equally under the law, but I think I'll call on an old literary classic to summarize my case.

Actually, yes, for the most part people are. I could make a compelling argument that men are discriminated against when it comes to things like prison sentencing, having to register for the draft, reproductive rights, divorce law, and child custody, but for the most part people are treated equally under the law, and in cases where they aren't, offenders can be and are prosecuted for it.

But is it an EXISTENTIAL threat? I really don't think so, and we're not even clear that this is what Vinod meant by "existential threat.

It might not be what Vinod meant by it, but I agree that identity politics are an existential threat to the US and its citizens.

What could you possibly have that would prove or even support that statement?

The repeated attempts to make it mainstream failing gloriously. Even when this country leaned much more heavily to the right, it still rejected fascism. Compare that to how so many in the media and the Democratic Party have been jumping on the bandwagon when it comes to identity politics.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Actually, yes, for the most part people are. I could make a compelling argument that men are discriminated against when it comes to things like prison sentencing, having to register for the draft, reproductive rights, divorce law, and child custody, but for the most part people are treated equally under the law, and in cases where they aren't, offenders can be and are prosecuted for it.

I...I have no words. That's it. I have run out of productive discourse, X. The gap between our worldviews, standards of evidence, and taken for granted assumptions is so deep and vast I couldn't clear it with a polevault stick and a running jump.