So, I was debating a right winger about how the left should react to Islam, and there was considerable difficulty getting my point across, so I think this is something warranting discussion here. Long story short, there is a HUGE difference between criticizing a religion and engaging in right wing xenophobia toward members of certain religions. Some people on the right make massive strawmen and claim the left thinks can't criticize religions like Islam because it goes against our concept of tolerance. This is basically a strawman.
Yes, we can criticize Islam, and we should criticize Islam. We should criticize all religions. I'm very critical of religion. Before I wrote here I used to write under a different pseudonym on an atheist site criticizing religion. And I often enjoy the likes of the scathing atheist in criticizing religion. In short, for me, the more sacrilegious, the better. It breaks down mental barriers put in place by this idea of sanctity or an idea being off limits and only approached with respect.
But that's not what the right does with religion. In short, the problem with the right is falling into a sort of pit of "hating the sinner" so to speak, when we should "hate the sinner, not the sin." There's a huge difference between paranoia the right exhibits, which I believe is harmful, and intelligent criticism of religion. Here are the differences.
1) The right seems to base its views often on paranoia, fear of the other/unknown, and misconceptions about religion. The right fears Islam for the wrong reasons. They fear outside cultures and religion and see them as a threat to our own. They believe if we allow Muslims into the country we will be overrun by them and they won't assimilate, and they will try to take us over from within. It's the same argument racists make about non white people threatening "white culture" and racial purity and crap. These guys are culture warriors who see Islam as a threat. In reality, the biggest problem we have in this case is Christianity. Christians make up a majority of the population and one party explicitly tries to force religion down out throats, and the other tends to use religious undertones way too often. The right also fears Muslims will engage in terrorist attacks against us, even though only a very small minority will, and even though, guess what, Christians, who these guys have no problem with, do the same thing. This fear of Islam threatening our culture is largely unfounded. I'm sorry, it is.
2) There is a difference between criticizing ideas and attacking PEOPLE for holding them. I tried to make this differentiation with the whole punching Nazis thing. It's the same thing here. Religion, including Islam, is very much fair game for criticism. Trying to deny people rights, which the right is trying to do with their travel bans and discrimination, isn't. I want to remind people that regarding religion, there are two clauses to our constitution. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause tries to stop the government from establishing religion in government. Under current supreme court interpretations, it's essentially a dedication to having a secular state as the only real way the government can be neutral toward religion. This protects peoples' rights, and stops a religious majority from imposing its will on a minority. The second clause is the free exercise clause, which minimizes the government's ability to restrict people or discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. Once again, intended to protect their freedom. In this society, I have freedom to criticize ideas. I also have freedom to have my own ideas. They can be criticized too. But you know what? We can't be persecuted for our views, and the state cannot and should not take action against us simply for holding views.
As such, the real liberal position, in my opinion, on Islam, is that it's okay to criticize it, but it's not okay to persecute people or deny them their rights because they hold such views. Period.
I don't like Islam. I don't like it at all. I think it's a primitive barbaric religion with a lot of harmful teachings. But I will defend your right to believe in it insofar as you obey our laws and respect the rights of others yourself. Same with Christianity. Same with any religion.
3) A lot of the criticisms the right makes are unfounded. The right likes to cherrypick teachings from the Quran or whatever, take them GROSSLY out of context, and then use them to fear monger against Islam. They take words that are clearly meant for a much different cultural and political context and claim the Muslims are trying to attack us and crap. You can't really understand a holy book or its teachings unless you understand the context within which they were written. This doesn't always absolve the religion of criticism since quite frankly, some lessons are bad regardless of context, but it helps a lot in clearing up misinformation. The same applies to the Bible. Try reading it some time, right wing Christians, especially the old testament. All kinds of horrid crap in there too. Especially the old testament. But...context, right? It has a context right that diminishes its harmfulness right? No crap, so does the Quran. So stop spreading misinformation.
That being said, there is a huge difference between being critical of religion and being a xenophobe. Criticizing Islam is a okay. Even more, I think it's something that should be encouraged. I do believe religions should be HARSHLY criticized, and I believe that the ideas within many of them are false and harmful. But once again, just like was the case with defending Nazis from being punched, we live in a civil society in which we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And it's wrong to discriminate against and fear monger about religious groups, often out of fear and ignorance.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
The healthcare debate between Sanders and Cruz
So, a week or so ago, there was a debate between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders on healthcare and the ACA. And I just felt the need to talk about some of the things Cruz said. I'll preface this by saying I largely agree with Sanders on healthcare and support ACA insofar that we don't replace it with something better, like universal healthcare. As such my position is largely identical to Sanders on the debate. That said I'm going to respond to some of Cruz's arguments.
1) Rationing. Cruz's key argument against universal healthcare seems to be that there's rationing of care. I agree with Sanders here...we have rationing here in America too. It's called poor people not getting the treatment they need. America's healthcare is top notch, and arguably better than what is provided in the rest of the world...but only if you can afford it. And it's not affordable. We spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare whereas other advanced countries spend far less. Around 9-12%. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the entire population get 90% of the care free of charge at point of service for everyone, than to have some people getting 100%, others getting 90%, and others getting 50% (basic emergency room services and nothing more). I'd rather live in a world where everyone has affordable healthcare that's good than one where some have slightly better care and others get bottom tier care.
2) Wait times. Republicans love to bring up horror stories of people waiting for surgeries or hours to get treatment in the emergency room. What they don't tell you is this happens in the US all the time. When I was 19 I had periorbital cellulitis. It's basically an infection that makes the eyelid blow up like a balloon. I went to the emergency room with insurance...and was there for 6 hours. I wasn't given fast care at all. Seems to be common in emergency room visits in my experience. Then there's wait times for surgeries. My dad needed emergency surgery at one point and it took 2 months to get an appointment for it. He had to fight with insurance companies and their stupid in network out of network BS and all that crap just to get an appointment. The surgery went well, but don't get me wrong, you have to wait in the US too.
It seems when talking with people from other countries, a lot of wait times are often for less than necessary surgeries. People might have to wait 6 months for a knee replacement or something. Of course, you can live without one, and considering how healthcare priority is given to those who need it most, they might figure it's better to wait on a knee replacement while someone who needs emergency heart surgery gets it. I've also seen people claim to get stuff like heart surgery less, but I've also seen evidence there's little affect on outcome and we might just be surgery happy in the US. So it's not even clear that more care leads to better outcomes and our system might simply be inefficient. This might seem better for some people, but it's like a placebo in some cases. Immediate care might not impact mortality rates 5-10 years down the road for less than necessary surgeries.
3) Most of Cruz's arguments apply specifically to Obamacare. Obamacare is a flawed program. Yes, it may have had an impact on full time employment and hurt some businesses from growing. That happens when you don't have a government program independent of the employment system for most people. Yes, middle class families might pay more. Before Obamacare, people who were sick simply couldn't afford healthcare because of preexisting conditions. Here's the thing about market based healthcare....profits are the primary concern, not health. Insurance companies don't care if you die. They just want to make money off of you. And if they can't make money off of sick people and have to treat them like everyone else, other peoples' rates go up. It's a flaw with the for profit insurance system. Should've went with universal healthcare.
Another argument Cruz made was to allow people to buy insurance across state lines to lower prices. This might help the middle class who kinda got the short end of the stick with Obamacare and its high rates, but it absolutely won't help the poor or most vulnerable populations who need care most.
4) Government being the problem. In Cruz's mind, government is the problem. He's a typical conservative, and seems to believe if government got out of healthcare it would be more affordable. While there is certainly a lot wrong with how our government approaches healthcare (quite frankly medicare is a typical overly complicated mess that likely inflates prices since it combines the worst of both government and market based healthcare) , government acts to respond to market failures. The default approach to any good or service in our capitalist society is to have it run by the market. When that fails, we use government. Government responds to market failures and does things the market doesn't do a good job of themselves. Every government program is a response to a market failure. Medicare was a response to older people not being able to afford care. Medicaid was basically the welfare form of medicare. The ACA was intended to fix a lot of problems aimed at people who were poor or had preexisting conditions and couldn't afford care. It had some bad side effects, but that's because it didn't go far enough and still keeps the underlying market system. Cruz mentioned a Saturday Night Live skit about how the answer to everything for some people was "more cowbell." The cowbell was what was making the song in the analogy bad, but the answer was always to add more to it. The lesson was intended to be a stab at government. That the more government tries to run healthcare, the more it will mess it up. I see the problem as the opposite. The more market based we make healthcare, the more messed up it is, because let's be honest, businesses are there to make a profit and don't give a darn how affordable their care is. They'll take you for everything you got, and because you can't say no, you're left paying exorbitant rates for something you need to continue living. It's screwed up and immoral, period.
Healthcare should be a human right, and the market should at best play a peripheral function in the system. Rather than the government responding to market failures, the healthcare system should be based on government care, with the market possibly offering extra services the government doesn't provide (this happens in some countries). The problem isn't too much government, it's not enough, with the government implementing band aids rather than full scale systemic solutions. The problem with ACA isn't that it went too far, it's that it didn't go far enough. So MOAR COWBELL I SAY, Mr. Cruz.
And yeah, that's my opinion on the debate and Cruz's positions in it. I don't agree with republicans on healthcare, and believe that while their ideas might be better for the middle class relative to ACA, it would be a raw deal for the most vulnerable populations in society who need help most. Repealing Obamacare would reintroduce the problems Obamacare was intended to solve and leave many people worse off. As a supporter of diminishing marginal utility being a deciding factor in who bears the costs of things in society, those who need stuff the most and are most unable to afford it should get it, and those who can afford it should pay a little extra. It's only fair and just in my opinion. And while ACA isn't perfect, I'll only settle for removing it if we're going to be serious about implementing REAL universal care.
1) Rationing. Cruz's key argument against universal healthcare seems to be that there's rationing of care. I agree with Sanders here...we have rationing here in America too. It's called poor people not getting the treatment they need. America's healthcare is top notch, and arguably better than what is provided in the rest of the world...but only if you can afford it. And it's not affordable. We spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare whereas other advanced countries spend far less. Around 9-12%. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the entire population get 90% of the care free of charge at point of service for everyone, than to have some people getting 100%, others getting 90%, and others getting 50% (basic emergency room services and nothing more). I'd rather live in a world where everyone has affordable healthcare that's good than one where some have slightly better care and others get bottom tier care.
2) Wait times. Republicans love to bring up horror stories of people waiting for surgeries or hours to get treatment in the emergency room. What they don't tell you is this happens in the US all the time. When I was 19 I had periorbital cellulitis. It's basically an infection that makes the eyelid blow up like a balloon. I went to the emergency room with insurance...and was there for 6 hours. I wasn't given fast care at all. Seems to be common in emergency room visits in my experience. Then there's wait times for surgeries. My dad needed emergency surgery at one point and it took 2 months to get an appointment for it. He had to fight with insurance companies and their stupid in network out of network BS and all that crap just to get an appointment. The surgery went well, but don't get me wrong, you have to wait in the US too.
It seems when talking with people from other countries, a lot of wait times are often for less than necessary surgeries. People might have to wait 6 months for a knee replacement or something. Of course, you can live without one, and considering how healthcare priority is given to those who need it most, they might figure it's better to wait on a knee replacement while someone who needs emergency heart surgery gets it. I've also seen people claim to get stuff like heart surgery less, but I've also seen evidence there's little affect on outcome and we might just be surgery happy in the US. So it's not even clear that more care leads to better outcomes and our system might simply be inefficient. This might seem better for some people, but it's like a placebo in some cases. Immediate care might not impact mortality rates 5-10 years down the road for less than necessary surgeries.
3) Most of Cruz's arguments apply specifically to Obamacare. Obamacare is a flawed program. Yes, it may have had an impact on full time employment and hurt some businesses from growing. That happens when you don't have a government program independent of the employment system for most people. Yes, middle class families might pay more. Before Obamacare, people who were sick simply couldn't afford healthcare because of preexisting conditions. Here's the thing about market based healthcare....profits are the primary concern, not health. Insurance companies don't care if you die. They just want to make money off of you. And if they can't make money off of sick people and have to treat them like everyone else, other peoples' rates go up. It's a flaw with the for profit insurance system. Should've went with universal healthcare.
Another argument Cruz made was to allow people to buy insurance across state lines to lower prices. This might help the middle class who kinda got the short end of the stick with Obamacare and its high rates, but it absolutely won't help the poor or most vulnerable populations who need care most.
4) Government being the problem. In Cruz's mind, government is the problem. He's a typical conservative, and seems to believe if government got out of healthcare it would be more affordable. While there is certainly a lot wrong with how our government approaches healthcare (quite frankly medicare is a typical overly complicated mess that likely inflates prices since it combines the worst of both government and market based healthcare) , government acts to respond to market failures. The default approach to any good or service in our capitalist society is to have it run by the market. When that fails, we use government. Government responds to market failures and does things the market doesn't do a good job of themselves. Every government program is a response to a market failure. Medicare was a response to older people not being able to afford care. Medicaid was basically the welfare form of medicare. The ACA was intended to fix a lot of problems aimed at people who were poor or had preexisting conditions and couldn't afford care. It had some bad side effects, but that's because it didn't go far enough and still keeps the underlying market system. Cruz mentioned a Saturday Night Live skit about how the answer to everything for some people was "more cowbell." The cowbell was what was making the song in the analogy bad, but the answer was always to add more to it. The lesson was intended to be a stab at government. That the more government tries to run healthcare, the more it will mess it up. I see the problem as the opposite. The more market based we make healthcare, the more messed up it is, because let's be honest, businesses are there to make a profit and don't give a darn how affordable their care is. They'll take you for everything you got, and because you can't say no, you're left paying exorbitant rates for something you need to continue living. It's screwed up and immoral, period.
Healthcare should be a human right, and the market should at best play a peripheral function in the system. Rather than the government responding to market failures, the healthcare system should be based on government care, with the market possibly offering extra services the government doesn't provide (this happens in some countries). The problem isn't too much government, it's not enough, with the government implementing band aids rather than full scale systemic solutions. The problem with ACA isn't that it went too far, it's that it didn't go far enough. So MOAR COWBELL I SAY, Mr. Cruz.
And yeah, that's my opinion on the debate and Cruz's positions in it. I don't agree with republicans on healthcare, and believe that while their ideas might be better for the middle class relative to ACA, it would be a raw deal for the most vulnerable populations in society who need help most. Repealing Obamacare would reintroduce the problems Obamacare was intended to solve and leave many people worse off. As a supporter of diminishing marginal utility being a deciding factor in who bears the costs of things in society, those who need stuff the most and are most unable to afford it should get it, and those who can afford it should pay a little extra. It's only fair and just in my opinion. And while ACA isn't perfect, I'll only settle for removing it if we're going to be serious about implementing REAL universal care.
Hey guess what, I do care about the free speech rights of people on the left too
So, it was in the news recently that a member of the antifa organization was assaulted by a neo nazi. And with that, the perpetual outrage of the SJWs leaped into action and I suddenly find myself confronted by people because I previously defended neonazis from being assaulted by members of antifa. WHERE ARE YOU NOW PLATO? WHY AREN'T YOU SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS OUTRAGE?!
Um...because I have people on the left who do that for me. I don't play the virtue signalling game, I don't engage in the perpetual outrage the left is swept up in recently, and I don't like to blog about things I don't have a lot to say about. It's boring if I just post "I agree" over and over again on facebook or reddit or here. I don't blog about water being wet, because everyone knows water is wet. I don't blog about the republicans or Trump being stupid because everyone knows they're stupid (at least I hope we do). I don't talk about neonazis committing hate crimes, because they're clearly hate crimes and clearly wrong. The act of assaulting another is the problem I have, it doesn't matter who the parties are. The reason I come down harder on the left is because these people are supposed to be on my side and represent my views, and they're not. I'm harder on the left and the dems because I actually expect them to be on my side. To represent my views. I don't talk about the right as much because we know what to expect from them.
It's kinda like having two kids and critiquing the the A student who got the B because you know they can do better, but then you just expect Cs and Ds out of the other kid. One is reaching their potential, the other is not. And I care more about my side meeting their potential, because it's the only way, long term, we can actually beat the other side. In order for the left to beat the right, they need to clean up their act. It's not that I condone the right, or condone neonazis, their downfall will come in due time. I'm more interested in keeping my side's nose clean, in making it responsible, in allowing the public to come to their own conclusions about the right's ineptitude, which won't happen as long as the left is acting scummy too.
Lefties, we need to be better than the right. And that's why I push the left so hard. We all know what the right is capable of. What we need is for the PEOPLE to understand that. And if you act all aggressive and combative out of the gate and make our side look bad, people will continue to defend the right...against us. And that's not good for anyone.
That said, of course neonazis assaulting members of antifa who aren't assaulting others is bad. It's wrong to throw the first punch most of the time. And I don't care what party is aggressing against what on this matter. I shouldn't have to make a post clarifying my position here, because to me this is settled debate. Water is wet, hate crimes are bad. Can we move on now?
Um...because I have people on the left who do that for me. I don't play the virtue signalling game, I don't engage in the perpetual outrage the left is swept up in recently, and I don't like to blog about things I don't have a lot to say about. It's boring if I just post "I agree" over and over again on facebook or reddit or here. I don't blog about water being wet, because everyone knows water is wet. I don't blog about the republicans or Trump being stupid because everyone knows they're stupid (at least I hope we do). I don't talk about neonazis committing hate crimes, because they're clearly hate crimes and clearly wrong. The act of assaulting another is the problem I have, it doesn't matter who the parties are. The reason I come down harder on the left is because these people are supposed to be on my side and represent my views, and they're not. I'm harder on the left and the dems because I actually expect them to be on my side. To represent my views. I don't talk about the right as much because we know what to expect from them.
It's kinda like having two kids and critiquing the the A student who got the B because you know they can do better, but then you just expect Cs and Ds out of the other kid. One is reaching their potential, the other is not. And I care more about my side meeting their potential, because it's the only way, long term, we can actually beat the other side. In order for the left to beat the right, they need to clean up their act. It's not that I condone the right, or condone neonazis, their downfall will come in due time. I'm more interested in keeping my side's nose clean, in making it responsible, in allowing the public to come to their own conclusions about the right's ineptitude, which won't happen as long as the left is acting scummy too.
Lefties, we need to be better than the right. And that's why I push the left so hard. We all know what the right is capable of. What we need is for the PEOPLE to understand that. And if you act all aggressive and combative out of the gate and make our side look bad, people will continue to defend the right...against us. And that's not good for anyone.
That said, of course neonazis assaulting members of antifa who aren't assaulting others is bad. It's wrong to throw the first punch most of the time. And I don't care what party is aggressing against what on this matter. I shouldn't have to make a post clarifying my position here, because to me this is settled debate. Water is wet, hate crimes are bad. Can we move on now?
I'm tired of drama between SJWs and the alt right
So, sorry for not posting more often, I've been kind of lacking motivation lately and I've just been sitting back and watching things unfold. Trump is still an idiot, and democrats are still clueless. The headlines change but the basic thesis remains the same. Anyway I might be doing a few shortish posts today on stuff to express some thoughts on some issues and the first I want to tackle is this whole spat between the alt right and SJWs.
Now, as you guys know, I'm not a fan of this drama, but I talk about it constantly. Mainly because this seems to be the state of our politics in 2017. It's been going downhill since 2015 with the beginning of the 2016 election season, and it's just getting worse.
Quite frankly, it's stupid. It's really stupid. It's distracting from the real issues. The alt right acts like a bunch of edge lords that say offensive things for the sake of pissing people off intentionally, and the SJWs eat it up and get offended and freaked out at EVERYTHING. That's basically it. The alt right has the strength of keeping their cool and pretending to debate like adults while throwing in inflammatory comments with a straight face every five seconds, and the SJWs are like "ZOMG DID YOU HEAR THAT? DID YOU HEAR THAT!? THIS GUY IS A NAZI! HE MUST BE STOPPED! REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!"
SJWs, let's be honest, you guys are more correct on issues of race and gender and tolerance than the alt right is. But you guys are such obnoxious insufferable ***holes in expressing themselves. You're so smug, condescending, holier than thou, while at the same time being so easy to troll and manipulate. You eat it right up. The alt right sets out bait for you, and you eat it up and get whipped up in a frenzy of perpetual outrage. Even if you're right on the order of 80-90% of the time, you get so hyperbolic and irrational and hyped up in your stupid little virtue signalling groupthink sessions that you piss off rational people who don't care about the drama. You actually turn people against you. People who otherwise would be allies if only you would cool your jets and stop acting like jerks. Stop taking the bait, stop feeding the trolls, stop giving these people air time. Let's focus on the REAL issues.
And to the alt right. You guys might be cool and rational and all, and you might come off like the mature adults relative to the SJWs all flinging their crap everywhere, but let's be honest. You're trolls. You just are. Your views are abhorrent, you say offensive, wrong things. You're not "race realists", you're racists. You're not taking the "red pill" or "going your own way", you're sexists. Your views are awful, and while I don't go around losing my crap because I am a mature adult, let's call a spade a spade here. You guys are the racist, bigoted underbelly of the republican party that's been kept under wraps since Nixon and you only have the air time you do because the left GIVES you that air time. The world would be better off if we all just ignored and marginalized you like we have for the last 40 years.
Seriously. Can we stop dealing with this BS? Donald Trump never would have been elected if we had not fed the troll. The alt right would not have a platform had we not fed the troll. These guys live and feed on the outrage and tears of SJWs. If we did not have to deal with the alt right vs the SJWs, this election would have ended much differently, and we might've actually had a productive discussion on the issues. Instead everyone is flinging their crap around like a bunch of chimpanzees and it's really getting old.
Now, as you guys know, I'm not a fan of this drama, but I talk about it constantly. Mainly because this seems to be the state of our politics in 2017. It's been going downhill since 2015 with the beginning of the 2016 election season, and it's just getting worse.
Quite frankly, it's stupid. It's really stupid. It's distracting from the real issues. The alt right acts like a bunch of edge lords that say offensive things for the sake of pissing people off intentionally, and the SJWs eat it up and get offended and freaked out at EVERYTHING. That's basically it. The alt right has the strength of keeping their cool and pretending to debate like adults while throwing in inflammatory comments with a straight face every five seconds, and the SJWs are like "ZOMG DID YOU HEAR THAT? DID YOU HEAR THAT!? THIS GUY IS A NAZI! HE MUST BE STOPPED! REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!"
SJWs, let's be honest, you guys are more correct on issues of race and gender and tolerance than the alt right is. But you guys are such obnoxious insufferable ***holes in expressing themselves. You're so smug, condescending, holier than thou, while at the same time being so easy to troll and manipulate. You eat it right up. The alt right sets out bait for you, and you eat it up and get whipped up in a frenzy of perpetual outrage. Even if you're right on the order of 80-90% of the time, you get so hyperbolic and irrational and hyped up in your stupid little virtue signalling groupthink sessions that you piss off rational people who don't care about the drama. You actually turn people against you. People who otherwise would be allies if only you would cool your jets and stop acting like jerks. Stop taking the bait, stop feeding the trolls, stop giving these people air time. Let's focus on the REAL issues.
And to the alt right. You guys might be cool and rational and all, and you might come off like the mature adults relative to the SJWs all flinging their crap everywhere, but let's be honest. You're trolls. You just are. Your views are abhorrent, you say offensive, wrong things. You're not "race realists", you're racists. You're not taking the "red pill" or "going your own way", you're sexists. Your views are awful, and while I don't go around losing my crap because I am a mature adult, let's call a spade a spade here. You guys are the racist, bigoted underbelly of the republican party that's been kept under wraps since Nixon and you only have the air time you do because the left GIVES you that air time. The world would be better off if we all just ignored and marginalized you like we have for the last 40 years.
Seriously. Can we stop dealing with this BS? Donald Trump never would have been elected if we had not fed the troll. The alt right would not have a platform had we not fed the troll. These guys live and feed on the outrage and tears of SJWs. If we did not have to deal with the alt right vs the SJWs, this election would have ended much differently, and we might've actually had a productive discussion on the issues. Instead everyone is flinging their crap around like a bunch of chimpanzees and it's really getting old.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
The left and the politics of fear
So, hopefully this will be one of my last posts on this subject, since I've discussed this before, but I really want to summarize what the democrats' game plan is here. All of this hype and hysteria and hyperbole about Donald Trump is, in my opinion, designed to unify the left against a common enemy to make them more tolerant of democrats' bullcrap.
As we've seen post election, there has been little to no efforts by democrats to change or reform themselves. They elected the same leaders to the house, the leaders are towing the party line, and none of them seem to have any awareness that they need to change. They're good enough as they are, in their eyes, they don't want to change, they're unwilling to change. And when half the democratic party is trying to push them to change, their response is to go LOOK DONALD TRUMP.
This is all about control. The democrats are using Trump as a lightning rod to rally the troops and make them forget all about their internal differences. It's the politics of fear. Make the base so hyped up and afraid, they forget all about their issues. Instead, they're focused on Trump. And around 2019 or so, when we start gearing up for the presidential election cycle, mark my words, they are going to push a flawed, Hillary like candidate on us, and they are going to use Trump to get them through. The democratic base won't be focused on universal healthcare and free education and economic progressivism by that point. They'll be pushing removing Trump, and the only way to do that is to vote democrat, any democrat. As long as it's the democrat that is being pushed. Anyone who dissents will be labelled as a fake liberal or in league with Trump. We're already seeing it today.
The leftists who have lost their minds, who are so focused on Trump and act like he's Hitler, they already don't care about who replaces him. I've talked to some of them. They just want a democrat in charge. They don't care if they're a good democrat, as long as they're better than Trump.
Folks, this is what they want. This is what the democrats want. They want you to be so riled up and in fear of the republicans and Trump that you will do whatever they want. And then they're gonna try to pull a fast one on you in 2020, and by 2028 when the next candidate is selected, they'll try to pull the same crap that they did in 2016.
Look, Trump isn't our only concern. He deserves about 90% of the criticism he gets. Don't get me wrong. But the democrats need to be focused on too. They are a problem too. Don't forget that. Rational minds prevail over fear mongering. Give in to fear, and you're not thinking rationally, you're thinking with your base lizard brain. And this is what they want.
We need to organized, not just to defeat Trump, but also to defeat the establishment democrats. They're a problem too. They don't want to introspect about their failures, they don't want to change. They want you to stop resisting them so that they can just get away with all their BS. They are intentionally a lesser evil, and not a greater good. And the only way we can beat them, as well as Trump, is if we don't buy their BS.
In 2019, we're going to see the start of the next democratic primary season. And they're gonna try the same crap they tried in 2015-2016. They're gonna push a flawed moderate, push the idea that they're electable, that a leftist cant be elected, blah blah blah. Don't buy it. Be prepared for it. Fight them. And they're going to poise them as the only thing standing between you and Trump. And if you're so in fear of Trump that you are willing to support any democrat, guess what, you're letting them win.
So please, don't buy into this fear mongering and hyperbole. Oppose Trump, sure, but just remember the democrats are also a problem and they want to manipulate you for their own benefit too. Don't buy into their crap. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Keep that in mind going forward.
As we've seen post election, there has been little to no efforts by democrats to change or reform themselves. They elected the same leaders to the house, the leaders are towing the party line, and none of them seem to have any awareness that they need to change. They're good enough as they are, in their eyes, they don't want to change, they're unwilling to change. And when half the democratic party is trying to push them to change, their response is to go LOOK DONALD TRUMP.
This is all about control. The democrats are using Trump as a lightning rod to rally the troops and make them forget all about their internal differences. It's the politics of fear. Make the base so hyped up and afraid, they forget all about their issues. Instead, they're focused on Trump. And around 2019 or so, when we start gearing up for the presidential election cycle, mark my words, they are going to push a flawed, Hillary like candidate on us, and they are going to use Trump to get them through. The democratic base won't be focused on universal healthcare and free education and economic progressivism by that point. They'll be pushing removing Trump, and the only way to do that is to vote democrat, any democrat. As long as it's the democrat that is being pushed. Anyone who dissents will be labelled as a fake liberal or in league with Trump. We're already seeing it today.
The leftists who have lost their minds, who are so focused on Trump and act like he's Hitler, they already don't care about who replaces him. I've talked to some of them. They just want a democrat in charge. They don't care if they're a good democrat, as long as they're better than Trump.
Folks, this is what they want. This is what the democrats want. They want you to be so riled up and in fear of the republicans and Trump that you will do whatever they want. And then they're gonna try to pull a fast one on you in 2020, and by 2028 when the next candidate is selected, they'll try to pull the same crap that they did in 2016.
Look, Trump isn't our only concern. He deserves about 90% of the criticism he gets. Don't get me wrong. But the democrats need to be focused on too. They are a problem too. Don't forget that. Rational minds prevail over fear mongering. Give in to fear, and you're not thinking rationally, you're thinking with your base lizard brain. And this is what they want.
We need to organized, not just to defeat Trump, but also to defeat the establishment democrats. They're a problem too. They don't want to introspect about their failures, they don't want to change. They want you to stop resisting them so that they can just get away with all their BS. They are intentionally a lesser evil, and not a greater good. And the only way we can beat them, as well as Trump, is if we don't buy their BS.
In 2019, we're going to see the start of the next democratic primary season. And they're gonna try the same crap they tried in 2015-2016. They're gonna push a flawed moderate, push the idea that they're electable, that a leftist cant be elected, blah blah blah. Don't buy it. Be prepared for it. Fight them. And they're going to poise them as the only thing standing between you and Trump. And if you're so in fear of Trump that you are willing to support any democrat, guess what, you're letting them win.
So please, don't buy into this fear mongering and hyperbole. Oppose Trump, sure, but just remember the democrats are also a problem and they want to manipulate you for their own benefit too. Don't buy into their crap. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Keep that in mind going forward.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Dear fellow leftists, STOP ACTING LIKE TERRORISTS!
Okay, I already got into the whole "is it okay to punch a Nazi" thing and came to the answer that no, no it's not. But with the violent riots as a Milo event last night, I can't help but once again urge people to knock it off, and also strengthen my stance on this issue.
So, the logic I seem to be seeing from other leftists on this issue is that it's okay to act violently against people like Nazis, white supremacists, the alt right, because their views represent a threat to peoples' safety and security. Fair point so far, I can kind of see where they're coming from in terms of the threat the views hold, but once again, our country values free speech as a new absolute as a safeguard against censorship or any slippery slope scenarios that could develop from that. But let's continue. The logic here is that because these views are so dangerous and abhorrent, it's okay to use violence against these people to dissuade them from holding these views. People who hold these views should be scared to express them publicly out of fear for their own safety, with the goal of dissuading people from holding or spreading these views in public. So...they're basically advocating for...terrorizing Nazis. Terrorize...terrorism....Wow. Are these people advocating for terrorism?
Okay, so here's the definition of terrorism from google:
What these leftists are supporting fits this definition perfectly. They're using violence and intimidation, against other civilians, unlawfully, for political reasons. That's terrorism. BY DEFINITION. Not even hate speech in itself necessarily leads to that because you can argue that without corresponding action that the speech is abstract enough to not pose a direct threat to people. But when you actually advocate for violence against people, even if they're nazis, you're literally advocating for terrorism. Just so you know what you're doing.
So please, knock it off. Not only are these acts terroristic acts, but they solve nothing. When you start screwing crap up at a Milo rally, do you think that an alt righter is going to suddenly say, oh gee, that's reasonable, I'm gonna change my mind? No, they're going to talk about how ridiculous this is, how the left doesn't respect free speech, how they have to use violence against those they disagree with to shut them up, and how they act like animals. You are not just not helping your own cause by doing this, you're HURTING it. You really are. You're changing no one's minds and actually making them oppose you more vigorously. I used to be a right winger, I know how they think on these issues. You're solving nothing.
Look, it's good to be against the alt right. It's good to oppose nazism, it's good to oppose Trump. In fact I'd even go so far to say it's a prerequisite to being a decent human being in respect to literal Nazism (I think Trump and the alt right are more moderate and don't represent as large of a threat in reality). But please, keep it peaceful. Seriously.
So, the logic I seem to be seeing from other leftists on this issue is that it's okay to act violently against people like Nazis, white supremacists, the alt right, because their views represent a threat to peoples' safety and security. Fair point so far, I can kind of see where they're coming from in terms of the threat the views hold, but once again, our country values free speech as a new absolute as a safeguard against censorship or any slippery slope scenarios that could develop from that. But let's continue. The logic here is that because these views are so dangerous and abhorrent, it's okay to use violence against these people to dissuade them from holding these views. People who hold these views should be scared to express them publicly out of fear for their own safety, with the goal of dissuading people from holding or spreading these views in public. So...they're basically advocating for...terrorizing Nazis. Terrorize...terrorism....Wow. Are these people advocating for terrorism?
Okay, so here's the definition of terrorism from google:
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
What these leftists are supporting fits this definition perfectly. They're using violence and intimidation, against other civilians, unlawfully, for political reasons. That's terrorism. BY DEFINITION. Not even hate speech in itself necessarily leads to that because you can argue that without corresponding action that the speech is abstract enough to not pose a direct threat to people. But when you actually advocate for violence against people, even if they're nazis, you're literally advocating for terrorism. Just so you know what you're doing.
So please, knock it off. Not only are these acts terroristic acts, but they solve nothing. When you start screwing crap up at a Milo rally, do you think that an alt righter is going to suddenly say, oh gee, that's reasonable, I'm gonna change my mind? No, they're going to talk about how ridiculous this is, how the left doesn't respect free speech, how they have to use violence against those they disagree with to shut them up, and how they act like animals. You are not just not helping your own cause by doing this, you're HURTING it. You really are. You're changing no one's minds and actually making them oppose you more vigorously. I used to be a right winger, I know how they think on these issues. You're solving nothing.
Look, it's good to be against the alt right. It's good to oppose nazism, it's good to oppose Trump. In fact I'd even go so far to say it's a prerequisite to being a decent human being in respect to literal Nazism (I think Trump and the alt right are more moderate and don't represent as large of a threat in reality). But please, keep it peaceful. Seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)