When did Right leaners become pussified?
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
Was a big Buckley fan growing up, but this side of him made me cringe even then...
For a stick to the point kinda guy you seem awfully willing to defend the ad hominem circumstantial in this case...
We come to the point of this thread, a right leaner in the public eye not acquiescing to the construct the leftist attempts to put on him.
Vidal had called him a crypto-Nazi/crypto- fascist. Buckley lost his cool and brushed him back. I'm sure you're acquainted with the story.
Your side makes an industry of victimhood. You also shroud yourself in virtue that, luckily, you define, attaching the appropriate shame (and implied guilt) to whatever violates the virtue. So it doesn't surprise me that you'd assume this stance.
In both instances, and whatever your motivation here, the degree to which there's gnashing of teeth regarding a word smacks of theater, naivety, or both.
The people who practice this drama, yourself and others, would be doing their community and the nation a favor to stop striking so many poses, reserve your drama for appropriate instances, and start using that poser energy toward something more tangible.
The answer to my question is that people on the right became pussified when they allowed themselves to extend a benefit of the doubt to your (leftist) behavior.
Many of you, even yourself, probably operate from a position of genuine, albeit childlike, concern. But there are quite sinister people among you that "organize" the virtue to serve not so virtuous ends.
Many of you, even yourself, probably operate from a position of genuine, albeit childlike, concern. But there are quite sinister people among you that "organize" the virtue to serve not so virtuous ends.
@CBradSmith - Laughing at your naviety and self assurdeness. Thank you for the comedic relief in a difficult week.
It's a pronoun. You should be pleased.
The biggest fallacy that modern leftists allow themselves to believe is that the Left wing of politics is the sole vehicle/place of societal progress.
Societal progress straddles the political divide. And much of what emanates from the Left now is anything but progress.
Societal progress straddles the political divide. And much of what emanates from the Left now is anything but progress.
Societal progress from the right - can you give your 3 best examples? Say in the last 30 years, that seems a reasonable task...
Spot on. Today's lefties don't practice what they preach. It's all about what you say, not what you do. They want zero accountability for themselves but demand it from others. They refuse to question the leftist dogma because they are afraid of being judged as they themselves judge. They accept the thoughts of whoever screeches the loudest with zero regard to substance.
They reflexively defend the most oppressive religion in modern day because they fear being called a name. It's very weird.
I still can’t reconcile this. It’s insane. People of all ages are very very VERY brainwashed.
Look it up, dipshit. Maybe you can learn something today.
No kidding. "Progressives" defend a religion that kills gays, treats women like dogs, and is intolerant of anything not Islamic. I guess they actually have the intolerance thing in common.
@CSCOTTOSUPOKES, from your go to source Wikipedia...
Core beliefs of classical liberals included new ideas—which departed from both the older conservative idea of society as a family and from the later sociological concept of society as complex set of social networks. Classical liberals believe that individuals are "egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic"[9] and that society is no more than the sum of its individual members.[10]
Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from each other and that the purpose of government should be to minimize conflict between individuals that would otherwise arise in a state of nature. These beliefs were complemented by a belief that laborers could be best motivated by financial incentive. This belief led to the passage of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance, based on the idea that markets are the mechanism that most efficiently leads to wealth. Adopting Thomas Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, they believed population growth would outstrip food production and they regarded that consequence desirable because starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[11]
Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. They were critical of what would come to be the idea of the welfare state as interfering in a free market.[12] Despite Smith’s resolute recognition of the importance and value of labor and of laborers, they selectively criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights[13] while accepting corporations' rights, which led to inequality of bargaining power.[14][15][16]
Classical liberals argued that individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.[17]
Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:
- A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market
- A common national defense to provide protection against foreign invaders[18]
- Laws to provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts and common law
- Building and maintaining public institutions
- Public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications and postal services[19]
Core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include democracy or government by a majority vote by citizens because "there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law".[22]For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that in a pure democracy a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party".[23]
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated Social Darwinism.[24] Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[24]
Yes, Christianity of today kills gays, treats women like dogs, and is intolerant of anything non-Christian.
Any other nuggets of wisdom that the Clintard wants to share with us today? As I said, you dumbasses reflexively defend the most oppressive religion of the modern day. Thanks for solidifying my point.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...-people-in-us-rose-to-a-record-in-2016-report
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_womensrights.htm
And tolerance? Lol...I don’t even have to go there I know I’ve won haha
Even the Huffpo said it wasnt a hate crime.
Do you actually think that Christians kill non believers in the name of Christ? Or throw gay people off of buildings?
You should search your soul and ask why you have these beliefs. It will help you.
@CSCOTTOSUPOKES, you learn anything yet? Where does this fit into The Party narrative? Don't puss out on me, beta boy.
1. Bullshit. Right wing [politics is victimhood. Fox is 24/7 victimhood. This board is all about victimhood, with white people constantly being picked on and taken advantage of. Biff is all about victimhood, with our bad deals everywhere and letting China pick on us for so long, letting illegals take advantage of us, letting EU take advantage of us.. it goes on and on. A long list of victimization.
2. Look who hates tribalism and binary thinking but retreats to the binary "your side" the instant it's handy for a straw man argument.
More "leftists" and "left wing" etc. Give me one example of a leftist expressing that politics is the sole vehicle or place of societal progress.
This constitutes a game ender. Poof, a dozen posts about everything but the original post.
Yeah boy, Buckley was like a caged lion with that gay, Manhattan, fop. In the 60's no less, what courage. What is it about talking shit to a little guy that impresses Brad?
The more I think about it, that really is the perfect capsule summary of conservatism. Well done, Brad. Perhaps we could find a prominent conservatism threatening to kick some nursing home ass?
I was with you up until this point.
Vidal wasn’t a “little guy” in this debate series with Buckley. He was more than a gay Manhattan fop. To lessen iphim to that highly discounts his cultural cachét at the time. He gave as good as he got...maybe got the best of the thing. There is no way that this was an example of Buckley punching down on an intellectual lightweight fight out of his weight class.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/buckley-vidal-and-the-queer-question
For a little perspective...the notoriously right wing New Yorker opines Vidal won the battle back then, but from today’s perspective may have lost.
Weak retort. If you’re going to debate the guy then debate his argument. Ad hominem shows lack of a real response.
Brad's thesis is that right wingers used to be like that clip. That clip is an epithet and threat of violence. Did vidal have a reputation as a brawler?
The OP's clip is literally an ad hominem attack and wistfully... never mind.
Great minds and all...
If I channeled toon, it'd be time for serious self evaluation. It's not something I would put off either.
