Are you one of the New Totalitarians?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12169
    Notalent
    Participant

    If you believe dissent should be stifled for the greater good…

    If you believe in shaming into submission anyone who may disagree with your world view…

    If you believe in taking actions to punish persons or groups who don’t agree with your agenda such as Chick Filet… Bakers, judges, or Florists who won’t participate in a gay weddings… “blowhards” who speak out against sanctuary cities or illegal immigrants… Etc…

    You might be a totalitarian:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/06/the-new-totalitarians-are-here/

    #12172
    duxrule
    Participant

    If you’re a Christian who believes that your way of thinking trumps all others, you might be on this list, too. The new slogan probably ought to be “Believe…or ELSE!”

    #12180
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Where it comes to racism, bigotry and theocracy, I have no tolerance for them at all.

    Label it what you want.

    I will shame the fuck out of people who don’t get it too. No regrets.

    #12181
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    Wow! What an accurate description of many of the posters on this forum.

    #12182
    RobP
    Participant

    Sure does. Narrowmindedness, intolerance, flawed thinking, that and more is present and accounted for. I like to read thread responses just for the laughs I get.

    #12184
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    You’re projecting. Big time.

    #12185
    duxrule
    Participant

    “It is not enough for these Americans to say: “I have had my day in court and prevailed”. In effect, they now add: “You do not have the right to hold a different opinion, even if you lose in the public arena. You may not hold on to your belief as a minority view, or even as a private thought. And if you persist and still disagree, I will attack you without quarter and set others on you to deprive you of your status in your profession, of your standing in your community, and even of your livelihood”. This attitude promises social warfare without end, because there is no peace to be had until the opposing side offers a sincere and unconditional surrender.”

    Sounds like all of these people who claim that the Confederate flag is “heritage,” or who LOSE that day in court, but continue in the behavior that put them in court in the first place.

    #12187
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    There is no reason to tolerate those things.

    Unless one of you bright bulbs wants to tell us how it is OK.

    #12188
    duxrule
    Participant

    These are also the same people who contend that anyone who doesn’t believe the same way as them is a Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Pinko Subversive, who should be flayed in the public courtyard. They got caught on their bullshit, but they’re literally arguing that they have the unalienable right to continue with same said bullshit.

    #12190
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Yep. No talent has come in with Alinski, Herb with evil, pinko, commie, Deane with intolerant, and here we have NT with his new totalitarian toy.

    This is simple: besides simple ignorance which people will gladly address, what reason is there to permit such harmful behaviors?

    Non supplied so far, and I personally ask that question every single time this comes up.

    Yes, it is intolerant. As it should be.

    That is the whole point of these kinds of civil rights advances. Some of us need the rest of us to stand up and do them a solid by not being shitty humans.

    And our thoughts are just thoughts. This is about judging people and or acting against them with no real standing or merit.

    You are spot on. They want things like bigotry to be just another opinion.

    Sort of like, “some doubt the earth is round, debate at 11”

    There is no debate, unless we want to pretend the crazy party is actually just fine.

    It is not fine, and the big ass loss on this shows just how far off the farm they have gone.

    #12191
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I’m on mobile and am not gonna edit that. Sorry for typos.

    #12193
    Notalent
    Participant

    So the way you see it, MK, other people who may not agree with you have the equal right to snuff out you and your ilk once they get the power.

    Your premiss as described in the linked article leads to endless cycles of retribution and suffering.

    In the end if what you want is equality and tolerance of your views then you have to grant that same tolerance to everyone else who may have views you disagree with.

    Isn’t it all about tolerance and diversity?

    But seriously…

    It is not unlike how someone who has been bullied sometimes can become a bully themselves.

    Or how someone who has been abused can become an abusive person.

    Its an interesting psychological phenomenon how those demanding tolerance and respect can play both sides of that fence with a straight face.

    #12195
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Bigots don’t deserve tolerance.

    #12196
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Yep. Go ahead, produce one good argument.

    That is what this is all about. You can try to make it about me, but you won’t get anywhere.

    I’m not the bad guy, nor is anyone else unwilling to enable racism, bigotry and theocracy.

    Either you provide a meaningful argument in favor of those things, or quite frankly STFU.

    If there were any rational justifications, I would tolerate the behaviors.

    #12202
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Ok, I’m all relaxed and feeling good this evening. Let’s break this mess down just a bit:

    So the way you see it, MK, other people who may not agree with you have the equal right to snuff out you and your ilk once they get the power.

    Yes. See Russia right now. Their pro-bigot faction is leaning on people really hard. They will lose that fight, but it is very ugly times there right now for LGBT people and their supporters.

    There is one thing I have learned from this politics exercise, and that is politics is all about ADVOCACY. Sure, we debate, but the real movement happens as a result of advocacy. Not everything boils down to a basic truth, or best, or right path. There are matters of genuine ambiguity out there. Where that genuine ambiguity exists, tolerance does too. It’s the reasonable, human thing to do.

    But, a few things do boil right down, and this matter is one of them.

    Where it is ambiguous, the better advocates win. The tools are there, and the dynamics are interesting:

    If it’s a matter that does boil down to something of clarity, use of negative tools, ridicule, shame, lies, propaganda, etc… people are forced to make value judgments. In this case, you can call me whatever the fuck you want. And I’ll return the favor by rubbing your face in it, as I have over and over, and guess what?

    That shit doesn’t stick to me. Do you want to know why?

    Because I’m right about it. Simple as that. You actually can’t point to any rational argument in favor of racism, bigotry and theocracy because those arguments quite simply do not exist! And that’s why Russia will go through a very painful time and in the end get right where the US happens to be on it too.

    It doesn’t stick to me, because I’m perfectly honest too. I’m not a bad guy, and that’s completely obvious to anyone reading over the years. Not only have I shared my thoughts, but life, who I am, why, and all of that. And if I were somebody vulnerable to that garbage, it would have come out long ago, and I would have had to deal with it too.

    Didn’t happen.

    Edit: That’s not true overall. It has happened in the past and guess what? I did the work to deal, grow and avoid it in the future. Why? Because down deep, I just want to be good, remembered for being good and rest easy in the end, knowing I did more than was done for me. Really. All truth.

    In debate, we do not invoke character, nor very many emotional arguments, though some are reasonable. The assumption is the matter at hand can be resolved rationally. Debate and strong reasoning works for this, and it’s a great tool for use when the parties seeking a debate to resolve differences are rational in those differences.

    But politics and civil rights is more than that. It’s about what we value, what is worth what, and it’s about what we feel, and it’s about character too. This means advocacy is the norm, and in advocacy we do invoke the character, and we do weigh emotions, because the politics affect us as people, often closely, and directly.

    If we, as a nation, were to resolve this in favor of the bigots, we basically have to find a justification for how we treat gay people badly, and it’s gotta make sense too. It has to make sense, because those people will be harmed for who they are, not what they did, nor any choice they made. No different from how we treated black people, by the way. And that was unjust too, found in the end to lack a justification that made sense.

    The crazies want to pretend God says it’s OK to be a bigot, and worse, they almost always go to Pastor bat shit, who says God says, or they want to have their personal issues excused for some reason or other that is never quite made clear, other than in a sort of selfish, “it’s my right” kind of way. Truth is, they often just want to treat others badly because it makes them feel better about it all.

    Hardly reasons to permit such harm and discrimination.

    This opposition; therefore, IS NOT RATIONAL.

    What does that mean?

    DEBATE IS OFF THE TABLE.

    That’s what it means.

    It also means debating bigots is a fools game, and if we are to get past bigotry, it’s going to be advocacy that gets us there, and it’s not always going to be pretty, if at all. How ugly it gets is up to the bigots really, and they seem to be entrenched to the point where it’s gonna take a lot of ugly to get past.

    And this is why I would absolutely shame the fuck out of anybody who doesn’t get it, because I have no other RATIONAL means to get it done. I have to laugh at the bigots, shame them, and push them off the stage. Debate won’t work, and it won’t work, because they aren’t rational at all!

    Let the best advocate win then. The left won. Tough shit. Deal. The left will win again and again on this stuff too, because it is extremely difficult, and I submit, impossible to justify these behaviors in the very longer term.

    Feel free to bring me an argument in favor of bigotry. I’m all ears.

    Your premise as described in the linked article leads to endless cycles of retribution and suffering.

    The only ones who are going to suffer here are those clowns that refuse to give their brothers and sister beings here the same respect they require for themselves. Tough love. Most will get past it, and we will be just fine.

    We are getting past a lot of things, and the source of the suffering is always those people who refuse to be good human beings. This is not a problem that the rest of us are expected to own. Most of us are good beings!

    In the end if what you want is equality and tolerance of your views then you have to grant that same tolerance to everyone else who may have views you disagree with.

    No I don’t. You’ve got to sell that shit, as mentioned above. If you can’t sell it, tough.

    Isn’t it all about tolerance and diversity?

    No. Without that justification, you know that positive argument for bigotry? …there is absolutely no reason at all to tolerate racism, bigotry and theocracy.

    Our founding documents make intolerance of theocracy a matter of law, and duty. The First Amendment, which makes a real dialog like this possible, is specifically designed to prevent that outcome. So let’s write that off.

    Racism? We all know there is no material basis for it. As a society, we continue to grow and educate people to improve, and some minor tolerance for ignorance or age is warranted for obvious reasons. But as a matter of policy?

    No fucking way. We know better. So let’s write that off too. Nobody, who isn’t rubbing shit in their hair regularly, is making any serious arguments about the merits of racism as a matter of policy.

    Which leaves us with the bakery bigots, who just had to judge a gay person, attempting to shame them, and did so in a way that runs counter to our law on public businesses and our expectations for how that all works. They have options. They had options, but no. They had to speak it out, like they are better, or more importantly, like the gay people are somehow worse than them. Less than “good” people.

    That’s what they got the fine for.

    Ones bank account is no standing to call out somebody as being bad, or lower, or worse. As ordinary people, peers in this world, that gay person did exactly NOTHING to deserve any of that treatment.

    Thinking bad things about others happens all the time. Acting on that without a material justification is criminal at the worst, and just really shitty at best.

    Which puts us back to the argument again. Have you got one that justifies bigotry? A rational one? Or is it, “god says”, or “I feel bad about it” kind of bull shit?

    It is not unlike how someone who has been bullied sometimes can become a bully themselves.

    Trying to make it about those of us who won’t tolerate bigotry is a side show. Lame. You should reconsider this garbage because it makes you look stupid.

    Or how someone who has been abused can become an abusive person.

    Really stupid.

    Its an interesting psychological phenomenon how those demanding tolerance and respect can play both sides of that fence with a straight face.

    What both sides?

    Again, until somebody puts up a rational, solid justification for the practice of bigotry, there is one side; namely, people who understand bigotry is never OK, and the other assholes who don’t get it yet.

    There isn’t actually another side!

    We can blame this on our media to a degree. We hear it all the time, “always two sides to every story”, which is a load of shit fed to us to accept the clash of the talking heads and some how ignore that one of them is on TV shitting themselves, while the other one is reasonable, rational…

    Truth is, there are facts, and there is what we think those facts mean, there are value judgements, and we all weigh those as we will.

    Everybody does have a right to their opinion. We don’t control thoughts that way. Everybody has the right to express it too. First Amendment right?

    Where is the shield in there? Somehow I missed it. Can you point me to the place in the law that says I have to treat you with respect when you say something so profoundly stupid?

    The First Amendment is not a shield. If you say stupid things, people are going to respond and it won’t be pretty. The best move here is to not say stupid things.

    So much for “two sides to every story,” right?

    Right then.

    Bottom line here is you have the same tools anyone else does. Some of them are ugly tools, but don’t pretend for a minute that somehow the left won on this due to their somehow wrong use of any of these tools.

    What happened is simple. Crazies, bigots, racists, theocrats, morons and clowns are being laughed off the stage, as they should be.

    The idea that somehow I, or anyone anywhere, is at fault for helping good, ordinary people being harmed for no fault of their own is insulting, and you making that argument is quite frankly not doing you any great service.

    Fire away asshole. Trust me when I say I’ve got absolutely no worries at all about it.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.