|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
caffeine writes: In fairness, that chart is immigration - it's not refugees. Good point.
And it's not 'into Europe' - it's based on statistics for two European countries (Ireland and Poland). My interpretation of that Eurostat webpage is that the data are for the EU as a whole, but for that particular graph that the data from Ireland and Poland were provisional. If you look at the very similar graph for 2014 you'll see that its comment is consistent with this interpretation: "(1) Excluding Slovakia. Bugaria and Poland: provisional." Thank you for the rest of that great information! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: If I've said anything even half as personally condemnatory of anyone as Percy said to me, I apologize. I'm happy to condemn liberal/leftist crapola, but not people. You accused me of being a leftist, then went on and on about how stupid and blind leftists are. You're usually the first to become personal in any conversation, and you provoke personal responses by making outrageous claims about yourself, like how you're not racist or bigoted at the same time you're making racist and bigoted statements. Tell us again how you believe businesses have the right to refuse service to whoever they please and how you'd like to treat LGBT's. If you feel condemned then it was by your own words. But I'm not looking for an apology. I'm only encouraging you to support your claims with quality sources. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: The Liberal "resistance" to Trump is unprecedented in American politics. No it isn't. The Republicans shut down the government for 16 days in 2013 over funding of the Affordable Care Act. Liberal resistance to Trump has a long way to go before it comes anywhere close to something like that.
It's no wonder we're sick and tired of the totalitarian Left. You and New Cat's Eye really need to look up totalitarian. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: This story might belong better on a thread about the election... You mean like The 2016 United States Presidential Election?
The relevance is that the Left has been pushing hard on the fake news... Fake polls, fake news would also have been a good thread for your post, but Adminnemooseus dropped it into summation mode for being hopelessly off-topic, suggesting that another thread for the topic be opened for discussing fake news. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
New Cat's Eye writes: That people were freaking out when they were rescinded looks like they were upset that the feds weren't telling them how to think anymore. That, to me, seems totalitarian in nature. This still misuses the word "totalitarian." By your definition, anything that is the law of the land is totalitarian. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
New Cat's Eye writes: It's like if we were coworkers and every time we had a minor disagreement about something you ran to the boss to get them to implement a decision so you could force me to comply with your way. You mean like trying to restrict women's access to abortion? You mean like issuing executive orders that discriminate against LGBT's? Shouldn't we be talking about the totalitarian right? No, of course not, "totalitarian" is the wrong word. Misguided, intolerant and authoritarian perhaps, but not totalitarian. Gee, ad hominem is so easy. We all could just sit in opposite corners and shout adjectives back and forth, instead of having a discussion. Or maybe we could just leave the name-calling out of the discussion? Anytime you have to follow your use of a word with several "let me explain what I mean by that" paragraphs it's a strong hint that you're misusing the word. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Clarify first sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
New Cat's Eye writes: Shouldn't we be talking about the totalitarian right? Start a thread, I'll comment there too. But I wasn't arguing that the right is totalitarian. I was making an absurd argument to show how the word can be misused in either direction. I'm not on the left or right and I think the name-calling from both sides is ridiculous and beside any points being made.
...misusing the word. Pssh, don't give me that pedantic crap; words are defined by how they are used. So you're going to provide your own word definitions and require everyone else to use them too? How Faithish, totalitarian even.
If I say a song is cool are you going to question me on how a song can have a temperature? That's common usage - it's in the dictionary. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on common word definitions at the root of the disagreement about the Obama guidelines adding anything to the interpretation of the law, but if you truly believe they added nothing then you can't use it as an example of your misdefinition of totalitarian. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: ...the way Trump has been treated since he took office is absolutely unprecedented in American politics. It might well be unprecedented. The absence of any honeymoon period is certainly unprecedented in my memory, which goes back to Nixon. But Trump has brought it all upon himself:
And this is just what I can remember at the moment. Naturally any president acting so much like a noxious nut case is going to forfeit his honeymoon period. By the way, what happened to that claim about the size of the inauguration crowds? No more mention of that. Trump feels safe in making one outrageous and untrue claim after another because he knows he can bury them just by making more outrageous and untrue claims. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
New Cat's Eye writes: And I see both sides employing totalitarian thought and tactics. That's because you don't know what totalitarian means.
I don't mind calling a spade a spade... But you're calling a garden sprinkler a spade.
It's fairly common usage these days,... That making laws or having an opinion is totalitarian is not "fairly common usage."
It's not the government that I'm calling totalitarian, it's the mindset of the people who are outraged. That's regardless of what the guidelines actually say. I think you're confusing totalitarianism with making decisions and having laws (your Message 346). They're not totalitarian. They're how modern societies and every level of any human endeavor gets things done and makes things work. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
New Cat's Eye writes: But I do know what totalitarian means, maybe "cheeky" is a good word for this. You're struggling with vocabulary, but the real story here is that what you and Faith are doing is name-calling, and the name doesn't fit. This whole thread is just an excuse for calling the left names. What if someone calls the right anarchistic. Does calling the right an ugly name really help? Does it help improve mutual understanding? Does the discussion make better progress?
To use the dictionary's terms: I see people subordinating their individual selves to a centralized authoritarian and autocratic hierarchy to control personal aspects of their lives. And others don't. Just because there are different philosophies of government doesn't mean they exist at the extremes of anarchy and despotism.
They're looking to the federal government to help them figure out which bathrooms people should use, for crying out loud. To whom other than government (not necessarily the federal government, but of course ultimately the federal government) should little girls being directed to the men's bathroom look (or vice versa)?
Title IX is great. It's being outraged because you cannot rely on the feds for guidance on things like which bathroom choices people should make that I think is far enough to call totalitarian - even if technically the usage of the word is not strictly correct. You're like a broken record. So others could say the right is anarchical because they want us to live in a world where who has the might is right, making this a fair use of the word, even though technically the usage is absurd.
I'd prefer free individuals interacting over an authority dictating behavior, not visa versa. So would everybody, but to expect it is naive, to require it anarchic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
New Cat's Eye writes: Too, only one state passed a law restricting bathroom use *before the guidance was issued (abe for pedantry). And a number more in the legislative pipeline, as has been mentioned before. Now that Trump has rescinded the Obama guidelines, these states are free to resume formulating legislation that tells people what bathrooms they can use, all of it unfriendly to LGBT's. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
New Cat's Eye writes: I'd say that you guys are the ones struggling with the vocabulary. You're more hung up on my word choice than what I'm trying to say. You're the one who's determined about a word choice. By your own admission it is hyperbolic and doesn't fit, but you continue anyway. There's no other conclusion to reach but that you just like name calling, just like our current president who is doing us all so proud.
Then don't participate? You're getting trollish again, and I'm beginning to wonder if you're serious. You've admitted that you do this.
I would be asking why the person thought the Right was anarchistic, what they were seeing that made them think that, how they thought that fit, what the problem is and what they wanted to do about it, etc. Why care what particular name was called? Especially if the name doesn't fit. We've already been through yours and Faith's reasons several times, so we're already way past that, yet you persist anyway. There seems no reason or justification other than that you just like calling people names.
To whom other than government (not necessarily the federal government, but of course ultimately the federal government) should little girls being directed to the men's bathroom look (or vice versa)? Huh? You think that a little girl should ask the federal government if she's directed to the men's bathroom? I'm sorry, that's confusing. What are you asking? I'm not sure I understand, but I think my answer would be that she should look to her parents. Are you playing dumb? Here, let me try again. You said:
New Cat's Eye in Message 414 writes: They're looking to the federal government to help them figure out which bathrooms people should use, for crying out loud. So she thinks she should use the girls room. Her parents think she should use the girls room. But the school administration thinks she should use the boys room. The parents and school administration talk. They reach an impasse. So to whom other than government should the little girl (in the person of her parents bringing suit on her behalf) look? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
New Cat's Eye writes: New Cat's Eye writes:
And a number more in the legislative pipeline, as has been mentioned before. Too, only one state passed a law restricting bathroom use *before the guidance was issued (abe for pedantry). Before the guidelines? How many? More than 10 had plans for legislation or legislation already in the pipeline as I recall, don't remember exactly how many. This Atlantic article says that "11 states sued the Obama administration over its guidance on Title IX." This NPR article says, "State legislatures in New Hampshire, Colorado and Texas, among other states, have also considered bills that would restrict access to restrooms for transgender people," which isn't specific as to number. I can't find the original article I remember reading months ago now. Oh, wait, here you go: "BATHROOM BILL" LEGISLATIVE TRACKING:
quote: Now that Trump has rescinded the Obama guidelines, these states are free to resume formulating legislation that tells people what bathrooms they can use, That wasn't true when you acknowledged Message 293 and it isn't true now. Turns out it was true then and it's true now. How about that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
New Cat's Eye writes: Well, I mean, it is in the thread title.... Wasn't this thread a bit of a joke to begin with? ... Once we get back on track, I'll try again to show you what I see is the totalitarian nature of this type of approach to government. If calling the left names is "a bit of a joke," why are you taking it seriously by defending it?
So you have a child with a penis who thinks they're a girl and wants to use the girls' bathroom but the school doesn't want them to. That should be the school administration's decision. If there's really a discrimination case to be had then it should end at the individual state, imho. Laws at the state level are not totalitarian while laws at the federal level are? This seems a bit inconsistent.
So, the claim that the guidelines were in response to multiple states passing laws is false. The claim was that multiple states had bills in the pipeline, and that is true.
We can't be talking about the same thing. What in the guidelines prevents a legislator from formulating and proposing a bill? That the public schools may risk federal funding may make them not want to, is that what you're talking about? The Obama guidelines slowed or halted many of the state-level bills limiting LGBT bathroom rights because they would have conflicted with Title IX. It isn't uncommon for Title IX disputes to end up in court - one recently reached the Supreme Court. Risking loss of federal funding is not taken lightly. It seems unlikely that any state would pass legislation risking all its public schools losing federal funding.
The typical lefty response to leaving it at the state is that there could be states that decide to do things differently. Like, there isn't enough total control of a centralized governing body to rule everyone and make sure we're all doing the same things... hmm. How is state government not a "centralized governing body"? I'm guessing that what you're really trying to express is a preference for laws as close to local level as possible. That's fine, and certainly there are going to be valid arguments concerning the right level for each legal issue, but that doesn't make the highest levels of government totalitarian, and it certainly doesn't make an opinion about LGBT rights totalitarian. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
New Cat's Eye writes: First you say I'm trolling, now you say I'm taking it seriously. How about you just respond to what I write and forget how I'm taking it? I did respond to what you wrote. I pointed out how it was contradictory, first saying that the thread title is "a bit of a joke," then saying you were going to show how it was actually true. Which is it?
The left likes to go to the feds because then you can control all the states. That's even more totalitarian. When dealing with civil rights, that's the federal level.
I responded to a claim that explicitly said "passing" and you replied to that response. If you changed it, that's a different claim. The word "passing" doesn't appear in any of my posts in this thread, and what I recall originally saying was that there were bills in the pipeline that would resume now that the guidelines have been rescinded. Let's see, ah yes, Message 229:
me in Message 229 writes: Uh, yes they did. A number of states were considering legislation that would have restricted LGBT bathroom access.... This means that that state legislation I just mentioned can go back into the pipeline. Are you sure you're not trolling?
Legislators could still follow them too. Now, they may think they don't have to because they were rescinded; is that all you were trying to say? I think I pretty much said what I meant. There were LGBT bathroom use laws in the pipeline that were put on hold after Obama issued the guidelines, and now they can reenter the legislative pipeline. Beyond Title IX and the Obama guidelines there are civil rights issues. In related news the AP reports that North Carolina will lose around $4 billion over the next 10 years due to their bathroom bill (North Carolina’s bathroom bill cost the state almost $4 billion, new analysis finds). --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024