Another psychological reason the modern Left is doomed...
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
It should read modern left and Trumpites are doomed. Neither are very nice at all.
I've got no issue with calling out some on the right as well on this.
But I do think some who exhibit that behavior on the right have had that behavior forced upon them by how leftists operate (calling people racists, sexists, etc. almost nonstop - hell, just watch that Google town hall.) Otherwise, I''d imagine a good chuck of the mean Trumpites would generally keep to themselves.
The functional equivalent of “you started it”.....
Which went out of favor as a rational and reasonable excuse for one’s own behavior in grade school for me.
*** posts BS psychobabble attempting to belittle and paint the left as the instigators and troublemakers, still lacks self-awareness***
You need to unfvck your head from your ass and take a deep breath occasionally lol
And in that same nearly 100% each combatant denies starting it and blames their conduct on the other side thereby disclaiming any responsibility for their own actions because “they made me do it....I was just responding in kind.”
Btw, I don’t believe I’ve seen you call out anyone on the right “for this” around here.
So keep preaching yourself.
Elevating the level of discourse and discussion and what not.
Last edited:
And in that same nearly 100% each combatant denies starting it and blames their conduct on the other side thereby disclaiming any responsibility for their own actions because “they made me do it....I was just responding in kind.”
Btw, I don’t believe I’ve seen you call out anyone on the right “for this” around here.
So keep preaching yourself.
Elevating the level of discourse and discussion and what not.
With respect,
I don't understand where your first paragraph means anything tangible. You also don't take a critical look at any specific issue or behavior. While your statement is no-doubt close to accurate in many situations, it doesn't work toward resolution nor discern underlying causality of the conflict.
I haven't called many folks out, bc I'm one who believes that it is way past time for people on the right (even the center, hell even the moderate left) push back aggressively against incessant accusations of racism, sexism, etc. I welcome the conflict as, historically, it's been largely 1-directional. There's been overreach by the left in the area of fallacious and sensational hysterics, and the way the pendulum begins swinging back to a sustainable midpoint is through aggressive pushback. When I have spoken to anybody about over-zealous posting, I've done so via DM.
I'd love to elevate discourse, but I also know it's a virtuous state of being, and while virtues are to be worked towards, they often don't reflect the way people behave.
There's a reason for the label "low information voter." And people who fit that criteria or have a personal sensitivity to a specific issue/parameter (race, LGBT...) are targets of Dem hysterics where in many cases the accusations or claims simply aren't supported by even a cursory review.
The Dem party has done a decent job at times of championing individual rights. But in our new reality, where (within reason) everybody is aware of anything that is out of whack via social media, the market of people have lessened the need for an activist party. The result? The Dems have to either create new issues (Progressivism and moral relativism) or exaggerate the degree to which people believe bad behavior goes on.
A result of that? Infringement on due process. Mob mentality. Political well poisoning. Puritanical demonization. And outright misrepresentation of reality in order to create an aggrieved status.
I've found recently that there's a mountain of accuracy in the phrase "The center and right are talking about ideas, while the left talks about people." Where are the left's practical ideas? Are they vocal with them? Will their ideas benefit people? Are they sustainable? Will they win elections? If the answer is largely 'no,' then we have root-caused our way to why (at this time) they are more in the business of talking about how bad or evil someone is, and why they go to great lengths (at times) to misrepresent reality, hiding things in minutiae or context that is not readily apparent to people who don't have the time, ability, or desire to be informed.
With respect....
First paragraph was in response to your statement that “nearly 100% someone actually does start the conflict.” So to the extent it failed mean anything tangible or look at any specific behavior or issue that is a result of it being a general, broad, intangible reply to a general, broad, intangible assertion.
You claimed you have no problem calling people on the right out for this type of conduct....then state that when you have you do it via DM...which isn’t really calling anyone out. You have no problem actively, publicly calling out lefties here for “overzealous posting”. Different standards of calling out.
As to low information posters....there are plenty on the right side with similar sensitivity to similar issues/demographics.
Every description of social media conduct you provide as occurring and coming from the left....I also see occurring and coming from the right/Trump supporters.
I have found little accuracy....PARTICULARLY ON THIS BOARD....but generally as well....”the center and right are talking about ideas, while the left talks about people”.
With respect...
I see this line of discussion as little (if at all) more than “talking about people” rather than ideas...and a crude, not very well disguised, effort to paint one side of the equation as more virtuous than the other that lacks any real evidence or ring of truth as far as my personal experience and knowledge. It’s common and understandable to see those that you happen to agree with as more virtuous....better behaved...etc., but as an outsider of both the new left and the new Trump right...I see little difference in behavior.
Last edited:
Your question presupposed...as Brad has...that it’s all “pushback” and not any “pushing first”.
My observations of the encounters lead me to believe it’s a good bit of both from each side.
I have little problem with “pushing back” or even “pushing first” but I just don’t buy the attempt to take a moral high ground based upon the specious claim that “they started it”.
I don't care about moral high ground.
I care about politics as an Ongoing Concern and the flattening of the playing field. My end desire is for the modern Left to get the hell out of my business, my old folks business, and most everybody's business who generally want light, non-invasive government.
MORE so, I desire to protect my folks or anybody like them, who wont immediately jump to condemn X or Y due to believing in Due diligence, discovery, or the presumption of innocence. They haven't earned that, yet institutions at the behest of the progressive left have created an environment where not only do such people get demonized, they are actively sought out and destroyed. This applies to all situations in the current environment where Leftists launch in to reasonable or unassuming folks.
The Left has grown, over time, a situation that has to be dealt with.
Regarding your ability to see equitable amount of blame on both sides over a passing of time, I can't speak to that. But I do know that my folks lead a quiet life that edifices family, friends and community. Where they aren't welcome, they don't go. But now, through NO CHANGE in their own behavior, their beliefs and voting habits are increasingly demonized. Bigotry is read in to their behavior.
That is a fundamental breakdown in the Lefts ability to listen and exist within themselves.
This thread was started by me to shine light on my observation regarding the modern left's behavior and a psychological study. That we are at odds as to who is more mean at this point in time, nor how it came to this, tells me that we don't have much to discuss.
But I can attest to a hostile change in how my folks and people like them are thought of or treated with no change in their underlying behavior or thoughts.
Your parents are racist? Mine aren't. Nor sexist. Etc.
Most importantly, they live within themselves.
What are you implying Pilt?
This isn't rocket science.
Did you read all I wrote? And that statement is the one you think to make?
Par for the Leftist course.
What are you "just saying?"
Have the courtesy to speak to what's already been said, or don't expect further responses.
That "I am not too worried about my keep within themselves nonracist nonsexist parents. Why are you?"
Kinda sounds like you are looking for confirmation of what you believe is an indisputable fact over discussion of whether or not your proposition withstands scrutiny. Since I’m not an adherent to the Gospel Accordning to Brad, I guess we don’t have much to discuss.
We can still be friendly though....since neither of us are of the new, mean left...right?
I don't need confirmation; I have a functioning brain, ears and eyes.
Of course we can still be friendly.
While I'm not party to the mean left, I will occassionally come across as mean to them. I don't ever wish to be in the position to do that.
Over the last few decades (1990 - 2015), and until the recent rise of Trump and some populist movements in Europe — “both sides” meant little in reality.
Western citizens on “both sides” were given “choices” between neoconservative and neoliberal platforms, all pro-globalization, pro-open borders and pro-war — ultimately managed by the men below, and the politicians / institutions they control.
The last few years has been riveting to watch as citizens have been giving the finger to those men and their corrupt institutions — which citizens never asked for, or voted for.
When you think about the rise of Trump, Brexit, Eastern European populist governments in Hungary / Poland / Czech and recently Italy — it’s literally citizens saying f*** you to their agenda.
Flashback:
JFK speech where he spoke the quote above:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
GULLIBLE:
easy,exploitable,naive(or naïve),susceptible,trusting,unwary,wide-eyed
First you go down the evil Jew route, again.
But then you post more LIES. How about posting the entire 20 minute speech with CONTEXT!!!
Here is the truth about the quote:
On April 27th 1961, Kennedy gave a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York. Aside from being a particularly good example of Kennedy's grasp of rhetorical pathos, it's become exceptionally popular amongst online conspiracy whackjobs, almost exclusively because Kennedy uses the term 'secret society' on one occasion, and makes reference to the US being opposed around the world by a "Vast right-wing monolithic and ruthless conspiracy," which relies variously on "infiltration instead of invasion," "subversion instead of elections," "intimidation instead of free choice" and "guerillas by night" to "expand its sphere of influence."
Versions of this speech are all over YouTube with ridiculous titles (e.g. "JFK blows the whistle on 9/11") - the speech is generally quote mined down from its original 20 minute length to a pithy 5 minutes (some are as short as a minute or two) which focuses on the juicy when de-contextualised statements listed above, but they're invariably so poorly edited that the speech doesn't actually make much narrative sense (although it's certainly a credit to Kennedy's aforementioned grasp of highly charged rhetoric that he can sound convincing and purposeful even when what he's saying is incoherent). All in all, said videos command a combined viewership of several million.
Depending on what theories you subscribe to, JFK was referring to one or all of the following - the CIA, the Fed, the FBI, the Illuminati, the New World Order, 9/11, Mossad, MI6, Freemasons, Israel, Skull & Bones Society, Big Government and so on. However, many conspiracy peddlers seem to be in agreement that it was this speech that led to his assassination.
It should come as absolutely no surprise that Kennedy was talking about something totally unrelated to any of the targets just mentioned (although, ironically, JFK's statements about the behaviour of this enemy are directly applicable to the actions of the US throughout the Cold War period). Additionally, for a speech that supposedly threatened the powers that be to such a degree that they had no recourse but to assassinate Kennedy in cold-blood two and a half years later, verbatim text transcripts of the speech in its distinctly non-scurrilous entirety (and a full audio recording) are freely available in numerous places on the web.[5] A brief read or listen of the oratory in full reveals that Kennedy was clearly speaking in reference to the Soviet Union, and it's due to their own generalised idiocy (ignorance of the logistics and history of the Cold War, ignorance of the use of terms like 'closed society' and 'Iron Curtain' in political discourse, etc.) that conspiracy theorists believe differently.
He is a fine example of how people can become self radicalized online or even become a cult member. Scary when you think about it, most likely no face to face contact with those pushing the crazy ideas. Yet he has joined their crazy train.
You must be talking about those who believe hook-line-and-sinker Trump/Russia collusion being pushed by government controlled media.
So Trump campaign officials didn’t meet with Russians, before and after he was elected?
News to me...
HAHAHAHA. You are fully radicalized. The truth is only what your handlers say it is.
Go read the ENTIRE speech not the out of context 5 minutes.
From the JFK library this is what the speech was about:
In his speech President Kennedy addresses his discontent with the press's news coverage before, during, and after the Bay of Pigs incident, suggesting that there is a need for "far greater public information" and "far greater official secrecy."
A few more things your people leave out:
"He is essentially talking about the need to balance the public's need to know and the government's need for some level of secrecy in order to combat perceived enemies. Which is precisely the part they cut off in this video. Basically, it's cherry picked for their purposes."
"Your selection omits the introduction that tells you - firstly - that this is a speech on the press and the presidency, more specifically on the privacy even a president wants to be granted and the obligation the press is feeling to inform the public - a situation on which Kennedy assures the press that he is on their side.
Here part of what has been omitted by the video’s editor on his personal course of creating that atmosphere of looming conspiracy:
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
The speech is beyond that personal part thrown right into the cold war confrontation. It is here where he calls for an open society - in a way Karl Popper did at the time."
Go read the ENTIRE speech not the out of context 5 minutes.
From the JFK library this is what the speech was about:
In his speech President Kennedy addresses his discontent with the press's news coverage before, during, and after the Bay of Pigs incident, suggesting that there is a need for "far greater public information" and "far greater official secrecy."
A few more things your people leave out:
"He is essentially talking about the need to balance the public's need to know and the government's need for some level of secrecy in order to combat perceived enemies. Which is precisely the part they cut off in this video. Basically, it's cherry picked for their purposes."
"Your selection omits the introduction that tells you - firstly - that this is a speech on the press and the presidency, more specifically on the privacy even a president wants to be granted and the obligation the press is feeling to inform the public - a situation on which Kennedy assures the press that he is on their side.
Here part of what has been omitted by the video’s editor on his personal course of creating that atmosphere of looming conspiracy:
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
The speech is beyond that personal part thrown right into the cold war confrontation. It is here where he calls for an open society - in a way Karl Popper did at the time."
You literally dropped an anonymous MEME and vouched for it as the truth.
Similar threads
