Society/Culture Can we please stop equating the risk posed by left wing extremists with that of right wing extremists?

[Carringbush2010]

Interesting how many of them apply to the United States. I've highlighted point number seven because I think it's particularly relevant to Trump and the 'big lie' which is not only refusing to go away, but actually getting worse (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/15/politics/big-lie-republican-belief-trump/index.html).

Trump may have lost the election, but anyone thinking that America is now 'in the clear'. No wonder it's now being rated as a 'backsliding democracy' (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ing-democracies-civil-liberties-international)

So in a nutshell, you're bringing points from opinion based journal articles to confirm that people really are gullible and a majority of them - they really believe in the plot?

Geez I dunno, even though they're american surely 78% of republican 'voters' can't really all be that stupid.

Do you have a link to suggest that the guardian and cnn (yes the anti republican cnn) did actually canvass every single republican voter?

I think this is shaky ground, there might be denial but belief? That many?

 

[Malifice]

Do you have a link to suggest that the guardian and cnn (yes the anti republican cnn) did actually canvass every single republican voter?

No, of course not.

rel5e.-.elections.pdf (cnn.com)

 

[Coolangatta]

So in a nutshell, you're bringing points from opinion based journal articles to confirm that people really are gullible and a majority of them - they really believe in the plot?

Geez I dunno, even though they're american surely 78% of republican 'voters' can't really all be that stupid.

Do you have a link to suggest that the guardian and cnn (yes the anti republican cnn) did actually canvass every single republican voter?

I think this is shaky ground, there might be denial but belief? That many?

You'd hope not.

There's gotta be a difference between Trump voters and Trump supporters.

Surely many are just single-issue voters and vote for anyone with an R next to their name because of guns, abortion, taxes, or immigration. Maybe, probably likely, a mixture of those. Then you might have voters who don't care about policy but align themselves culturally with conservative values.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No, of course not.

rel5e.-.elections.pdf (cnn.com)

As suspected.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You'd hope not.

There's gotta be a difference between Trump voters and Trump supporters.

Surely many are just single-issue voters and vote for anyone with an R next to their name because of guns, abortion, taxes, or immigration. Maybe, probably likely, a mixture of those. Then you might have voters who don't care about policy but align themselves culturally with conservative values.

I'd definitely buy this for the 2016 election, given the 'anti woke vote' at the time, but now?, after the world has had a taste of trump as commander in chief?

Uh uh girlfriend, ain't nobody got time for that!

Surely the anti abortion / immigration whatever brigade wouldn't go around again! Nah don't see it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'd definitely buy this for the 2016 election, given the 'anti woke vote' at the time, but now?, after the world has had a taste of trump as commander in chief?

Uh uh girlfriend, ain't nobody got time for that!

Surely the anti abortion / immigration whatever brigade wouldn't go around again! Nah don't see it.

If, as seems possible from the latest reports, even probable, his stacked Supreme Court effectively criminalises abortion again, he will be a hero for life to the anti-abortion gang.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

So in a nutshell, you're bringing points from opinion based journal articles to confirm that people really are gullible and a majority of them - they really believe in the plot?

Geez I dunno, even though they're american surely 78% of republican 'voters' can't really all be that stupid.

Of course they can. If you spend your entire time watching Fox News or Newsmax, why wouldn't you believe the election was rigged? It's not like Republicans in congress are openly disavowing people of the notion. Even the so-called 'moderate' Republicans couch their comments in the most Trump-friendly manner rather than openly declare that the election was fair.

Do you have a link to suggest that the guardian and cnn (yes the anti republican cnn) did actually canvass every single republican voter?

Erm... you do know how polling works, right?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course they can. If you spend your entire time watching Fox News or Newsmax, why wouldn't you believe the election was rigged? It's not like Republicans in congress are openly disavowing people of the notion. Even the so-called 'moderate' Republicans couch their comments in the most Trump-friendly manner rather than openly declare that the election was fair.



Erm... you do know how polling works, right?

That's why polls are rarely accurate.

 

[CM86]

Do you have a link to suggest that the guardian and cnn (yes the anti republican cnn) did actually canvass every single republican voter?

As suspected.

That's why polls are rarely accurate.

Is that a regular thing is it? To 'canvass' every single person?

So you don't believe Western countries have democraticaly elected officials?
Not even our elections cover everyone who they wish to 'canvass'.


Just a bit of your usual bullshit.

Why are you so often in these anti extremists threads, posting tangential rubbish, playing contrarian or minimising?
I can guess. But I can't prove it.

Nice flag.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Is that a regular thing is it? To 'canvass' every single person?

So you don't believe Western countries have democraticaly elected officials?
Not even our elections cover everyone who they wish to 'canvass'.


Just a bit of your usual bullshit.

Why are you so often in these anti extremists threads, posting tangential rubbish, playing contrarian or minimising?
I can guess. But I can't prove it.

Nice flag.

Where who and when suggested canvassing everyone is a regular thing?

And there you go again claiming you can read my mind and spew out defensive bs like I've offended you somehow.

Why are you so often in these extremists threads taking pot shots at other posters coz you incorrectly assume what they're thinking? Instead actually posting something relevant?

Did I sh*t on your avatar or something?

 

[CM86]

Where who and when suggested canvassing everyone is a regular thing?

And there you go again claiming you can read my mind and spew out defensive bs like I've offended you somehow.

Why are you so often in these extremists threads taking pot shots at other posters coz you incorrectly assume what they're thinking? Instead actually posting something relevant?

Did I sh*t on your avatar or something?

You don't offend me. Sorry if me pointing out the obvious with you, offends you.

I've said what I think, showed my reasoning, and provided your quotes, to support what I say.

You reply in your usual way, insisting I PROVE what you're actually thinking.
It's impossible to prove what you're thinking. Because it's impossible to prove what anyone is actually thinking.

Where who and when

All answered in the quotes of you, that I quoted.


Now, I'm sorry if that upsets you. But it's not like I s**t on your avatar or anything.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You don't offend me. Sorry if me pointing out the obvious with you, offends you.

I've said what I think, showed my reasoning, and provided your quotes, to support what I say.

You reply in your usual way, insisting I PROVE what you're actually thinking.
It's impossible to prove what you're thinking. Because it's impossible to prove what anyone is actually thinking.




All answered in the quotes of you, that I quoted.


Now, I'm sorry if that upsets you. But it's not like I sh*t on your avatar or anything.

Yeah right, you are offended, you've gone totally off topic just to attack on something as frivolous as polling.

You don't need to 'prove' anything.

I post that I don't believe polls are accurate and you lose your sh*t, and now you wanna make this as you taking the moral high ground.

How about get off your *ing high horse.

On ignore you go. Troll.

 

[CM86]

Yeah right, you are offended, you've totally off topic just to attack on something as frivolous as polling.

*snorts with laughter*

Ahem.

Do you have a link to suggest that the guardian and cnn (yes the anti republican cnn) did actually canvass every single republican voter?

Post contradicting statements all you like. It's because you don't care about or believe what you're posting.

Don't get upset that you're so lazy about it.

Yeah right, you are offended, you've totally off topic just to attack on something as frivolous as polling.

You don't need to 'prove' anything.

I post that I don't believe are accurate and you lose your sh*t, and now you wanna make this as you taking the moral high ground.

How about get off your f*n high horse.

On ignore you go. Troll.

You're not even upset. You don't care enough about what you're posting to get upset.

If anything is bothering you a little, it's just that I'm calling you out for what you're pretty obviously doing.

 

[Coolangatta]

Anyone else subbed to all of these? Well, except Nick, who's been banned. There's a bunch of others too like Jonathan Pie, The Amazing Atheist, Lauren Chen, PJW, Hasan, Sam Harris etc that aren't on the list I'm following on YouTube, plus a bunch of Aussie commentators and comedy (love the Juice Media).

I tend to agree with the "left-wing" debaters much more than the right-wing ones, but feel I should at least listen to the right-wing ones from time to time (I don't listen to that much political content, I've got heaps of other non-political subs).

But it can't only be obvious to me how many people are bad faith debaters and are just in it for the money, especially the right-wing commentators. Some are just genuinely shitty people like Steven Crowder.

I think to myself sometimes, "What is the point?"

Politics can easily make you angry and depressed.

I feel some obgligation to stay "informed" though. Don't do a hell of a lot of media reading, mind you.

 

[CM86]

Anyone else subbed to all of these? Well, except Nick, who's been banned. There's a bunch of others too like Jonathan Pie, The Amazing Atheist, Lauren Chen, PJW, Hasan, Sam Harris etc that aren't on the list I'm following on YouTube, plus a bunch of Aussie commentators and comedy (love the Juice Media).

I tend to agree with the "left-wing" debaters much more than the right-wing ones, but feel I should at least listen to the right-wing ones from time to time (I don't listen to that much political content, I've got heaps of other non-political subs).

But it can't only be obvious to me how many people are bad faith debaters and are just in it for the money, especially the right-wing commentators. Some are just genuinely shitty people like Steven Crowder.

I think to myself sometimes, "What is the point?"

Politics can easily make you angry and depressed.

I feel some obgligation to stay "informed" though. Don't do a hell of a lot of media reading, mind you.

View attachment 1293677

It's interesting to watch some of that stuff, and the older videos.
So many arguments you've seen on bigfooty are straight from those videos/streamers.

Sometimes word for word.

Lauren Southern is on her way to the top. Beautiful training and behind-the-scenes support.
Bannon is dangerously inteligent.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think to myself sometimes, "What is the point?"

What is the point of immersing so much time and energy into listening to opinions from hand wringers, that as you say sometimes angers you?

Keep asking yourself, to the point where you'll make better use of your time.

Post on BF instead, an ocean of measured intellectual discussion. That'd be my suggestion.

 

[Coolangatta]

What is the point of immersing so much time and energy into listening to opinions from hand wringers, that as you say sometimes angers you?

Keep asking yourself, to the point where you'll make better use of your time.

Post on BF instead, an ocean of measured intellectual discussion. That'd be my suggestion.

Hahaha.

Yeah don't get me wrong, I'm gradually spending more time looking at non-political content.

I never engaged that much in political content, to begin with. I'm not sure many do in the real world, but the internet gives you the illusion that they do, I guess.

There was a really good comment I read which sums up how I feel about politics on a video of Matt Dillahunty talking with Jordan Peterson, and it felt to me like Peterson kept trying to twist his words, "So what you're saying is..."

But the comment was, "Boy, the guy I agree with sure kicked the other guy's ass in this one. I mean, the other guy was like "blablabla" and my guy was like "Omae wa mou shindeiru" and then the conversation was over! Good job by my preferred guy."

Seems like a debate needs to be really one-sided for a consensus to emerge. Then again, scientists have "lost" debates to young-earth creationists. I'm implying that debates are becoming irrelevant and if that's true, what is the point of political engagement other than to inform yourself?

Although, Destiny has de-radicalised some people from the far-right so it can be effective. And Ben Shapiro has converted some people to a more right-wing worldview.

 

[Coolangatta]

I deleted my YouTube account (I'll probably make another one but not political). And my Reddit account. I still have an active FB account but only because I like seeing my friends posts. This is probably the wrong thread for such a comment. But it's a step in the right direction, I think it's possible to become over engaged.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

An angry right wing guy who always pops up agreeing in twitter with the usual cadre ends up killing people.

Twist is he killed the same people he named in a right wing fever dream he published as a book.

He killed himself aswell. Should have done it before he hurt anyone.

 

[Malifice]

Fears are growing among experts, politicians, and former generals about the rise of rightwing extremism in the US military and the potential threat it could pose to American democracy.

“It’s the Timothy McVeigh problem: what did we know about McVeigh and what were we doing about it?” said Eaton.

The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people and injured over 650 when one morning ex-army soldiers Timothy McVeigh and co-conspirator Terry Nichols parked a rental truck filled with homemade explosives outside a federal building and detonated it. It remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in US history. The two men harbored anti-government and racist beliefs.

“The McVeighs of the world are still there, we had about 4,500 of them crawling all over the nation’s Capitol [during the 6 January attack],” said Eaton, who added that the increased power of the internet and rise of social media had boosted the threat massively since McVeigh’s attack.

‘The Timothy McVeighs are still there’: fears over extremism in US military (msn.com)

These guys get it.

 

[Osho]

Anyone else subbed to all of these? Well, except Nick, who's been banned. There's a bunch of others too like Jonathan Pie, The Amazing Atheist, Lauren Chen, PJW, Hasan, Sam Harris etc that aren't on the list I'm following on YouTube, plus a bunch of Aussie commentators and comedy (love the Juice Media).

I tend to agree with the "left-wing" debaters much more than the right-wing ones, but feel I should at least listen to the right-wing ones from time to time (I don't listen to that much political content, I've got heaps of other non-political subs).

But it can't only be obvious to me how many people are bad faith debaters and are just in it for the money, especially the right-wing commentators. Some are just genuinely shitty people like Steven Crowder.

I think to myself sometimes, "What is the point?"

Politics can easily make you angry and depressed.

I feel some obgligation to stay "informed" though. Don't do a hell of a lot of media reading, mind you.

View attachment 1293677

Geewizz, all the right wingers listed are seriously flawed and not worth anyone's time for political discussion. On the left at least there are a couple of academics worth listening to even if they are hopelessly ideologued, but you know that going in.

I like listening to the greyzone, greenwald, and bloggingheads, particularly the Two Black guys, thats what they call themselves, John McWhorter and Glen Loury. There are plenty of more thoughtful folk out there with something worth hearing. Anyone who critiques everyone unbiasedly is worth the time.

Sam Harris is okay too, but currently his audience is extremely polarised on his positions, he may not be able to maintain his current popularity.

 

[Coolangatta]

Geewizz, all the right wingers listed are seriously flawed and not worth anyone's time for political discussion. On the left at least there are a couple of academics worth listening to even if they are hopelessly ideologued, but you know that going in.

I like listening to the greyzone, greenwald, and bloggingheads, particularly the Two Black guys, thats what they call themselves, John McWhorter and Glen Loury. There are plenty of more thoughtful folk out there with something worth hearing. Anyone who critiques everyone unbiasedly is worth the time.

Sam Harris is okay too, but currently his audience is extremely polarised on his positions, he may not be able to maintain his current popularity.

Interesting.

I still haven't subbed to any political channels. To stay "informed" about politics I have subs to ABC, SBS, Reuters, AP, BBC, Al Jazeera, Time, Politico, and The Economist. I also occasionally read from those sites. My other academic/intellectual/scientific/facts/educational subs sometimes bleed into politics but mostly I'm still a boring mainstream recipient of news. I might give Sam Harris some more listens on podyssey, though.

 

[Tas]

Nutjobs are nutjobs regardless of the ideology. Which nutjobs are more dangerous is only a point of concern if you are an ideologue seeking to downplay whichever nutjobs share your ideology.

As a centrist, I find both extreme sides abhorrent and lack human decency.

 

[Malifice]

Nutjobs are nutjobs regardless of the ideology. Which nutjobs are more dangerous is only a point of concern if you are an ideologue seeking to downplay whichever nutjobs share your ideology.

Yeah no. ISIS are dangerous nutjobs regardless of what ideology anyone is downplaying.

Ditto Nazis.

 

[sdfc]

Yeah no. ISIS are dangerous nutjobs regardless of what ideology anyone is downplaying.

Ditto Nazis.

Let's not forget the communists.