War Room Lounge v63

[Social Distance Warrior]

Yeah, it wasn't enforced on you the other day when you were "fuck you"-ing all over the place and making racist posts about white people being race traitors. That's just how it is though, the staff here are garbage.

no, a couple have been gunning for me. one in particular.

Btw fu*k you.

 

[Fawlty]

no, a couple have been gunning for me. one in particular.

Btw fu*k you.

I'm sure you'll be on the losing end of a call pretty soon. Like you'll post something that was milder than what you typically get away with, and all of a sudden you're staring at a ban screen that doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I'm sure you'll be on the losing end of a call pretty soon. Like you'll post something that was milder than what you typically get away with, and all of a sudden you're staring at a ban screen that doesn't make sense to you.

admittedly, there are several topics that irk the fu*k out of me, which end up me posting like sloppyjoe.

for the most part, I can reasonable disagree with most of you people.

 

[Jack V Savage]

no, he kind of went off the deep end a little bit...like full on RAGE posting. he made me look calm in terms of my rants about the Mike Brown Shooting.

I assume his rant in the California bashing thread is what got him reported and banned. I can see an argument for it being out of bounds (and he already had dubs), but that's not a consistently applied rule. I think he does it artfully, and usually ties it to good points (not in that one, as he was backing rent control, which I think is a very poor solution) and adds a lot to the group but OK, if that's not allowed, it's not allowed. But then how are you still around? How is xbcvn still around? Or Farmer? Or Starman (the worst offender of that kind of thing, by far)?

Frankly, I think keepitrealist's continued false claims without corrections in that thread should be banworthy, and the salty language should lead to requests to tone it down.

 

[Fawlty]

I assume his rant in the California bashing thread is what got him reported and banned. I can see an argument for it being out of bounds (and he already had dubs), but that's not a consistently applied rule. I think he does it artfully, and usually ties it to good points (not in that one, as he was backing rent control, which I think is a very poor solution) and adds a lot to the group but OK, if that's not allowed, it's not allowed. But then how are you still around? How is xbcvn still around? Or Farmer? Or Starman (the worst offender of that kind of thing, by far)?

Frankly, I think keepitrealists continued false claims without corrections in that thread should be banworthy, and the salty language should lead to requests to tone it down.

I think the major part of it is cowardice, as consistent enforcement would lead to massive cries of favoritism again.

 

[Higus]

Ugh. Big loss. The right here has no sense of humor or appreciation for expressive language.

One of my favorite posters around here. I read an article (potentially nsfw) a while back that basically made the argument that liberals need to stop being civil for civility's sake, that vulgarity has a purpose in discourse. He was an embodiment of that ideal.

EDIT: from the link

The left will always need its journals and polemic and academic writing, but there are times when it is both right and proper to terrify the bourgeoisie with your own feralness. Reclaiming vulgarity from the Trumps of the world is imperative because if we do not embrace the profane now and again, we will find ourselves handicapped by our own civility. Vulgarity is the language of the people, and so it should be among the grammars of the left, just as it has been historically, to wield righteously against the corrupt and the powerful. We cannot cede vulgarity to the vulgarians; collegial intellectuals will always be niche, but class war need not be.

 

[all caps]

Anybody else reading this bullshit?

"Artful f bombs"

Who actually falls for this crap

 

[Fawlty]

One of my favorite posters around here. I read an article (potentially nsfw) a while back that basically made the argument that liberals need to stop being civil for civility's sake, that vulgarity has a purpose in discourse. He was an embodiment of that ideal.

When he's slightly reeled in, that style is a thing of beauty. RIP sloppypie.

 

[Higus]

Anybody else reading this bullshit?

"Artful f bombs"

Who actually falls for this crap

Swearing can be a sledgehammer or a paintbrush depending on the user. "Fuck" is possibly the most versatile word in the English Language.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, it wasn't enforced on you the other day when you were "fuck you"-ing all over the place and making racist posts about white people being race traitors. That's just how it is though, the staff here are garbage.

I think the ideal is less vulgar ranting but also not emptying the place out. It's probably a hard "job."

One of my favorite posters around here. I read an article (potentially nsfw) a while back that basically made the argument that liberals need to stop being civil for civility's sake, that vulgarity has a purpose in discourse. He was an embodiment of that ideal.

Again, I can see an argument for stopping it, but the problem is the inconsistent application. Mick himself should be banned if sloppy's rant got the hammer for him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Anybody else reading this bullshit?

"Artful f bombs"

Who actually falls for this crap

Blatant trolling like this guy does always also seems like it should be more banworthy than swearing.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Hmm. Were you not saying that authoritarianism, statism, and "bloated gov't" are "left"? What is the basis for that?

I did indeed say that. And I cannot keep repeating myself but it's because not is unlike the status quo or also your first definition of conservatism quoted in my last response

You're mistaken if you think any of my points were based on Trump being in office. I'm saying that the vast majority of the right in America *approves* of Trump. That is inconsistent with your description of the American right.

Again, a problem you're having is referring to "the American right" without making any effort to tie it to the actual American right. I'm saying that we should define the American right by what people in the group say and do. You get that, right? How do you think we should define it?

First off to do such a thing would negate your very understanding of what conservatism even means in the first place. The tradition is almost literally set in stone (constitution) change that and you may have a case, otherwise what the monolithic block of voters does in contemporary politics does not change the status quo. This cannot be answered another time. You can either accept it or you cannot.

No, I strongly disagree that the American right is classical liberal. The American left is much closer to classical liberalism.

Wrong. That's the general core definition of what *conservatism* is, which I said you were conflating with rightism and you denied. Do you see the problem? Conservatism is just one, generally right-wing ideology, and not the dominant one in America.

This is you changing the parameters of the conversation which I've cleared up numerous times. First off I'm talking about the political paradig in America being different and rightly labelling American rightism and not what you define as right wing voters, as American conservatism. It's a particular brand of conservatism that you do not find anywhere else in the world and following the proper definition of what conservatism is outs it squarely on the right.

You're wrong about my thought processes here. Trump's broad support from the American right is strong evidence that the American right does not oppose authoritarianism. As is the support that Franco, Pinochet, and others have had from them.

Not what's being discussed. Read my numerous posts clearing this up.

The right of what? Classical liberalism defined the left of its own time.

To the right of literally everything. It's the conservative ideology of America. Ever wonder why they call it "alt-right" when they speak of shoe horning American rightism in with Nazism? Because it's a different thing entirely from the status quo.

Unfettered market economies not being possible means that "redistribution" is not a relevant point. Once the gov't imposes a market economy, it's already redistributing as much as it can (that is, all wealth in society is being in some sense distributed by the gov't). You saying that an anarchist society would be in bad shape doesn't negate anything in the same way--it just means that you don't support anarchism.

Laissez faire economies do not allow government intervention. The more involvement and intrusion in the market makes it more left than right.

The first bit is fine. The matter being disputed is whether classical liberalism accurately describes the thinking of the American right (I'd say that it clearly does not).

Not how the conversation was framed. Remember you intervened in a toxic exchange between me and another poster. The parameters you are setting currently are not accurate. What's currently being discussed beyond the original conversation is whether classical liberalism describes American rightism and not something unlike the status quo.

If you want to assert that they are shifting to the left than ok I'm all for it because the only thing to the right of classical liberalism that I know is basically right wing anarchy.

The first bit is fine. The matter being disputed is whether classical liberalism accurately describes the thinking of the American right (I'd say that it clearly does not).

The second is from a book *calling for* a revival of classical liberalism and claiming (wrongly) that its few adherents today are American conservatives. That would be like if a baseball fan complained about the lack of stolen bases in today's game and noted that the only prolific basestealers are on the Brewers. Not true, and not a claim that the Brewers are mostly prolific basestealers.

What I have gathered and an hoping you do as well is that you are not willing to accept a fundamental disagreement we are having between not only the definition of conservatism but also my argument. I'm not associating contemporary American politics with the status quo. I actually believe what you are currently saying about authoritarianism and elements of it plaguing the right is debatable but that's another conversation entirely. What they currently do does not change the structure of your government and the constitution you people live under. Until that's changed it makes no difference how you perceive the right wing electorate.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I assume his rant in the California bashing thread is what got him reported and banned. I can see an argument for it being out of bounds (and he already had dubs), but that's not a consistently applied rule. I think he does it artfully, and usually ties it to good points (not in that one, as he was backing rent control, which I think is a very poor solution) and adds a lot to the group but OK, if that's not allowed, it's not allowed. But then how are you still around? How is xbcvn still around? Or Farmer? Or Starman (the worst offender of that kind of thing, by far)?

Frankly, I think keepitrealist's continued false claims without corrections in that thread should be banworthy, and the salty language should lead to requests to tone it down.

here's the problem.

Sloppyjoe obviously has a brain, and actually raised many valid points in that hate filled rant of his and could have articulated his POV much more...sanely.

He was on Dubbs and he went off. it's a delicate balance. he'll be back.

 

[MMAisGod]

Been so swamped with so much work and life obligations/appearances I haven't been able to follow as much other than random spot checks. What's the best things I've missed the past week or so, in both real news and on the forum?

 

[Fawlty]

Blatant trolling like this guy does always also seems like it should be more banworthy than swearing.

One of the safer strategies for terrible posters is to be extremely obvious trolls and to constantly troll. It doesn't make sense, but it's highly encouraged here.

 

[Fawlty]

New fred is up: https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/war-room-lounge-v64.4002825/


any poll requests?

 

[all caps]

Blatant trolling like this guy does always also seems like it should be more banworthy than swearing.

This is a very subjective, bad faith argument.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

He also conflated AnCap with conservatism, so...
You might have been able to make a case for classical liberalism as the future of the American right after the great neocon exodus, but that lasted about as long as the next Democrat administration.
Now they've clearly turned to identity politics and authoritarianism.
Playing semantic games to try and make everything you don't like "left-wing" is just wishful thinking.

Um no I didn't. You asserted that classical liberals wanted to reinstate the very institutions they ran from. Not sure you should be intervening at this point.

@Fawlty @Higus is the chirping from the sidelines really necessary? I'm trying to have a friendly debate with a quality poster which I also include you guys in there. My initial reason for joining this forum was to exchange ideas and learn from other perspectives. I have engaged in my fair share of partisan Hackery (I admit)but I think we should all be promoting healthy conversation even if we don't agree with each other.

Im a critic of leftism as an ideology but that doesn't mean I can't partake in meaningful conversation. This is the lounge, let's not make it into an echo chamber reinforcing your ideals.

 

[Higus]

Been so swamped with so much work and life obligations/appearances I haven't been able to follow as much other than random spot checks. What's the best things I've missed the past week or so, in both real news and on the forum?

Epstein stuff is pretty good, but it's a rabbit hole.

 

[Fawlty]

Um no I didn't. You asserted that classical liberals wanted to reinstate the very institutions they ran from. Not sure you should be intervening at this point.

@Fawlty @Higus is the chirping from the sidelines really necessary? I'm trying to have a friendly debate with a quality poster which I also include you guys in there. My initial reason for joining this forum was to exchange ideas and learn from other perspectives. I have engaged in my fair share of partisan Hackett but I think we should all be promoting healthy conversation even if we don't agree.

Im a critic of leftism as an ideology but that doesn't mean I can't partake in meaningful conversation. This is the lounge, let's not make it into an echo chamber reinforcing your ideals.

I'm sorry but I just don't have any regard for what you have to say. Nothing personal. You two are doing just fine on your own.