Author Topic: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)  (Read 2430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2018, 06:57:17 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
IP,

I actually never brought up party, but since you mention it, I would argue that intersectional feminist, SJW types, who feel this way, have far more influence on the Democrats than, say, the Alt-Right has on the Republican Party. Identity politics are currently dominating the humanities departments across college campuses. Have you read about Evergreen, Berkeley, UNH, Umass, and the shutting down of conservative speakers? Are you saying that this group, who essentially call everyone “Nazi”, is not as extreme as the writer of this piece? I think they are, and I think their message is being heard, and in many cases, embraced by the mainstream Left.

One of the pressing issues we are currently facing is “How do we know when the Left has gone too far?”. Like, we know when it happens on Right, claims of racial superiority pretty much does the trick. Those type of people are not allowed in the conversation. Luckily for us, they would never be given the soap box on a major news publication. Can we agree on that? If this author’s ideas are equivalent to the Right’s Charlottesville, for example, then how is it they end up on the Washington Post? It’s because these ideas are far more acceptable in mainstream discourse, and they should not be.

So when does the left go too far? Someone earlier mentioned “Equality” as a noble goal, but what does that mean to people? Is it, “Equality of opportunity” or “Equality of outcome” that we should be striving for? And is it possible, that the latter option should be where we draw the line as to when and where the Left has gone too far?
Let's not forget we still live in a world where the sitting President appointed Steve Bannon as one of his top advisers, and was enthusiastically endorsed by David Duke.

Reprehensible people endorse candidates all the time. The communist party, for example, endorsed Hillary Clinton. As for Bannon, there a distinction between economic nationalism and white nationalism. His wife made the claim during a divorce proceeding, but other than that, there’s no evidence that he is an anti-Semite. In fact, virtually all of his Jewish colleagues at Breitbart came out and said he was not, including former employee Ben Shapiro who is on record as strongly disliking the man.

When has the left gone too far?
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 07:13:11 AM by kozlodoev »
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2018, 07:12:56 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Quote
So when does the left go too far? Someone earlier mentioned “Equality” as a noble goal, but what does that mean to people? Is it, “Equality of opportunity” or “Equality of outcome” that we should be striving for? And is it possible, that the latter option should be where we draw the line as to when and where the Left has gone too far?

I think most of us support equality.   But this stuff goes way beyond equality.  Extremes of either side are not good for the country.

What does equality mean to you?
If it isn't equality of opportunity then it's destined for failure
Sure, as long as you understand how this can be reduced to a meaningless technicality.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2018, 08:05:02 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16152
  • Tommy Points: 1042
Quote
What does equality mean to you?

Treating people the same across the board. 

Equality of outcome is really up to individual provided they have equality of opportunity.

Quote
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

They are struggling with this in South Africa.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/the-time-for-reconciliation-is-over-south-africa-votes-to-confiscate-whiteowned-without-compensation/news-story/a8a81155995b1adc1c399d3576c4c0bc

It's complex issue...

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2018, 11:25:33 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10045
  • Tommy Points: 1140
Tim Pool, formerly of Vice, right on queue with his latest video

The Left Is Going Too Far

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU-kIunAVRg

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2018, 11:45:41 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8316
  • Tommy Points: 890
  • Mr. Emoji
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this one. Why not have a mixed economy, where, for example, a country's "defense contractors", for lack of a better term, are nationalized? I only suggest this because I don't exactly see the wisdom in "farming out" the tasks of producing military hardware to foreign entities, as what if war were to break out with the country who just so happens to be your chief supplier, so to speak? You can't exactly ask your opponent to keep sending you tanks in the middle of a conflict, lol ;D.

I'd also nationalize healthcare, as well, but that's it, as I have no interest in the government controlling everything. I just feel that, well, nationalizing certain, important, sectors of the economy would hardly make for the worst idea in the world, but I'll defer to your expertise on this, okay? :)

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #50 on: June 13, 2018, 03:01:25 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this one. Why not have a mixed economy, where, for example, a country's "defense contractors", for lack of a better term, are nationalized? I only suggest this because I don't exactly see the wisdom in "farming out" the tasks of producing military hardware to foreign entities, as what if war were to break out with the country who just so happens to be your chief supplier, so to speak? You can't exactly ask your opponent to keep sending you tanks in the middle of a conflict, lol ;D.

I'd also nationalize healthcare, as well, but that's it, as I have no interest in the government controlling everything. I just feel that, well, nationalizing certain, important, sectors of the economy would hardly make for the worst idea in the world, but I'll defer to your expertise on this, okay? :)
"Nationalization of the means of production" means making all capital goods exclusive property of the state. That doesn't relate to what you're describing.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2018, 05:27:38 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8316
  • Tommy Points: 890
  • Mr. Emoji
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this one. Why not have a mixed economy, where, for example, a country's "defense contractors", for lack of a better term, are nationalized? I only suggest this because I don't exactly see the wisdom in "farming out" the tasks of producing military hardware to foreign entities, as what if war were to break out with the country who just so happens to be your chief supplier, so to speak? You can't exactly ask your opponent to keep sending you tanks in the middle of a conflict, lol ;D.

I'd also nationalize healthcare, as well, but that's it, as I have no interest in the government controlling everything. I just feel that, well, nationalizing certain, important, sectors of the economy would hardly make for the worst idea in the world, but I'll defer to your expertise on this, okay? :)
"Nationalization of the means of production" means making all capital goods exclusive property of the state. That doesn't relate to what you're describing.

Right. Duh. Sorry for the brain fart.

In certain settings, though, yeah, I can see a government having control over its country's vital natural resources and raw materials as a viable alternative to everything being privatized, especially if said nation is attempting to make the transition from a planned economy to a full-on capitalistic one, of which I am certainly not a fan in terms of the latter, btw, as I hate as to how everything has seemingly become a "business" ::) in recent times, but I'm weird :-\.

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2018, 05:36:06 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this one. Why not have a mixed economy, where, for example, a country's "defense contractors", for lack of a better term, are nationalized? I only suggest this because I don't exactly see the wisdom in "farming out" the tasks of producing military hardware to foreign entities, as what if war were to break out with the country who just so happens to be your chief supplier, so to speak? You can't exactly ask your opponent to keep sending you tanks in the middle of a conflict, lol ;D.

I'd also nationalize healthcare, as well, but that's it, as I have no interest in the government controlling everything. I just feel that, well, nationalizing certain, important, sectors of the economy would hardly make for the worst idea in the world, but I'll defer to your expertise on this, okay? :)
"Nationalization of the means of production" means making all capital goods exclusive property of the state. That doesn't relate to what you're describing.

Right. Duh. Sorry for the brain fart.

In certain settings, though, yeah, I can see a government having control over its country's vital natural resources and raw materials as a viable alternative to everything being privatized, especially if said nation is attempting to make the transition from a planned economy to a full-on capitalistic one, of which I am certainly not a fan in terms of the latter, btw, as I hate as to how everything has seemingly become a "business" ::) in recent times, but I'm weird :-\.
Sure, but that wasn't the point. Someone was asking when the Left has "gone too far". This was an attempt to demonstrate we aren't close.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #53 on: June 13, 2018, 05:55:47 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35592
  • Tommy Points: -27753
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this one. Why not have a mixed economy, where, for example, a country's "defense contractors", for lack of a better term, are nationalized? I only suggest this because I don't exactly see the wisdom in "farming out" the tasks of producing military hardware to foreign entities, as what if war were to break out with the country who just so happens to be your chief supplier, so to speak? You can't exactly ask your opponent to keep sending you tanks in the middle of a conflict, lol ;D.

I'd also nationalize healthcare, as well, but that's it, as I have no interest in the government controlling everything. I just feel that, well, nationalizing certain, important, sectors of the economy would hardly make for the worst idea in the world, but I'll defer to your expertise on this, okay? :)
"Nationalization of the means of production" means making all capital goods exclusive property of the state. That doesn't relate to what you're describing.

Right. Duh. Sorry for the brain fart.

In certain settings, though, yeah, I can see a government having control over its country's vital natural resources and raw materials as a viable alternative to everything being privatized, especially if said nation is attempting to make the transition from a planned economy to a full-on capitalistic one, of which I am certainly not a fan in terms of the latter, btw, as I hate as to how everything has seemingly become a "business" ::) in recent times, but I'm weird :-\.
Sure, but that wasn't the point. Someone was asking when the Left has "gone too far". This was an attempt to demonstrate we aren't close.

So by implication, anything short of full nationalization means they haven’t gone too far?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #54 on: June 13, 2018, 06:32:58 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8316
  • Tommy Points: 890
  • Mr. Emoji
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this one. Why not have a mixed economy, where, for example, a country's "defense contractors", for lack of a better term, are nationalized? I only suggest this because I don't exactly see the wisdom in "farming out" the tasks of producing military hardware to foreign entities, as what if war were to break out with the country who just so happens to be your chief supplier, so to speak? You can't exactly ask your opponent to keep sending you tanks in the middle of a conflict, lol ;D.

I'd also nationalize healthcare, as well, but that's it, as I have no interest in the government controlling everything. I just feel that, well, nationalizing certain, important, sectors of the economy would hardly make for the worst idea in the world, but I'll defer to your expertise on this, okay? :)
"Nationalization of the means of production" means making all capital goods exclusive property of the state. That doesn't relate to what you're describing.

Right. Duh. Sorry for the brain fart.

In certain settings, though, yeah, I can see a government having control over its country's vital natural resources and raw materials as a viable alternative to everything being privatized, especially if said nation is attempting to make the transition from a planned economy to a full-on capitalistic one, of which I am certainly not a fan in terms of the latter, btw, as I hate as to how everything has seemingly become a "business" ::) in recent times, but I'm weird :-\.
Sure, but that wasn't the point. Someone was asking when the Left has "gone too far". This was an attempt to demonstrate we aren't close.

Yeah, I know. Again, my apologies :-\.

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #55 on: June 17, 2018, 01:41:54 AM »

Offline Casperian

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3437
  • Tommy Points: 531
I'm not surprised to read an article like this in the WaPo, though, which is, quite transparently, one of the biggest pot stirrers out there, in either direction.
I understand people trying to stir the pot.

What I don't understand is people who fail to comprehend that extreme pot-stirring will (a) just get them to be actively ignored, (b) probably harm their cause, and (c) most certainly not move it an iota forward.

I'm not sure if this is a genuine, topical comment or a subtle dig at myself. I seem to remember that you directed a similar comment at me some time ago.

I'm afraid you will have to elaborate on this a bit further if you want an honest answer.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2018, 01:58:12 AM by Casperian »
In the 2017 off-season, I predicted the Celtics will not win the title for the next 10 years.

1 down, 9 to go.

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #56 on: June 17, 2018, 04:21:08 AM »

Offline JSD

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10045
  • Tommy Points: 1140

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #57 on: June 17, 2018, 04:24:33 AM »

Offline JSD

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10045
  • Tommy Points: 1140
IP,

I actually never brought up party, but since you mention it, I would argue that intersectional feminist, SJW types, who feel this way, have far more influence on the Democrats than, say, the Alt-Right has on the Republican Party. Identity politics are currently dominating the humanities departments across college campuses. Have you read about Evergreen, Berkeley, UNH, Umass, and the shutting down of conservative speakers? Are you saying that this group, who essentially call everyone “Nazi”, is not as extreme as the writer of this piece? I think they are, and I think their message is being heard, and in many cases, embraced by the mainstream Left.

One of the pressing issues we are currently facing is “How do we know when the Left has gone too far?”. Like, we know when it happens on Right, claims of racial superiority pretty much does the trick. Those type of people are not allowed in the conversation. Luckily for us, they would never be given the soap box on a major news publication. Can we agree on that? If this author’s ideas are equivalent to the Right’s Charlottesville, for example, then how is it they end up on the Washington Post? It’s because these ideas are far more acceptable in mainstream discourse, and they should not be.

So when does the left go too far? Someone earlier mentioned “Equality” as a noble goal, but what does that mean to people? Is it, “Equality of opportunity” or “Equality of outcome” that we should be striving for? And is it possible, that the latter option should be where we draw the line as to when and where the Left has gone too far?
Let's not forget we still live in a world where the sitting President appointed Steve Bannon as one of his top advisers, and was enthusiastically endorsed by David Duke.

Reprehensible people endorse candidates all the time. The communist party, for example, endorsed Hillary Clinton. As for Bannon, there a distinction between economic nationalism and white nationalism. His wife made the claim during a divorce proceeding, but other than that, there’s no evidence that he is an anti-Semite. In fact, virtually all of his Jewish colleagues at Breitbart came out and said he was not, including former employee Ben Shapiro who is on record as strongly disliking the man.

When has the left gone too far?
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

That’s like saying the far right only goes too far when they lock people up in concentration camps.

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #58 on: June 17, 2018, 04:25:00 AM »

Offline JSD

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10045
  • Tommy Points: 1140

Re: Why can’t we hate men? (Washington Post Article)
« Reply #59 on: June 17, 2018, 08:38:00 AM »

Offline smokeablount

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1680
  • Tommy Points: 107
  • When my account was born, Mark Blount was our C :(
To borrow you words, we all know what happens when the Left goes too far. Nationalization of means of production and confiscation of private property.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with you on this one. Why not have a mixed economy, where, for example, a country's "defense contractors", for lack of a better term, are nationalized? I only suggest this because I don't exactly see the wisdom in "farming out" the tasks of producing military hardware to foreign entities, as what if war were to break out with the country who just so happens to be your chief supplier, so to speak? You can't exactly ask your opponent to keep sending you tanks in the middle of a conflict, lol ;D.

I'd also nationalize healthcare, as well, but that's it, as I have no interest in the government controlling everything. I just feel that, well, nationalizing certain, important, sectors of the economy would hardly make for the worst idea in the world, but I'll defer to your expertise on this, okay? :)
"Nationalization of the means of production" means making all capital goods exclusive property of the state. That doesn't relate to what you're describing.

Right. Duh. Sorry for the brain fart.

In certain settings, though, yeah, I can see a government having control over its country's vital natural resources and raw materials as a viable alternative to everything being privatized, especially if said nation is attempting to make the transition from a planned economy to a full-on capitalistic one, of which I am certainly not a fan in terms of the latter, btw, as I hate as to how everything has seemingly become a "business" ::) in recent times, but I'm weird :-\.
Sure, but that wasn't the point. Someone was asking when the Left has "gone too far". This was an attempt to demonstrate we aren't close.

So by implication, anything short of full nationalization means they haven’t gone too far?

I guess if we don’t turn into Cuba, we haven’t gone too far.  But by that logic, if we don’t turn into a fascist dictatorship, the right hasn’t gone too far.

Funny how Koz’s logic doesn’t apply to himself. By his logic, the right hasn’t come close to “going too far.”
Give us this pick, Almighty Red
And forgive us our tanking
As we forgive those who tanked against us
And lead us not into the lottery
But deliver us from losing

-Sexyscottish