War Room Lounge v63

[Sketch]

Man, there have been some profoundly bad posts in this thread lately.

I'm not sure if it should be troubling or hopeful that right-wingers are now creating historical fiction in order to grant some dignity or basic value to American conservatism in the hours of its most naked and barbarous incoherence.

Stop whining kiddo

 

[Sketch]

My line of reasoning is correct, though. I think you're making a simple error. This seems to be your thinking:

1. The right favors preserving the status quo.
2. In America, the status quo is liberal.
3. The American right is therefore liberal.
4. The American left is therefore the opposite of liberal.

The first problem with this is that "favoring preserving the status quo" is a (simplistic) description of *conservatism*, which is a generally right-wing ideology (one of many) but not synonymous with the right. And that's a problem here specifically because "conservatism" by that definition is not common on the right in America. Another problem is that you can't define the spectrum that way, even if 1-3 were right. The left in America *also* has liberal origins (and also has illiberal influences), and it is much closer to those origins now.



What's the reasoning behind your assertion that the thoughts and actions of the American right are irrelevant to a description of the thinking of the American right?



American rightism is not opposed to most forms of authoritarianism, and is, in fact, very authoritarian itself. "Redistributive" in your usage is defined against a baseline that entails gov't force. If the gov't isn't determining the initial distribution (i.e., it doesn't recognize and enforce claims to property), there's no need to redistribute (that's anarchism--no gov't and no property, and it's an extreme left-wing system).



In no sense is classical liberalism right-wing thought today. What makes it so in your opinion?



I don't understand. Are you unfamiliar with Calhoun?



It's like 700 pages (the book). Probably the best intro to American conservatism (which, again, is different from American rightism) you'll find, though.



Yes. He's authoritarian to an unusual degree and the dominant voice on the American right.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Lead]

And often the audiences applauses derail a salient point someone is in the process of making,
.its aggravating at times...

Queue Hickens gives Real atone crowd the middle finger

 

[Jack V Savage]

Man, there have been some profoundly bad posts in this thread lately.

I'm not sure if it should be troubling or hopeful that right-wingers are now creating historical fiction in order to grant some dignity or basic value to American conservatism in the hours of its most naked and barbarous incoherence.

If you're referring to EC, I think he's making a good-faith effort to understand the issue but has been misinformed. I think he can see some of his mistakes. I think it's asking too much for every poster to have a firm handle on the history of political thought, especially when there is a lot of misinformation floating around out there.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Better yet, fuck off.

@Sketch , I was clearly referring to the marxist trash, not you

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Queue Hickens gives Real atone crowd the middle finger

posting from your phone?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Queue Hickens gives Real atone crowd the middle finger

Driving and on Sherdog?

 

[Lead]

posting from your phone?

Driving and on Sherdog?

Phone and laziness. Though the phone I have is getting pretty awful. I cracked it and now it won’t let me turn it horizontally when reading. It limits some features I use on here but the queue thing is just cause I don’t feel like grabbing it.

 

[Lead]

Eh, fine

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I knew what you meant

 

[Trotsky]

Eh, fine

I'm no Maher fan, but Hitchens was being a prissy bitch in that clip and got hysterical when his bad arguments were called out.

Given his (correct) criticisms of Eastern European socialist reactionaries in the wake of the fall of the USSR, you'd think he'd have been more self-aware in preventing himself from committing the same errors of thinking in re Iraq, Iran, and the United States during the Bush years: taking a conclusion (that the United States, like the Yugoslav People's Army, is the good guy and that Iran/Iraq are the bad guys) and then working tirelessly to argue backwards from it regardless of the shifting circumstances.

 

[JDragon]

Contrarian. I thought practically everybody on the forum was rooting for Shogun in the second fight after the close decision in the first one. But then again that just might be due to personal bias. I would have to admit the number of people around here who thought Shogun was washed up at this point was disappointingly large.

I did root for Shogun. But after that event

 

[Islam Imamate]

The second paragraph could be the biggest critique about him and his show. It's usually an echo chamber/ pile on aside from the episodes where he want's to deviate from his base and call them out. The show would have more potential without an audience as a panel of different columnist and politicians discussing daily topics isn't a bad idea. But the audience absolutely kills the show at times. Some guests feed on just saying something catchy to get applause the whole time.

Yeah getting rid of the audience seems that it would help. There are some good moments with them bt overall a drain on the show.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

My line of reasoning is correct, though. I think you're making a simple error. This seems to be your thinking:

1. The right favors preserving the status quo.
2. In America, the status quo is liberal.
3. The American right is therefore liberal.
4. The American left is therefore the opposite of liberal

That is an incorrect assesment of my logic which should be appearent since i've already mentioned liberalism is not the dividing factor between the left and right in America. Which is also why you using it as a metric is largely misplaced in both time and location.

What's the reasoning behind your assertion that the thoughts and actions of the American right are irrelevant to a description of the thinking of the American right?

Because they American right just like the left is not a monolith and according to the standards that have already been set in motion any bloating of government can be noted as a shift closer to the left. Once more the reason for European right wingers being leftist's in america is in the way they approach equality.

American rightism is not opposed to most forms of authoritarianism, and is, in fact, very authoritarian itself. "Redistributive" in your usage is defined against a baseline that entails gov't force. If the gov't isn't determining the initial distribution (i.e., it doesn't recognize and enforce claims to property), there's no need to redistribute (that's anarchism--no gov't and no property, and it's an extreme left-wing system).

American Conservatism is opposed to any form of authoritarianism as it split from the hierarchies which it was initially bound by. That has now become the status quo in which they wish to maintain and also the idea you are having a hard time grasping here.

In no sense is classical liberalism right-wing thought today. What makes it so in your opinion?

It's literally the foundation in which is stands upon. Unfettered market economies are not a leftist ideal, individualism is not by any stretch of the imagination a leftist ideal, limited government in size and scope is not a leftist ideal nor was it to the right wingers in europe at the time. Anti-Statism and individualism is what makes it right wing thought as it stands today. These prescriptions are now the status quo and anything standing in opposition to it veers off to the left. I think you want very much to disassociate the term American Rightist with American Conservatism and i urge you to take the recommendation you once offered me and to stop thinking about this as a team or "side". When i say American Rightism i specifically refer to the status quo in America which indeed is classical liberalism which is indeed conservative which is indeed right.

I don't understand. Are you unfamiliar with Calhoun?

I am and am unsure as to why you think he is more significant than Locke who quite literally gave a blue print for the structure of American governance and the constitution attatched to it.

Yes. He's authoritarian to an unusual degree and the dominant voice on the American right.

Well like i said before, he was criticized for being more left than right any ways. Not like we are going to agree there.

If you're referring to EC, I think he's making a good-faith effort to understand the issue but has been misinformed. I think he can see some of his mistakes. I think it's asking too much for every poster to have a firm handle on the history of political thought, especially when there is a lot of misinformation floating around out there.

I disagree with the characterization here when you didn't even realize conservatism wasn't a static ideology. It's accurate to say not every poster can have a firm handle on the history of political thought when you misapply definitions that way.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

If you're referring to EC, I think he's making a good-faith effort to understand the issue but has been misinformed. I think he can see some of his mistakes. I think it's asking too much for every poster to have a firm handle on the history of political thought, especially when there is a lot of misinformation floating around out there.

For the record I have enjoyed the exchange - nice to see a debate in here that's well articulated and not tinged with dishonesty at every turn.

I tried to order that behemoth of a book you recommended about a year ago from a used retailer on the cheap. They sent me a slim volume of chapter notes LOL. Opted for Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind instead.

 

[Fawlty]

Imagine hearing Bernie Sanders say he will go to war with White Nationalism and feeling personally attacked

 

[waiguoren]

Sorry, what does it mean to ''believe'' in derailing? It happens.

It means that on an internet forum (especially one with an ignore feature) I don't think a third party has the ability to derail (e.g., by posting porn) a good-faith conversation between two or more people. The "derail" would require the willing participation of at least one of those involved in the original conversation.

Of course, the first thing that I said was that moderated spaces are ''better.'' You initially proposed that I like them better because posts I disagree with wouldn't be present. This is false and I've shown this.

You've not shown that, as far as I recall.

You and other posters here prefer the removal of posts whose viewpoints you disagree with (e.g., posts containing viewpoints you deem "racist"). Never did I write that this is the only type of post you want removed.

You gotta realize, bud, that Wai doesn't care what he's arguing about
It's e-intellectual penis pumping.

Funny guy

Make sure you have your careful thinking cap on when you do so.

Will do

So, a practical concern unrelated to agreement or disagreement, yes? A consequential argument for the censorship of certain kinds of speech?

Not unless your "ignore" button isn't working.

That the content of the post is not necessarily logically related to why I want it to be banned. In support of this point I proposed two things: some posts don't have content as such and they can be opposed, and even if I agreed with their content (or not) I could argue for them being banned. I've shown the two to be decoupled, there's nothing really left to argue.

Did you not already admit that you want people who post arguments that you deem "racist" to be banned? If yes, why do you keep changing the subject? My original statement about you was accurate.

That's not very careful.

It's very careful. Inductive reasoning, used properly, is crucial and careful. None of us could survive independently on logical deduction alone.

 

[waiguoren]

Which is of course not what I said, and I thought that ad was a funny way of showing what was at the time acceptable under "traditional" values of the time.

You implied that type of behavior was acceptable most of the time. I think that's way off, and I think modern media representations have distorted many people's views of the values of that era.

Simply put, a lot of times when men talk about a return to traditional values, it's a tradition of women being subservient and obedient to their men. Many men are intimidated by strong women.

Women should follow their respective mens' leads, assuming their men are on the right path. There is no such thing as a "strong woman", only weak men. There is a lot of propaganda out there trying to convince people otherwise, and I fear you might have fallen prey to it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Funny guy

Women should follow their respective mens' leads, assuming their men are on the right path. There is no such thing as a "strong woman", only weak men. There is a lot of propaganda out there trying to convince people otherwise, and I fear you might have fallen prey to it.

 

[waiguoren]

Confirmed: Limbo Pete believes in the notion of a "strong woman". A sad way to live!