The New American Politics thread

[PsYcNeT]

Yeah I'm not seeing this super liberal CP that's being bandied about. Off the top of my head, I would be hard pressed to name more than a dozen "liberal" minded posters, but could easily name 30 on the other end.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

final post on this...

Works for me too.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Why? Rights are irrelevant here. Trump's argument against bringing Muslims into US roots in the fact that they have no rights in the US until they get there. The cause and effect he uses against bringing them (because some of them could be terrorists that kill people) are very analogous to "no guns" (some of them can be used to kill people). I just wanted to demonstrate the extremism of both arguments.

Human rights.

I understand your thought experiment, but this is what both sides do that drives everyone insane. They use bad examples and deliberately provocative rhetoric to score points. But there's no scoreboard. There are only problems that need to be solved.

And Donald Trump doesn't have an argument. He appeals to the easily-tricked, fearful white person. There's no fact-based argument to be made for banning all Muslims from entering the United States in response to San Bernadino.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In the social landscapes I do travel - forums like this, the CBC, the Globe and Mail, the local music scene, forums dedicated to my hobbies of gaming and speculative fiction - I'm far more likely to come across left-wing zeal and dogma than right-wing. And the people who parrot the left-wing talking points seem even less self-reflective than their counterparts on the right. Maybe it's because they're younger, and because the mainstream media has adopted many of the shibboleths of the left, but many on the new left seem to have never had their beliefs challenged, or had to defend them with reason and empiricism. And the prospect of a whole generation that holds very strong opinions that are unchallenged and unexamined is troubling. So I don't hesitate to challenge and poke and question them, even though it often brings down a pack of righteous puritans on my head.

To be fair, I think both you and CHL don't acknowledge your own biases when dealing with these topics. You both appear to rest your beliefs in the supremacy of liberal values and don't acknowledge the possibility that perhaps the "new left" are consciously rejecting some of these values or replacing them with what they believe are more considerate, compassionate, and cooperative alternatives.

That's not to say I necessarily agree with the tactics or ideologies of the so-called "new left," just that evaluating them under the liberal framework is inherently biased, and often misses the point of the debate.

I do agree that evidence-based decision making is usually the best approach, and that the anti-science nuts on both sides create their own issues. However, when it comes to values, objective parameters are a lot more difficult to come by. For instance, weighing rights-based doctrine vs. responsibilities-based doctrine.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yeah I'm not seeing this super liberal CP that's being bandied about. Off the top of my head, I would be hard pressed to name more than a dozen "liberal" minded posters, but could easily name 30 on the other end.

Yeah, I was just going to say that as well. Most of the left-leaning posters on here are only left-leaning on social issues. I don't see too many economic socialists, anarchists, etc. here.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This. 1000 times this!

In this whole Trump's kerfuffle, the outrage is pouring from both sides of the political spectrum and deservedly so, it is an outrageous comment. But purely for the sake of an analytical argument exercise, substitute the word "Muslims" with the word "guns" and you have the "no more guns" argument right there and then. (BTW, I do not have a definitive stance on the gun issue - I don't own one, don't intend to own one and can easily see pro's and con's of either outcome). Just use the rationale most left-wing radicals apply in favour of the total gun prohibition and you get the exact reflection of Trumps' logic and rationale for restrictions against Muslims.

Goes to support my deep and sincere belief that the further people get to either end of the political spectre, the more stupid, unreasonable, extreme and dangerous they become.

I think a better thought experiment wrt this "Ban all Muslims" discussion is to consider the impact and fallout of a "Ban all Americans" movement in Europe using the argument America is statistically the most violent nation in the Western world. If all Muslims are dangerous, potential terrorists, then surely all Americans are dangerous potential mass shooters.

It's stupid in the same way banning all Muslims is.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Idealism is fine, and perfectly normal in the young. Live your life by ideals, if it makes you happy. The problem is when we try to make other people subscribe to our ideals. I don't want social justice warriors parsing every word I speak for wrong-thought any more than I want religious fundamentalists doing the same. If sharing this world with people who hold different beliefs from you (and I don't mean you, MattyC) is so distressing, then you're going to find it tough to get on in life.

Totally, but this is not unique to the "new left" or whatever people are calling (I'm not sure what falls into this category). I think it kind of boils down to intolerance vs intolerance of intolerance. The right tends to go about the bolded by exclusion or restriction of the people that disagree with them, or by trying to hold onto discriminatory practices under the guise of traditionalism, and much of those disagreements are based in things that fall under the "intolerence" category, as they are largely things that can't be changed (homosexuality, issues of race and gender, etc..). When you combine that with people that literally won't change what they think, no matter what evidence they are presented with (climate change the big one), yes it's very distressing. And I concede that those people exist on the left, and they are just as dumb.

The left rage stems from seeing stuff like what Trump is saying, and being astonished that there is a significant portion of that population that agrees with him. I can't even comprehend how that's possible. And then listening to the Republicans, who are supposedly less crazy, and have them be Carson, and Rubio and Bush, all of whom have said things that are just straight up, flat out wrong, and no one seems to say anything about it. It's entertaining until you think that one of these clowns could have their fingers on the button of an arsenal of nukes. The right is mostly afraid of the government taking their money and giving it to poor people. The left is mostly afraid that these people are actually going to cause/perpetuate (usually in exchange for the invisible force of money) real, physical problems (like our environment going to crap, or full blown wars).

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I was just going to say that as well. Most of the left-leaning posters on here are only left-leaning on social issues. I don't see too many economic socialists, anarchists, etc. here.

It's tough to get behind left-leaning social issues without going into socialist economics.

[Looch City]

If Trump was serious about reducing violence, he would be banning African Americans instead.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

If Trump was serious about reducing violence, he would be banning African Americans instead.

Oh I have little doubt he'll go Cliven Bundy and Bachmann and start pontificating on whether black families were better off under slavery.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Why? Rights are irrelevant here. Trump's argument against bringing Muslims into US roots in the fact that they have no rights in the US until they get there. The cause and effect he uses against bringing them (because some of them could be terrorists that kill people) are very analogous to "no guns" (some of them can be used to kill people). I just wanted to demonstrate the extremism of both arguments.

I believe I understand you - you are saying that the structure of the argument is similar. However, in my view, the stakes are completely different, so when you put the two discussions in context there is a massive chasm in what conclusions are drawn.

That is, the argument on guns you've identified is, some guns are used to kill people, so none should be allowed. However, one could at least argue that all guns are inherently dangerous, so the analogy fails here. Further, what's at stake (basic human rights vs missing out on the ability to shoot a gun recreationally or delude oneself into thinking one is providing some sort of check on authoritarianism, lolol), there's no comparison. So that's why I think your analogy fundamentally fails.

That being said, I'm not sure it's a crucial analogy to make or that you can't make what I take to be your underlying point about "all or nothing" viewpoints among both liberals and conservatives without it.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Just note that my language specifically refers to the stupidity of the argument not the person. Maybe this is the most poignant piece of insight, that the positions, beliefs, arguments are so personal in nature for, then the rebuttals, attacks, counter arguments to then are also fundamentally personal. This would go a long way to explaining the sense of victimhood.

Yes, but you've provided absolutely no basis for it. You've just come in and said, "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard" and left it at that. How can there be any discussion about that, or frankly anything else, between you after you've done that? You've killed all discourse before it can start and without making any substantive statement at all. If that's what "calling someone out" is, it seems to me to be jackassery to no clear purpose.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

To be fair, I think both you and CHL don't acknowledge your own biases when dealing with these topics. You both appear to rest your beliefs in the supremacy of liberal values and don't acknowledge the possibility that perhaps the "new left" are consciously rejecting some of these values or replacing them with what they believe are more considerate, compassionate, and cooperative alternatives.

That's not to say I necessarily agree with the tactics or ideologies of the so-called "new left," just that evaluating them under the liberal framework is inherently biased, and often misses the point of the debate.

I agree that the left are rejecting liberalism, though for the most part they don't seem to be aware they are. However, I think it's a huge mistake on their part. And not only because I'm an unabashed liberal. But because it's liberalism itself that has laid the groundwork for all of the progress we've made on social issues. And now that we've benefited from a society that tolerated dissenting views in their infancy - views that were not long ago very much in the minority and regarded as offensive by the majority - they want to pull up the drawbridge and defend the new pieties against dissenting speech and ideas.

What the left never seems to ask themselves is why, if the West was historically such a patriarchal, authoritarian, sexist, and reactionary culture, is it the most progressive culture on earth today? Why didn't feminism, gay rights, and racial equality take root in China, India, or Egypt?

The answer seems evident to me. The Enlightenment and liberalism. Empiricism, individual liberty, and tolerance. But the trade-off of a society where you're allowed to defy norms and pursue your own notions of happiness is that you're going to rub shoulders with a lot of people who have different notions of happiness. And some of them are going to say and do things that make you uncomfortable. The freedom to say as you please comes with an implicit understanding that you will hear things you don't like. And if that's scary, if you want to circumscribe speech and behaviour to enforce peace and conformity, then you better understand that those tools of enforcement can - and almost certainly will - be turned on you some day.

Originally Posted by MattyC

The left rage stems from seeing stuff like what Trump is saying, and being astonished that there is a significant portion of that population that agrees with him. I can't even comprehend how that's possible. And then listening to the Republicans, who are supposedly less crazy, and have them be Carson, and Rubio and Bush, all of whom have said things that are just straight up, flat out wrong, and no one seems to say anything about it. It's entertaining until you think that one of these clowns could have their fingers on the button of an arsenal of nukes. The right is mostly afraid of the government taking their money and giving it to poor people. The left is mostly afraid that these people are actually going to cause/perpetuate (usually in exchange for the invisible force of money) real, physical problems (like our environment going to crap, or full blown wars).

Then there's the left who are obsessed with policing language and representation in pop culture, and the gender of superheroes. But maybe that's just our culture - economics and math are hard, and class remains a taboo subject, so pop culture ephemera becomes the battleground.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I believe I understand you - you are saying that the structure of the argument is similar. However, in my view, the stakes are completely different, so when you put the two discussions in context there is a massive chasm in what conclusions are drawn.

That is, the argument on guns you've identified is, some guns are used to kill people, so none should be allowed. However, one could at least argue that all guns are inherently dangerous, so the analogy fails here. Further, what's at stake (basic human rights vs missing out on the ability to shoot a gun recreationally or delude oneself into thinking one is providing some sort of check on authoritarianism, lolol), there's no comparison. So that's why I think your analogy fundamentally fails.

That being said, I'm not sure it's a crucial analogy to make or that you can't make what I take to be your underlying point about "all or nothing" viewpoints among both liberals and conservatives without it...

I don't think we should change direction towards the gun control logic, but you can't dismiss that NRA's philosophy is rooted in the historic right to defend yourself against abuses of armed power, which, to many in USA, is a fundamental human right. This is why I suggest that the rights argument is not relevant to the analogy proposed. Again, it's the extremity of the application that makes both arguments weak.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

...
That being said, I'm not sure it's a crucial analogy to make or that you can't make what I take to be your underlying point about "all or nothing" viewpoints among both liberals and conservatives without it...

Corsi, I don't mind arguing about liberal or conservative point of views for as long as they remain civil and the discussion remains interesting. There are usually good views and arguments on both sides, actually. You said somewhere that your views are more liberal but you express them normally in a rational manner and you at least consider the opposing argument. Another example: Slava's posts are the same - respectful and thoughtful. On the conservative side: Frequitude's arguments are always well-presented and open for discussion. "All or nothing" viewpoints are on the extreme ends of either side. But I am repeating myself...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

To be fair, I think both you and CHL don't acknowledge your own biases when dealing with these topics. You both appear to rest your beliefs in the supremacy of liberal values and don't acknowledge the possibility that perhaps the "new left" are consciously rejecting some of these values or replacing them with what they believe are more considerate, compassionate, and cooperative alternatives.

I don't think this is a matter of failure to identify biases, it's a matter of taking the view that certain principles lead to better results in general, and so should be adopted as a matter of general policy. I am open to being convinced that those principles should be replaced as you suggest (I think it'd be easier to persuade me in an individual case than as a general proposition but I won't rule it out).

I do think that the only thing I'm absolutist about (and maybe not wholly absolutist but for all practical purposes we might as well assume so) is the necessity of freedom of expression of ideas. It seems to me that in the absence of our ability to resolve disputes on any issue by talking them through, we're going to end up resolving disputes on that issue through violence. There isn't a third option. So to the extent the discussion makes someone uncomfortable, well, the alternative is uniformly worse.

That's not to say I necessarily agree with the tactics or ideologies of the so-called "new left," just that evaluating them under the liberal framework is inherently biased, and often misses the point of the debate.

I don't know that I'd call it biased; I think there's a self-awareness to the application of these principles that you're operating on the premise that they're applicable in the current context. I guess you could say I'm biased in that I'm probably going to fall back on classical liberal principles as a default, so if that's what you mean, sure, I'd have to agree.

In what way does it miss the point of the debate?

I do agree that evidence-based decision making is usually the best approach, and that the anti-science nuts on both sides create their own issues. However, when it comes to values, objective parameters are a lot more difficult to come by. For instance, weighing rights-based doctrine vs. responsibilities-based doctrine.

Well, it seems to me that if there is an instance where rights-based doctrine produces conclusions that make practical sense, then let's use rights-based doctrine; if there are reasons for looking through a different prism in a particular context that are convincing let's go that way.

Obviously though, this stuff has a broader context because however we want to deal with problems needs to be to some extent universalizable solely for reasons of pragmatism. A lot of our conclusions on how we should deal with issue X are going to be consequentialist because consequentialism is practical, notwithstanding the many, many abstract philosophical reasons for rejecting utilitarian moral analyses.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yeah I'm not seeing this super liberal CP that's being bandied about. Off the top of my head, I would be hard pressed to name more than a dozen "liberal" minded posters, but could easily name 30 on the other end.

Go for it, I'm curious. Off the top of my head, you, me, rube, cliff, tinordi, slava, vlad, polak, mattyC, pepsifree, locke are liberal. I guess Yooh, Captaincrunch maybe, Estrada, Eldrick maybe, peter12, 2stonedbirds are conservative. I'm going to categorize Nobama as a troll.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Go for it, I'm curious. Off the top of my head, you, me, rube, cliff, tinordi, slava, vlad, polak, mattyC, pepsifree, locke are liberal. I guess Yooh, Captaincrunch maybe, Estrada, Eldrick maybe, peter12, 2stonedbirds are conservative. I'm going to categorize Nobama as a troll.

I am not a conservative nor a liberal. Since both platforms are close to political centre, I do subscribe to some of the principles on both sides. Similarly, I do not like some of their principles on both sides.

Also, some of the posters you had mentioned are WAY left off the liberal platform and WAY right off the conservative one.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I didn't really mean in terms of Liberal and Conservative political parties so much as spectrum. But I also think those definitions are becoming more and more unuseful so it's kind of just a rough job of tossing people in one basket or the other. It seems to me that Psycnet's estimate of 3 to 1 conservative to liberal posters doesn't match up with my impressions, that's all.

[CaptainYooh]

Agreed then.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Go for it, I'm curious. Off the top of my head, you, me, rube, cliff, tinordi, slava, vlad, polak, mattyC, pepsifree, locke are liberal. I guess Yooh, Captaincrunch maybe, Estrada, Eldrick maybe, peter12, 2stonedbirds are conservative. I'm going to categorize Nobama as a troll.

You know what's funny? I'd love to be liberal. Really I would. But the sort of things discussed by say rubecube for example (the new left) simply do not represent me. That's not a shot a rubecube at all, I'm merely addressing his viewpoint on where the liberal party is heading. The liberal party loves evidence based policy, so long as that evidence agrees with their ideology. I hope to proven wrong on this in the upcoming months.

I'd love to have a Canada that is socially liberal, and economically conservative. I'd also like unicorns and a liger, but some things are not politically feasible.

Or at least, the political parties tell us it's not feasible.

I was however really encouraged by Justin's speech after the election where he discussed working with conservatives to create the kind of Canada we all want, and try and rise above divisive politics.

The idea of shouting down conversation or denouncing someone's opinion based on past opinion is akin to shooting the messenger in order to preserve a safe space. If the idea is bad, that's fine, but there is a means of open discourse without reducing ourselves to savagery.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I was just going to say that as well. Most of the left-leaning posters on here are only left-leaning on social issues. I don't see too many economic socialists, anarchists, etc. here.

I think most of the "left" leaning people on here are actually more moderate, myself included. I considered myself a centrist as well, because each side intrinsically has some good ideas. Otherwise nobody would vote for them. Now though, as things progress, my centrist views are becoming further left while not changing my overall outlook on things. The main reason for that is the right leaning people have gone completely off the rails in the last 7 years. Back when Obama was running initially, it was only the most extreme fringe that brought up any racist or xenophobic ideas. Now those ideas are fairly common in the republican party.

Any time that either side differs to the fringe, it is always a bad thing. It doesn't matter if you're talking right wing fascists or left wing hard line socialists or communistic ideologies.

One thing that has been especially concerning to me of late is that when one has a debate of ideas, neither side listens to one another. They paint the other as being ignorant and foolish and it does cut both ways. It is almost like having fans of two rival sports teams, where the home team can do no wrong and the other team is the spawn of satan, or the Vancouver Canucks, but I repeat myself. Seriously though, one should be critical of one's opinions and those that they have similarities with as a whole regardless of what side of the argument you are on. Nobody is ever right 100% of the time, otherwise they would be looked upon as a divine oracle of great opinions.

If you look at the group think currently going on with the rabid followers of Donald Trump, you see them lapping up any vapid morally bankrupt idea he spews because they like that he is belligerent and begin to espouse those same vile ideas because they want to fit in with their group instead of questioning whether or not those things are a good idea. The internment of Japanese Americans in WWII is a black mark on the legacy of America. However, now that's a super awesome idea because Chump says so.

On the gun issue, you have two opposing thoughts. One group is scared so they want to protect themselves, the other group is scared and want the police to protect them. The difference mainly comes down to geography. Most Republicans live in rural areas, and the Democrats in urban areas. Honestly, having guns in rural areas does make sense because there are no police that are close enough to protect you in case of immediate danger. However, there should not be any guns in urban areas because police are nearby to protect people. Unfortunately, there is no way that you can get either side to make concessions to the other in a way that would help the problem.

Pretty much every topic in the world is a shade a grey, but people treat it as black and white. Trying to find common ground should be the goal of every dispute, but instead it reduces itself to pettiness on both sides.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I think most of the "left" leaning people on here are actually more moderate, myself included. I considered myself a centrist as well, because each side intrinsically has some good ideas. Otherwise nobody would vote for them. Now though, as things progress, my centrist views are becoming further left while not changing my overall outlook on things. The main reason for that is the right leaning people have gone completely off the rails in the last 7 years. Back when Obama was running initially, it was only the most extreme fringe that brought up any racist or xenophobic ideas. Now those ideas are fairly common in the republican party.

Any time that either side differs to the fringe, it is always a bad thing. It doesn't matter if you're talking right wing fascists or left wing hard line socialists or communistic ideologies.

One thing that has been especially concerning to me of late is that when one has a debate of ideas, neither side listens to one another. They paint the other as being ignorant and foolish and it does cut both ways. It is almost like having fans of two rival sports teams, where the home team can do no wrong and the other team is the spawn of satan, or the Vancouver Canucks, but I repeat myself. Seriously though, one should be critical of one's opinions and those that they have similarities with as a whole regardless of what side of the argument you are on. Nobody is ever right 100% of the time, otherwise they would be looked upon as a divine oracle of great opinions.

If you look at the group think currently going on with the rabid followers of Donald Trump, you see them lapping up any vapid morally bankrupt idea he spews because they like that he is belligerent and begin to espouse those same vile ideas because they want to fit in with their group instead of questioning whether or not those things are a good idea. The internment of Japanese Americans in WWII is a black mark on the legacy of America. However, now that's a super awesome idea because Chump says so.

On the gun issue, you have two opposing thoughts. One group is scared so they want to protect themselves, the other group is scared and want the police to protect them. The difference mainly comes down to geography. Most Republicans live in rural areas, and the Democrats in urban areas. Honestly, having guns in rural areas does make sense because there are no police that are close enough to protect you in case of immediate danger. However, there should not be any guns in urban areas because police are nearby to protect people. Unfortunately, there is no way that you can get either side to make concessions to the other in a way that would help the problem.

Pretty much every topic in the world is a shade a grey, but people treat it as black and white. Trying to find common ground should be the goal of every dispute, but instead it reduces itself to pettiness on both sides.

It should be noted, the police have a general duty to protect the public but have no mandate or legal responsibility for your private well being. Essentially, if police do not respond to a call for help, or cannot get there in time, you are on your own. They are not legally liable or responsible for your security.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warr...ct_of_Columbia

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictiona...yDoctrine.aspx