The New American Politics thread

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

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

You are correct technically, but with a reduced amount of weaponry, there is also a reduced amount of violent crime (See Canada's urban areas vs America's urban areas).

If there was an outright ban on weapons in urban areas, crime would decrease in urban areas. Anything that makes it more difficult for a criminal to do criminal activities in an urban setting will reduce crime.

However, defaulting to a stance of "well cops technically don't need to intervene" is not listening to a different set of ideas and experiences. I am actually advocating for both gun control and the protection of gun rights that is completely dependent on location.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

You are correct technically, but with a reduced amount of weaponry, there is also a reduced amount of violent crime (See Canada's urban areas vs America's urban areas).

If there was an outright ban on weapons in urban areas, crime would decrease in urban areas. Anything that makes it more difficult for a criminal to do criminal activities in an urban setting will reduce crime.

However, defaulting to a stance of "well cops technically don't need to intervene" is not listening to a different set of ideas and experiences. I am actually advocating for both gun control and the protection of gun rights that is completely dependent on location.

Without touching on the subject of an outright ban in urban areas and how it may or may not effect crime rate (I really do not want to turn this into another ongoing US shooting thread) the one issue I take with this idea is that it deprives those who are responsible from doing legal activities such as going to the range in the city, or it also effects hunters/sport shooters who happen to live in urban areas.

One thing I think we both could agree on is harsher penalties for those convicted of violent offenses, or ANY crime where a firearm was used in its commission. Recidivism should not be acceptable when it comes to firearm related crime.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

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.

Isn't the bolded part kind of contradicted by your following paragraph? A lot of these people running for office hold opinions that are just straight up wrong. Racism, facism, all around science denying, etc. They believe and say things that are incorrect, and then base their opinions on them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The greatest symbol of America has spoken on Trump

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Isn't the bolded part kind of contradicted by your following paragraph? A lot of these people running for office hold opinions that are just straight up wrong. Racism, facism, all around science denying, etc. They believe and say things that are incorrect, and then base their opinions on them.

One can be wrong on a lot of things, pretty much everything you described are things that the right is 100% wrong on. Any time you get into the reeds of extreme ideas, the more those groups tend to be wrong. It is more difficult to be correct with the application of ideas though.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree that the left are rejecting liberalism, though for the most part they don't seem to be aware they are.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but can I ask you how much material you've read from the supposed contemporary left-wing? Indigenous scholars, feminists, anarchists, etc.? These people are very aware of the values they're rejecting.

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.

I don't think that's it at all. Obviously there's some of that as there is with any kind of fanaticism or extremism, but it's not nearly as exclusive or prominent to the left as you make it sound. What dissenting views are we talking about here exactly? If we're talking about racist or homophobic language, there's an element where the supposed ideals of free speech inadvertently end up suppressing the voices of marginalized people. We're also not really talking about dissenting viewpoints when we're talking about discriminatory or oppressive statements, as these have largely been the more widely-held views until very recently, and have been given enough of an audience as is.

I think you also have to consider that when people are dismissive of dissenting opinion, it can be a reasoned dismissal. A right to free speech isn't the right to a captive and respectful audience, or any audience at all for that matter. It's okay, for instance, for minorities to feel that cultural appropriation is wrong without being obligated to listen to someone try to explain why they shouldn't be offended by it.

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?

This is a bit of a non sequitur, don't you think?

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.

Come on now. We circumscribe speech and behaviour to enforce peace and conformity in almost all aspects of everyday life. There is almost universal acceptance that there are reasonable limits on just about any right. At minimum you are expected to be accountable for your words and actions.

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.

Pop culture and language are influential and pervasive. Why wouldn't people be concerned with crafting both in a manner that doesn't perpetuate damaging cultural norms and stereotypes?

[DuffMan]

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.

Pretty sure I'd be classified as liberal, even though I've voted conservative for both provincial and federal elections. If I lived in the states from what I've seen there is no way I'd vote republican for a long long time. Probably until jesus came back, at least.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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).

Better results is a matter of perspective though, isn't it? Liberalism has left plenty of casualties in its wake over the last few centuries.

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.

Right, but at some point you're going to reach intransigence on virtually any topic. There are still people in the world who believe that slavery is completely acceptable and are going to be unmoved by virtually any argument to the contrary. At some point you have to take a stand on what is an acceptable viewpoint in your society and what isn't. We're not going to reopen the slavery debate on university campuses just so we can give an audience to dissenting viewpoints.

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.

That's precisely what I meant. In any discussion on values and their priorities, you're likely going to agree with whatever aligns closest to your preexisting liberal views. We've been brought up to believe in the supremacy of liberalism and individualism, and very rarely been exposed to the damage caused by these ideologies

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.

But your opinion of what makes practical sense is going to be framed by which values your prioritize. There is very rarely an objective practical sense when we're speaking about abstract values.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Without touching on the subject of an outright ban in urban areas and how it may or may not effect crime rate (I really do not want to turn this into another ongoing US shooting thread) the one issue I take with this idea is that it deprives those who are responsible from doing legal activities such as going to the range in the city, or it also effects hunters/sport shooters who happen to live in urban areas.

One thing I think we both could agree on is harsher penalties for those convicted of violent offenses, or ANY crime where a firearm was used in its commission. Recidivism should not be acceptable when it comes to firearm related crime.

I honestly don't know what the best solution would be. It might be something less dramatic like a registry in urban areas, or something more draconian like an outright ban. One thing that I think we can both agree on is that there is a problem.

That's why a measured conversation is needed by both sides to figure out a solution that actually works instead of "I want a full ban" vs "Guns for everyone" and nothing getting accomplished. This goes for any topic that's of any relevance.

Tougher penalties is something that could be done, unfortunately, no penalty is a strong deterrent. Otherwise things like the death penalty would actually lower instances of violent crime. Better educating the populace on firearm safety and how to properly use and responsibly own a firearm would also be useful.

There are a lot of things that could be worked on to find a common solution. Would you or I agree on 100% of everything? Of course not, but if there is a way to find common ground on even 30-40% of it would make for some progress. That is what is needed more than anything.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

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.

Sounds like Obama back in 2008.
But then McConnell said "our(republicans) number 1 priority is to make Obama a 1 term President. They've been doing that every single day since. Obstructing, repealing and investigating is the only thing they've done for 7 years. Pretty tough to get anything done under those circumstances. Republicans are absolutely for divisive politics.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I honestly don't know what the best solution would be. It might be something less dramatic like a registry in urban areas, or something more draconian like an outright ban. One thing that I think we can both agree on is that there is a problem.

That's why a measured conversation is needed by both sides to figure out a solution that actually works instead of "I want a full ban" vs "Guns for everyone" and nothing getting accomplished. This goes for any topic that's of any relevance.

Tougher penalties is something that could be done, unfortunately, no penalty is a strong deterrent. Otherwise things like the death penalty would actually lower instances of violent crime. Better educating the populace on firearm safety and how to properly use and responsibly own a firearm would also be useful.

There are a lot of things that could be worked on to find a common solution. Would you or I agree on 100% of everything? Of course not, but if there is a way to find common ground on even 30-40% of it would make for some progress. That is what is needed more than anything.

The U.S. would solve most of its problems with an outright ban of all handguns and semi automatics, if you restricted gun possession to shotguns, preferably double barrel and bolt action rifles you pretty much eliminate most of your fatalities, suicide without a handgun is fairly difficult, not impossible but a lot less appealing, again ihandguns are the only practical weapons for much of your criminal population, you can't be selling crack while schlepping a hunting rifle over your shoulder.

mass shootings become more difficult with a bolt action rifle where as home defence is just as effective with a shotgun or hunting rifle and it satisfies the 2nd amendment.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The U.S. would solve most of its problems with an outright ban of all handguns and semi automatics, if you restricted gun possession to shotguns, preferably double barrel and bolt action rifles you pretty much eliminate most of your fatalities, suicide without a handgun is fairly difficult, not impossible but a lot less appealing, again ihandguns are the only practical weapons for much of your criminal population, you can't be selling crack while schlepping a hunting rifle over your shoulder.

mass shootings become more difficult with a bolt action rifle where as home defence is just as effective with a shotgun or hunting rifle and it satisfies the 2nd amendment.

I disagree vehemently with the bolded statement.

The only problem with your solution is how do you go about getting all the handguns that are already in circulation off the street? That question is why people are so against a ban and confiscate type of solution. Why should someone's ability to defend their home and family be diminished simply because they choose to obey the law? I think that is a legitimate question and one that many people would ask.

My alternative solution:

Punish gun crime severely. We don't even punish gun crime to the extent our laws allow now, so how serious are we about solving the problem of gun violence? Maybe we only care about mass shootings and all of the other gun murders that happen in ones or twos are not concerning? Start throwing out life sentences for violent crimes committed with firearms.

Illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon should be a life sentence.

Restrict the manufacture of new handguns (or ban) and high capacity magazines.

Make possession of high capacity magazines and automatic weapons illegal. Punish those who break this law SEVERELY.

Legalize marijuana. How many gun murders occur each year because it is illegal?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not trying to be a dick, but can I ask you how much material you've read from the supposed contemporary left-wing? Indigenous scholars, feminists, anarchists, etc.? These people are very aware of the values they're rejecting.

Then they're fools who don't understand history. The only reason they have platforms to call for reform is because of liberalism. In illiberal societies minorities stay oppressed unless they have strength and raw numbers to violently overthrow the dominant group.

Originally Posted by rubecube

What dissenting views are we talking about here exactly? If we're talking about racist or homophobic language, there's an element where the supposed ideals of free speech inadvertently end up suppressing the voices of marginalized people. We're also not really talking about dissenting viewpoints when we're talking about discriminatory or oppressive statements, as these have largely been the more widely-held views until very recently, and have been given enough of an audience as is.

But there is no consensus on what constitutes offensive and harmful speech, and never will be. Not long ago any public reference to homosexual sex acts (or even heterosexual sex acts) was regarded as grossly offensive. Not long ago you couldn't say the word 'pregnant' on TV. In a liberal society, norms change and evolve all the time. In an illiberal society, they remain locked in place. And leftists themselves are highly selective about whose feelings need to be protected. They will call for public condemnation of someone who makes an insensitive comment about Native spirituality, but criticism of the Catholic Church is cheerfully encouraged.

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is a bit of a non sequitur, don't you think?

Not at all. If you look at the Chinese culture, the Indian culture, the Middle Eastern Islamic culture, and Western culture, the latter is the only one where women, minorities, and people of non hetero sexual orientation are afforded equal rights and respect. Why? Why in the West and not others? What sequence of cause and effect led to this state of affairs?

That's why I think reason and empiricism are alien to the new left; if these questions don't come to mind, then you're simply not attuned to systematic and logical thinking.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Come on now. We circumscribe speech and behaviour to enforce peace and conformity in almost all aspects of everyday life. There is almost universal acceptance that there are reasonable limits on just about any right. At minimum you are expected to be accountable for your words and actions.

And in a liberal society, those limits never stop changing and evolving. In an illiberal society, they get locked down. Don't you see how hypocritical and unprincipled it is for groups whose progress was enabled by the tolerance of unpopular speech to turn around and restrict speech expressing other unpopular ideas?

The world 50 years from now will be very different from today, in ways we can't begin to anticipate. Many social norms of today will be reviled, and things we consider beyond the pale will be perfectly acceptable. In a liberal society, that future will be born of the widest scope of values and ideas. In an illiberal society, we will have fewer options, and fewer possible eventualities. History has shown the societies that afford the widest possibilities - the West - makes greater social and material progress than the societies that restrict those options.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Pop culture and language are influential and pervasive. Why wouldn't people be concerned with crafting both in a manner that doesn't perpetuate damaging cultural norms and stereotypes?

Because a society in which we do not tolerate any speech that offends would mean no criticism of religion, no criticism of government, no criticism of anyone. It would be totalitarian.

It really is simple: If you want to live in a society that tolerates dissent, you have to be prepared to be offended.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Then they're fools who don't understand history. The only reason they have platforms to call for reform is because of liberalism. In illiberal societies minorities stay oppressed unless they have strength and raw numbers to violently overthrow the dominant group.

Okay but you didn't answer my question.

But there is no consensus on what constitutes offensive and harmful speech, and never will be.

So what? Consensus isn't a requirement. There is never going to be consensus over anything where the privileged and the powerful are being asked to give up something or behave differently than the manner they're accustomed to.

Not long ago any public reference to homosexual sex acts (or even heterosexual sex acts) was regarded as grossly offensive. Not long ago you couldn't say the word 'pregnant' on TV. In a liberal society, norms change and evolve all the time. In an illiberal society, they remain locked in place.

These things aren't a result of liberalism. They're a result of feminism, queer theory, etc. Ahistorically appropriating them to liberal doctrine is pretty disingenuous. Did liberalism provide them with the vehicle to be heard? Maybe in theory. In practice, the dominant forces of "liberal" societies have worked incredibly hard to suppress these, often citing reason and empiricism as much as morality. Historically, an extreme catalyst has been necessary to spark progress. Look at the suffragette movement, or the civil rights movement for instance. Each of these movements had wings of peaceful protest and discourse, but they were also flanked by small groups of militant extremists, who most historians agree were critical to their success. Additionally, equality, human rights, etc., as we've come to understand them are not located in traditional liberal doctrine. They've traditionally been found in socialism, humanism, Marxism, Kantianism, and feminism; basically those doctrines that espouse the concepts of duty or collectivism/cooperation, which are largely antithetical to traditional liberalism.

Furthermore, this idea that progress, knowledge and truth are only possible in a liberal society is akin to the claims many Christians make that morality is impossible without religion or Christianity.

And leftists themselves are highly selective about whose feelings need to be protected. They will call for public condemnation of someone who makes an insensitive comment about Native spirituality, but criticism of the Catholic Church is cheerfully encouraged.

And without context this looks incredibly hypocritical, but surely you must grasp the context and why they do this, right?

Not at all. If you look at the Chinese culture, the Indian culture, the Middle Eastern Islamic culture, and Western culture, the latter is the only one where women, minorities, and people of non hetero sexual orientation are afforded equal rights and respect. Why? Why in the West and not others? What sequence of cause and effect led to this state of affairs?

This wasn't really my point. My point was the fact that any or all of these other cultures are more patriarchal, sexist, racist, etc., does not mean that Western culture lacks any of these traits in heaping spoonfuls.

That's why I think reason and empiricism are alien to the new left; if these questions don't come to mind, then you're simply not attuned to systematic and logical thinking.

These questions do come to mind and have been addressed by some on the left, but you actually need to do some digging and seek out these arguments and their primary sources (assuming you haven't). I'm not saying you have to agree with them, but is it fair to criticize something on the grounds you have if you can't genuinely say you've attempted to understand them?

And in a liberal society, those limits never stop changing and evolving. In an illiberal society, they get locked down. Don't you see how hypocritical and unprincipled it is for groups whose progress was enabled by the tolerance of unpopular speech to turn around and restrict speech expressing other unpopular ideas?

Holding people accountable for their words and ideas is not the same as restricting speech.

The world 50 years from now will be very different from today, in ways we can't begin to anticipate. Many social norms of today will be reviled, and things we consider beyond the pale will be perfectly acceptable. In a liberal society, that future will be born of the widest scope of values and ideas. In an illiberal society, we will have fewer options, and fewer possible eventualities. History has shown the societies that afford the widest possibilities - the West - makes greater social and material progress than the societies that restrict those options.

Where in the history of the modern world has progress been made by legitimizing antiquated ideas through discourse? It's not like the progressive left are attempting to kybosh new and novel ideas.

Because a society in which we do not tolerate any speech that offends would mean no criticism of religion, no criticism of government, no criticism of anyone. It would be totalitarian.

This is basically a slippery-slope argument and is completely contradicted by any intellectually honest examination of our current society.

It really is simple: If you want to live in a society that tolerates dissent, you have to be prepared to be offended.

Okay, but if you want to see actual progress then the people in positions of power and privilege have to be held accountable for their actions, and so far the only way we've been able to do this is as a society is through the fear of consequences. If you want to claim that this is "restricting free speech," then so be it, but let's not pretend that this is something exclusive to a particular moment of time or a particular political ideology.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I find your entire perspective on this fundamentally opposed to mine, so I'm interested to hear about it, but you're being very superficial in your responses.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So what? Consensus isn't a requirement. There is never going to be consensus over anything where the privileged and the powerful are being asked to give up something or behave differently than the manner they're accustomed to.

There is no basis for determining who gains the privileged "unprivileged" status and the right to place barriers to expression in the name of preventing offense. This is fundamentally authoritarian.

These things aren't a result of liberalism. They're a result of feminism, queer theory, etc. Ahistorically appropriating them to liberal doctrine is pretty disingenuous. Did liberalism provide them with the vehicle to be heard? Maybe in theory.

It takes some balls to say this and accuse him of being disingenuous. For example, queer theory was the source of progress on gay rights? Really? I am extremely dubious, so please explain how. It seems to me that more or less progress on that issue has been heavily focused on equal rights. "Rights" being the operative term there.

In practice, the dominant forces of "liberal" societies have worked incredibly hard to suppress these, often citing reason and empiricism as much as morality.

Examples, please? I suspect if we play them through, any resort to supposed empiricism as a tool of suppression will ultimately yield as a result of empiricism. I can't think of a single instance in history where a society has suffered as a result of too much rational, evidence-based thinking.

Historically, an extreme catalyst has been necessary to spark progress. Look at the suffragette movement, or the civil rights movement for instance. Each of these movements had wings of peaceful protest and discourse, but they were also flanked by small groups of militant extremists, who most historians agree were critical to their success.

I again disagree, I think, but again you're being superficial and not fully explaining what you mean. For example, are you suggesting that the civil rights movement with the Black Panthers but without MLK would have succeeded? In my view, first, these are all very different stories and lumping them into a common narrative is foolish. But moreover, the success of civil rights, women's rights, gay rights have all involved a gradual recruitment of the majority to the minority's viewpoint.

Additionally, equality, human rights, etc., as we've come to understand them are not located in traditional liberal doctrine. They've traditionally been found in socialism, humanism, Marxism, Kantianism, and feminism; basically those doctrines that espouse the concepts of duty or collectivism/cooperation, which are largely antithetical to traditional liberalism.

This is baffling. I'm fairly certain it's completely wrong, but as you've again just superficially asserted it, instead of rejecting it I'll again ask you to explain how. Equality is fundamentally a liberal principle, for example, that may be enacted in socialist doctrine, but where does Kant come into it? You're just saying provocative things, there's no substance here.

Furthermore, this idea that progress, knowledge and truth are only possible in a liberal society is akin to the claims many Christians make that morality is impossible without religion or Christianity.

Utter nonsense. First, no one has said that they're only possible in a liberal society, only that these principles have fostered the development of progress better than other alternatives that have been used. Second, morality and social progress are fundamentally distinct things; one's abstract and the other is practical.

This wasn't really my point. My point was the fact that any or all of these other cultures are more patriarchal, sexist, racist, etc., does not mean that Western culture lacks any of these traits in heaping spoonfuls.

There isn't really any kind of comparison.

In the days ahead, the Saudi justice system — a term to be used advisedly — is scheduled to execute a married Sri Lankan housemaid, a migrant worker...

She, being a woman, and therefore in the Saudi system even more guilty, will be buried up to her breasts, and then a crowd of Saudi men will enthusiastically throw rocks at her head until she perishes from massive brain injury or a heart attack, whichever occurs first.

There is no equivalence here.

These questions do come to mind and have been addressed by some on the left, but you actually need to do some digging and seek out these arguments and their primary sources (assuming you haven't).

You've done this a few times. Can you point to a specific piece that might be referred to to broaden my perspective on a particular issue we're talking about here?

Holding people accountable for their words and ideas is not the same as restricting speech.

It depends on how it's done, obviously. If, for example, I said I was pro-life, and was subsequently fired from my job, it would obviously have a chilling effect on speech.

Where in the history of the modern world has progress been made by legitimizing antiquated ideas through discourse? It's not like the progressive left are attempting to kybosh new and novel ideas.

Absolutely they are. See: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/70...eform-movement

Gotta go but those are my instant reactions anyway.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Gotta go but those are my instant reactions anyway.

I'm probably going to sound like a dick asking this question but actually I'm sincerely interested.

Do you hold a personal, heartfelt belief in any of the topics being discussed?

It strikes me that you approach each issue or discussion from almost a purely intellectual, analytical POV.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm probably going to sound like a dick asking this question but actually I'm sincerely interested.

Do you hold a personal, heartfelt belief in any of the topics being discussed?

It strikes me that you approach each issue or discussion from almost a purely intellectual, analytical POV.

I can't speak for Corsi, but when faced with an issue I look for ways to address it in a utilitarian way - to maximize positive outcomes and minimize bad ones. And from what I've learned about history, reason and empiricism are the best ways to achieve that. Proposing ideas, assessing, measuring, speculating, trying other approaches. That's the way to make the world a better place. Partisanship, doctrine, and other simplistic approaches rooted in emotion almost always handicap reason and result in worse outcomes. I can't think of any problem that was fixed by being more emotional about it.

[PsYcNeT]

Empirical analysis is all well and good, but it has to have parameters and limitations, otherwise you end up with something like eugenics or

Marge, please, old people don't need companionship. They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Scott Adams lost every ounce of credibility he had that one time he compared dealing with women's rights to dealing with violent handicapped persons.

also the minute you use the word racism to describe intolerance for a certain religious group. It must be hard for neo liberals to stand up for religious rights..

[rubecube]

Of course I'm being superficial. It's a freaking message board and we're speaking in broad and abstract terms. I'll save the citations for my term papers.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There is no basis for determining who gains the privileged "unprivileged" status and the right to place barriers to expression in the name of preventing offense. This is fundamentally authoritarian.

What? How are the underprivileged placing barriers to expression by themselves expressing what is offensive?

It takes some balls to say this and accuse him of being disingenuous. For example, queer theory was the source of progress on gay rights? Really? I am extremely dubious, so please explain how. It seems to me that more or less progress on that issue has been heavily focused on equal rights. "Rights" being the operative term there.

Sorry, are you saying the initial push for gay rights didn't stem from queer activists? I didn't cite a single source for gay rights, just that the push to end oppression historically has generally been initiated by the oppressed, so to attribute it to the ideology of their oppressors is disingenuous. Saying that appeals to liberalism were a factor in the enhancement of gay rights is different than saying liberalism was the cause.

Examples, please? I suspect if we play them through, any resort to supposed empiricism as a tool of suppression will ultimately yield as a result of empiricism. I can't think of a single instance in history where a society has suffered as a result of too much rational, evidence-based thinking.

What empirical facts are necessary to determine that discriminating against people on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is wrong, other than an acknowledgement of harm, which is probably more reliant on phenomenology than it is empiricism?

I again disagree, I think, but again you're being superficial and not fully explaining what you mean. For example, are you suggesting that the civil rights movement with the Black Panthers but without MLK would have succeeded? In my view, first, these are all very different stories and lumping them into a common narrative is foolish. But moreover, the success of civil rights, women's rights, gay rights have all involved a gradual recruitment of the majority to the minority's viewpoint.

No, not at all, they definitely required gradual recruitment, but the acts of extremism forced the issues into the spotlight.

This is baffling. I'm fairly certain it's completely wrong, but as you've again just superficially asserted it, instead of rejecting it I'll again ask you to explain how. Equality is fundamentally a liberal principle, for example, that may be enacted in socialist doctrine, but where does Kant come into it? You're just saying provocative things, there's no substance here.

I mean if you ignore the racist and sexist parts of Locke, you can say that equal rights are fundamentally liberal. Equal rights and equality aren't the same thing. Kant was in reference to the concepts of duty and responsibility, but I'm also not the first person to draw a connection between Kant and socialism

http://www.amazon.ca/Kantian-Ethics-.../dp/0872200272

Speaking in terms of rights, something like Article 5 of the UDHR owes much more to humanism than it does to liberalism.

Utter nonsense. First, no one has said that they're only possible in a liberal society, only that these principles have fostered the development of progress better than other alternatives that have been used.

Is that true though? Classical liberalism was used to justify the slave trade and colonialism when humanism was in favour of abolition.

Second, morality and social progress are fundamentally distinct things; one's abstract and the other is practical.

Oh come on. Any measure of social progress relies on subjectively selecting the indicators by which it's to be measured.

There isn't really any kind of comparison.

There is no equivalence here.

Why do you do this constantly? I never claimed there was equivalence.

You've done this a few times. Can you point to a specific piece that might be referred to to broaden my perspective on a particular issue we're talking about here?

I'm happy to, but you'll need to be specific on the question or the topic you're asking about.

It depends on how it's done, obviously. If, for example, I said I was pro-life, and was subsequently fired from my job, it would obviously have a chilling effect on speech.

Okay, but where has this been happening? Seems to me be that being pro-choice has always been the much more dangerous stance.

And again, some chill is to be expected, isn't it? Even if you were pro-life, would you be putting pro-life pamphlets with pictures of dead fetuses up in your workplace?

Absolutely they are. See: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/70...eform-movement

Gotta go but those are my instant reactions anyway.

Yeah, Islam is a notable exception. There's definitely some terrific work being done by some Islamic scholars in this area.