Quote:
Originally Posted by activeStick
Very accurate assessment of a portion of the left.
|
Outside of rube, who is very much part of this toxic left movement, who has disagreed with anything that is said here. Every movement has its extremists, but as Pakman and Obama suggest, the toxic left is this very slim sliver of a part of the liberal ideal. They are very vocal, but they are still a very small population, and a population that holds very little power in the policy and strategic direction of the Democratic party. Conversely, the extreme part of the right IS large and IS driving policy and strategy for the Republican party. The Jordans, Greenes, Boberts, Biggs, Gozers, etc. are front and center to the policy formation and seats of power within the party. So there is a significant difference and why one is a lot more dangerous than the other. I will also add that while both are incredibly annoying and create mayhem wherever they go, I can be more tolerant to those who are trying to grant greater freedoms to all instead of restricting the freedoms of one group and making another more advantaged.
Working in higher ed exposed me to both extremes. The toxic left were compromised of loosly organized feminist and LGBT groups while the right were comprised of highly organized and well-funded groups like the Young Republicans and the LDS Student Association. All were extreme in their positions and all were a pain in the ass to deal with. But the things that made them different were their methods. The toxic left would demonstrate and disrupt. They were loud, obnoxious, and predictable as clockwork. The right was different. They stated their case, always in writing to some senate group, and then they would actively pursue legal means to have their will enforced or go after the faculty or college leadership and try to get them removed if their desired outcome was not met. They were assassins, waiting for an opportunity to ruin lives rather than improve them. Therein lies the difference between the two extremes.
Yes, the toxic left are obnoxious ###### nozzles, but their agenda is one of inclusion for minority groups, who they see as oppressed groups. They are fighting for equal rights, not the restriction of rights on others. Their tactics are truly annoying, but they are not trying to take things away from others. On the other side is right, which is all about taking things away and providing a chosen group with a state that only appeals to their perspective. Certain curriculum should not be taught, because it hurts their sensibilities. Certain clubs should not exist because it counter to their ideological or religious teachings. Certain groups should not have representation because they are different and their lifestyles are abhorrent. Never once did the toxic left come in and say the Young Republicans or LDS Students Association should not be allowed on campus, or that Friedman economic theory should not be taught because it harmed minorities and the poor. But both the Young Republicans and LDS Students Association tried to have multiple clubs/organizations turfed/defunded, and certain classes focused on similar content (La Raza, women's studies, queer studies, etc.) were actively tried to be removed from the calendar. One was more well behaved on the surface, but beneath the surface was way more toxic and dangerous than the other.
I hated dealing with both of them because they were both unreasonable. The left was loud and obnoxious but they were fighting so everyone had a voice. The right, just the opposite. They could be just as loud, but they fought to eliminate rights and access, and they did it dirty. They did so because they were politically connected and funded by the same groups that ruin Washington. Huge massive differences that get swept under the rug.