The New American Politics thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

I don't want to open the can of worms, because I think this is ground we have covered.

But I draw a pretty big distinction between, say, Rush Limbaugh who is an entertainer, and a propagandist, and someone who tries to destroy the people who are trying to have a reasonable conversation. As I said, the left and the right both have their blowhards - mostly harmless echo chamber types.

But there is a difference between that, and sinister character assassination of people who aren't interested in participating in pure partisan discussion, but are attempting to have difficult discussions about difficult topics. I'm trying to think of someone like Reza that has arisen out of the right, but I can't right now. It's a problem that seems to have fomented in the university system.

False equivalence. plain and simple. If Harris and Alsan had maintained their academic stance rather than engaging in an embarrassing poop flinging match they both would have been better off. My our problem with Aslan is you don't like his message and don't like the fact that he lashed out at Harris. Get over it. Harris is a big boy and he wasn't innocent in his own right. Get. over. it. None of these people are remotely close to the level of discourse disrupters as the list I provided. The Closest is Uyger, and he is no where near as bad as Limbaugh or Hannity or Savage. Not. even. close.

[ResAlien]

There's a big difference between being an ideological provocateur and just being an #######. He just found a niche to sell his particular brand of crap and ran with it. His complete double speak regarding his disdain for gamers to then becoming a leading face of gamergate speaks to his opportunism, not some quest for truth through discourse. Give me a break, Milo is a garbage person.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Aslan is a liar. Full stop. He lies about other peoples' positions. His message, as it pertains to Sam Harris, is lying. You really need to understand that there is a difference between "lashing out" and defaming someone.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There is a huge range of quality, honesty, reasonableness, and just general flavour of commentary in this list. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity are pretty different animals. Hell, Alex Jones and Pat Robertson, while crazy, are very different types of crazy. I do agree that there's been plenty of dishonesty from right-wing pundits, though. Limbaugh basically invented it.

Re: Buster, what's the difference between propagandists of this sort and Cenk? I've no doubt that Rush is just as happy to dishonestly smear his opponents as Glenn Greenwald is. The only immediately occurring difference is the credibility the left wing guys have with the left; no one in this thread takes Limbaugh or Coulter seriously. You obviously know that, hence your hesitation to post Coulter's article earlier.

It's a difficult question to answer. Partly because it is so hard to do a personal survey of all of the garbage on the left and the right. There is a lot of good content in the world, it would be hard to justify listening to Rush Limbaugh just to determine he is a loser. I understand the limitations this places on me, or anyone.

So I'm somewhat limited to the interactions outsiders are having with people I find to be interesting.

All of this is to say that I would find it difficult to come up with a comprehensive list of -with apologies- the Rezas of the world. If Rush is one, I'm more than happy to include him. I just don't listen to him. I always was under the impression that he was just a relatively harmless partisan.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

There's a big difference between being an ideological provocateur and just being an #######. He just found a niche to sell his particular brand of crap and ran with it. His complete double speak regarding his disdain for gamers to then becoming a leading face of gamergate speaks to his opportunism, not some quest for truth through discourse. Give me a break, Milo is a garbage person.

Is ideological provocateur a fancy word for internet troll.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is ideological provocateur a fancy word for internet troll.

I was trying to give Corsi's flowery portrayal of his intentions some merit. Maybe the argument is trolls elevate debate simply through disagreeing regardless of their true motivations?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

His complete double speak regarding his disdain for gamers to then becoming a leading face of gamergate speaks to his opportunism, not some quest for truth through discourse. Give me a break, Milo is a garbage person.

I don't really have a response to this, I never read any of his gamergate stuff or, frankly, gave a crap about gamergate at all. I'm only aware of him from the campus stuff where his trolling gets him attention when some element of the student body protesting him does something batcrap insane and it gets traction. Which is basically quintessential Streisand effect.

[Buster]

Milo's tour accomplished precisely what it set out to accomplish, as Corsi pointed out. In fact, I would say in general, Milo has executed on his plan flawlessly,

It's funny to me that Milo's critics and opponents couldn't see the most obvious of traps.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't really have a response to this, I never read any of his gamergate stuff or, frankly, gave a crap about gamergate at all. I'm only aware of him from the campus stuff where his trolling gets him attention when some element of the student body protesting him does something batcrap insane and it gets traction. Which is basically quintessential Streisand effect.

That's akin to singing Mussolini's praises as a train schedule planner and ignoring his other actions.

But we're OT here. This alleged Trump endorsement of Paul tonight, what are the odds he pulls a lukewarm "I like him" sort of thing and doesn't actually endorse?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

There's a big difference between being an ideological provocateur and just being an #######. He just found a niche to sell his particular brand of crap and ran with it. His complete double speak regarding his disdain for gamers to then becoming a leading face of gamergate speaks to his opportunism, not some quest for truth through discourse. Give me a break, Milo is a garbage person.

I think that the different is more subjective than absolute. You can't have a Democracy and not have people say offensive things for whatever reason. It comes with the territory...thank goodness. That being said, I agree with your personal assessment of this donkey.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

That's akin to singing Mussolini's praises as a train schedule planner and ignoring his other actions.

The guy is a troll who says silly, over the top crap, wears BDSM costumes to speeches and promotes Trump. He's pretty harmless. Not exactly a fascistic authoritarian leader of a once-great Mediterranean country. Sort of ironic that this is at least as hyperbolic as anything I've seen from the guy. In any event, I didn't sing his praises. In fact, I actually disagreed with his philosophy on absolutist free speech as impractical and causing bad outcomes - basically what he's doing is winking while shouting fire in a crowded theatre, where the theatre is filled with two thirds people who know he's joking and one third with tone-deaf pyrophobics.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Aslan is a liar. Full stop. He lies about other peoples' positions. His message, as it pertains to Sam Harris, is lying. You really need to understand that there is a difference between "lashing out" and defaming someone.

And you need to understand that when Harris makes ignorant comments about an entire religion he is being every bit as bad as Aslan, even though I do not see Aslan saying anything that is not true of what Harris has said. If Harris treated Christianity the same way he treats Islam, Harris would be a pariah, period.

I must say that it is priceless that you'll defend a complete piece of crap like Yiannopoulos, who defames everyone he talks meets or talks about, but a guy like Aslan who is in a very public feud with another dude, Harris, who you just happen to like a lot, is public enemy number one. Pretty ballsy move. Not a bright one, but pretty ballsy. Seriously, if that piece of crap Yiannopoulos tried his schtick in Canada, he'd get at best the Ann Coulter treatment, but more likely the Terry Jones treatment. Canadians wouldn't stand for that crap.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I think that the different is more subjective than absolute. You can't have a Democracy and not have people say offensive things for whatever reason. It comes with the territory...thank goodness. That being said, I agree with your personal assessment of this donkey.

You basically have three choices with Milo (or anyone else you disagree with).

1. Ignore them
2. Try to disprove their core arguments
3. Try to squash their speech in an un-intellectual and un-democratic way.

Milo's point is that the current left starts with #3, and barely does #2. So he goes on his tour to prove this point. And what do all the bumble-bums on the left do? They start with #3 in the most obvious ways possible.

Milo's opponents display the most insane tendency to prove his point as I've ever seen.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The guy is a troll who says silly, over the top crap, wears BDSM costumes to speeches and promotes Trump. He's pretty harmless. Not exactly a fascistic authoritarian leader of a once-great Mediterranean country. Sort of ironic that this is at least as hyperbolic as anything I've seen from the guy. In any event, I didn't sing his praises. In fact, I actually disagreed with his philosophy on absolutist free speech as impractical and causing bad outcomes - basically what he's doing is winking while shouting fire in a crowded theatre, where the theatre is filled with two thirds people who know he's joking and one third with tone-deaf pyrophobics.

Sigh, it was an example of someone doing one thing well (trains!) And other things awfully (the rest of his existence!). No one is calling him Mussolini. He doesn't have the fashion sense for it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

And you need to understand that when Harris makes ignorant comments about an entire religion he is being every bit as bad as Aslan

Harris has never done so. However, even if he had, this is not as bad as what Aslan and company do. They're not comparable. Let's assume Harris is saying ignorant things. The proper response is to explain why they are ignorant, not to lie about what he has said. These are different moral acts.

even though I do not see Aslan saying anything that is not true of what Harris has said.

Then you haven't been paying attention. As one of about fifty examples, after attempting to explain his position on profiling, Harris stated that we shouldn't bother searching Jerry Seinfeld, because Jerry Seinfeld is a famous comedian who is obviously not going to try to blow up the plane, and we should all be comfortable betting our lives on it. Aslan's response was to circulate a tweet suggesting that Harris meant that brown skinned people could be profiled, but not people who look like Jerry Seinfeld - i.e., jews. This sort of smearing happens constantly. It's intentional. He's even said that it's "fun" to rile Harris up by doing these things.

If Harris treated Christianity the same way he treats Islam, Harris would be a pariah, period.

He has! Repeatedly! He wrote a damned book about it! Seriously, try finding anything he's said about Islam that's more withering than the first two paragraphs of this article on Catholocism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_571088.html

Good lord. Your view of reality is basically a funhouse mirror on this topic. I'm not sure we can possibly even carry on a conversation when you seem to be insisting that 1+1=3. Maybe we should just forget it, it seems destined to simply cause frustration.

I must say that it is priceless that you'll defend a complete piece of crap like Yiannopoulos, who defames everyone he talks meets or talks about

Well, first, Yiannopoulos is a self-professed troll. It's a different baseline, he doesn't really hold himself out as rational or unbiased or, frankly, sane, so I'm not sure it's an apt comparison. It's kind of like accusing the Daily Show of being a poor source of news - it's a comedy show.

But in any case, I didn't defend Yiannopoulos, I explained what his rationale was for the way he conducted himself on his speaking tour, which was what was asked for. I then said I thought that rationale was probably wrong. If you can't differentiate between that and an endorsement, you're simply not trying hard enough to think clearly.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

And you need to understand that when Harris makes ignorant comments about an entire religion he is being every bit as bad as Aslan, even though I do not see Aslan saying anything that is not true of what Harris has said. If Harris treated Christianity the same way he treats Islam, Harris would be a pariah, period.

I must say that it is priceless that you'll defend a complete piece of crap like Yiannopoulos, who defames everyone he talks meets or talks about, but a guy like Aslan who is in a very public feud with another dude, Harris, who you just happen to like a lot, is public enemy number one. Pretty ballsy move. Not a bright one, but pretty ballsy. Seriously, if that piece of crap Yiannopoulos tried his schtick in Canada, he'd get at best the Ann Coulter treatment, but more likely the Terry Jones treatment. Canadians wouldn't stand for that crap.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard Harris say anything unreasonable about Islam. I would be interested to hear of anything I might have missed. Although with Harris, it's usually helpful to also include proper context.

I also don't see why Harris should feel compelled to treat Islam and Christianity the same. They are different religions, with different texts, and present very different problems for the world. On the other hand, he did write Letter to a Christian Nation, which pilloried Christianity in a way that would definitely be considered offensive to Islamic apologists if Islam was the topic.

As for Aslan, there is just too much obvious proof of his lying for a counter-claim to be anything but willfully ignorant of the facts at this points.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

You basically have three choices with Milo (or anyone else you disagree with).

1. Ignore them
2. Try to disprove their core arguments
3. Try to squash their speech in an un-intellectual and un-democratic way.

Milo's point is that the current left starts with #3, and barely does #2. So he goes on his tour to prove this point. And what do all the bumble-bums on the left do? They start with #3 in the most obvious ways possible.

Milo's opponents display the most insane tendency to prove his point as I've ever seen.

You basically have three choices with obnoxious pricks at the bar.

1. Ignore them
2. Try to disprove their core arguments
3. Try to squash their speech in an un-intellectual and un-democratic way by taking them outside for a very public's beat down.

Milo's is that obnoxious drunk that is at the bar every day, spewing the same tired ####. It doesn't matter how many times some one dresses him down for his stupid ideas, he's there nattering on-and-on about the same tired crap. The only solution is #3. Being continually obnoxious about something is the quickest way to an ass kicking.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

The only solution is #3. Being continually obnoxious about something is the quickest way to an ass kicking.

First, if that's actually your view, that it's okay to just beat people up to shut them up because you think they're annoying, that says nothing good about you.

Second, it's not a bar. It's a university campus. Presumably the whole point of a university is to disprove bad ideas by explaining why they're bad ideas and offering better ones. In other words, #2.

God this is stupid.

[GGG]

But doesn't it get to the freeman on the land situation in which there is just so much crap to wade through you just have to dismiss it out of hand.

Going back to first principles logic for every discussion is a waste of time when it has been done repeatedly.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

But doesn't it get to the freeman on the land situation in which there is just so much crap to wade through you just have to dismiss it out of hand.

Sure. Which is why no one but the crazies take Alex Jones seriously. But going back to the three options Buster talked about, that's just #1 - if you think he's a kook, ignore the guy. That's fine. Don't try to stop him from speaking, or stop other people from listening to him rant and rave his kookiness. Definitely don't take him outside and beat him up to teach him a lesson.

Presumably if he's a kook, any non-kook who happens to be listening to him will think, "Yep, this guy's a kook, I'm going to ignore him like my buddy GGG told me I should have in the first place." If that doesn't transpire, then you've got to move to #2, which is what's now happening with Trump, after the GOP primary process failed to do it.