You're right, good post, prove me wrong:
As a leftist, what is your response to Frank being accused of abuse by his significantly younger ex wife? What is your response to him replying to her accusations by declaring her to be an evil bitch who deserved no mercy?
We've got caps of it, take your time.
I think said caps show a very contentious divorce and a very depraved bunch of trolls commenting on it. Not sure which divorce party is right, but I know who's an ass and that's the commenters.
If she's right about Frank, I hope she gets some peace in her new life and that y'all leave her alone.
I think said caps show a very contentious divorce and a very depraved bunch of trolls commenting on it. Not sure which divorce party is right, but I know who's an ass and that's the commenters.
If she's right about Frank, I hope she gets some peace in her new life and that y'all leave her alone.
Can't say I agree with your take on ALL the commenters, but that's otherwise a fair take on this.
For my part, I will admit I do believe there is some truth to the worst parts of the situation, but I also admit I'm still not entirely sure, and I cannot disagree at all with your last sentence.
I think said caps show a very contentious divorce and a very depraved bunch of trolls commenting on it. Not sure which divorce party is right, but I know who's an ass and that's the commenters.
If she's right about Frank, I hope she gets some peace in her new life and that y'all leave her alone.
I agree. But did you read my comment on the previous page? It’s documented that Frank attacked her on Twitter, prompting her to respond. He then went to her blog (which I think is a little weird, but it was him) and conceded that the truth was in the middle.
The middle of what? Her being mean to him vs him abusing and stalking her?
But like I said, I agree. We can’t really extract the details of all that happened just from this. My only point is that it’s food for thought. I do agree that his ex should be left alone.
But like I said, I agree. We can’t really extract the details of all that happened just from this. My only point is that it’s food for thought. I do agree that his ex should be left alone.
Nah. Beyond looking at her public blog or for pics of her pecifically with Frank, I don’t think anyone is reading up on here. I doubt that was more than a combined two minutes of Googling.
I think that we have some kind of right to privacy, and domestic surveillance is crazy out of control.
I think we have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and that went out the window in the 80s and 90s pretty much.
I think we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and not to be deprived of them without due process. Which has been variously taken away by degrees in various recent bipartisan NDAAs since Bush.
I think we ought to have freedom of the press, and we do not.
I think we ought to have a more restrained, respectful police force in many areas.
I agree with Libertarians about most of what constitutes our liberty and how it is infringed. Although I disagree with the "Koch Brothers wing" of the Libertarians' idea that large corporations deserve the same freedoms, and some aspects of the whole "big government" argument. I'm for more government services, but less government surveillance, brutality, and telling people how to live their lives.
OK, the circular dance seems to be closing in a bit here. So the position I'm trying to get to the bottom of is "Everyone is losing their human rights". Warren is far from alone in this sentiment, but he's the only person who's kept talking to me as I repeatedly ask what that means. Let me make sure I understand here.
You think we have a right to privacy, and domestic surveillance is out of control. I imagine you're referring to the patriot act and associated laws, on top of the more recent revelation of the NSA illegally spying on american citizens, which was retroactively made legal. I agree with you there, that sucks, but again this was a bipartisan issue. Still, I'm with you here, a lot of that stuff needs to be rolled back.
Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which went out the window in the 80s and 90s. Could you explain further? The fourth amendment obviously agrees with you here, but what do you think is going against it? Do you mean stop and frisk? I agree that was unconstitutional and shouldn't be allowed.
You think we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and not to be deprived of them without due process. Which has been variously taken away by degrees in various recent bipartisan NDAAs since Bush.
This is very non specific, so I don't know what to say. Examples please?
You think we ought to have freedom of the press, and you believe we do not. Could you explain what you mean by this? The press seems to be able to get pretty regular access to the president despite insulting him nonstop, for example.
You think we ought to have a more restrained, respectful police force in many areas.
Sure, I've complained here about police getting away with bullshit, and more restraint and respect would be good. Still, this isn't really a political stance, what policies would you support/be against to advance this goal?
You agree with Libertarians about most of what constitutes our liberty and how it is infringed. Although you disagree with the "Koch Brothers wing" of the Libertarians' idea that large corporations deserve the same freedoms, and some aspects of the whole "big government" argument. You're for more government services, but less government surveillance, brutality, and telling people how to live their lives.
OK.... I guess your list above would be the infringements you are talking about. You agree with some concepts of libertarianism, but disagree with corporate personhood. You disagree with some aspects of the big government argument... such as? More services, less surveillance, brutality, and... not telling people how to live their lives (What do you mean by this?)
I feel that I have a bit better understanding of your position, but I will say you seem to have a bit of trouble articulating what you mean by a statement you seem to feel very strongly about. You seemed to start from a position of "The current administration is taking away everyone's rights" and ended with a list of grievances going back to the 80s.
It seems I agree with most of your specific positions, maybe with the exception of more government services, although obviously my feelings vary depending on the service being talked about. I very strongly agree that the government shouldn't be telling people how to live, but that doesn't seem to match my understanding of the progressive position.
OK, you've humored me quite a bit here, and while I'd love to continue digging down maybe you're getting tired of this. So it's only fair to offer you the same courtesy, if you're interested in getting into the mind of a... well I don't know what I am, but definitely not a progressive. I lean conservative, but I'm pretty socially liberal.
People should be able to do what they want if they're not hurting anyone else. That includes drugs, behavior, body modification, whatever. The government should not embrace social movements over actual medical science, meaning I think the prevailing attitude about transsexualism is driven by pandering, and I truly do believe it's very harmful.
I feel intersectional feminism has become too accepted politically, even where it has no scientific backing. I am annoyed to see the same tortured statistics being misused to prove something that isn't true. I am very bothered by schools teaching kids a made up politically motivated definition of racism and sexism. I believe the current social environment discourages speaking your mind because everything is deemed as offensive, and due to the changes to racism and sexism it's become essentially impossible to defend yourself from the accusation.
I am deeply bothered by seeing our society change to this mindset. I do not like the fact that "Fuck white people" and "Men Suck" are acceptable positions to publicly hold. I don't like that the highest value in our society at the moment is how much of a victim you are. I don't like seeing history being erased because people from the past don't live up to our current cultural standards. I'm worried Martin Luther King Jr. seems to be on the cusp of being written off because he wanted equality, not privilege checking. I'm bothered that racial and cultural segregation is being embraced by the liberal side of politics.
I see what goes on at college campuses, where the old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it" seems to have gone by the wayside. I see people trying to equate speech with violence, to justify responding to speech they don't like with violence. I see the mentality of mob justice becoming more accepted. Essentially, the whole "Social Justice Movement" of finding new and creative ways of being offended seems to be a tool of censorship, every day there's more articles on how something or other is problematic.
I see that this mentality has created a very "Us vs them" mentality, and they keep pushing more people into the "them" pile. I see people cut all ties with friends over politics, and I see the media encouraging it. I see my own position being re-labelled from "Somewhat Conservative" to "Literal Nazi". I see the way the press covers things, the way they see things as "Normal People vs Nazis". I hear the term alt-right constantly, but it's applied across such a wide range of ideologies that it's almost as meaningless as "libtard".
I blame much of this on the progressive wing of the democrats. I went into the last election with the mentality of "anyone but Hillary" because I haven't forgotten about the original reason those e-mails were an issue in the first place. She had an obvious conflict of interests in the clinton foundation getting donations, then the donators getting political favors, which should have been easy enough to check, except she kept the emails hidden. Then deleted them all.
So I voted for Bernie, because, as I saw it, if we're gonna go nuts, let's go fully fucking nuts. I saw the way the DNC cheated in Hillary's favor. I watched with horror as the republican primaries happened. And in the end, I thought Trump had no position on anything, was a maniac, and had his own corruption issues. So I voted for Hillary.
Now, although I still think he's a maniac, Trump isn't seemingly doing too bad a job. Economy seems good, unemployment is really good, rocketman isn't firing nukes at the moment, russia's not invading anyone right now. Meanwhile, more and more stuff keeps coming out about Hillary and the democrats, to the point where the idea that a conspiracy occurred between the sitting president, the FBI, and a presidential candidate to spy on the other party's candidate doesn't seem all that far fetched.
Despite all this, the media can't stop braying about how awful trump is. They've shown the bias we always knew existed, but now it's so extreme it's ridiculous.
I feel that I have a bit better understanding of your position, but I will say you seem to have a bit of trouble articulating what you mean by a statement you seem to feel very strongly about. You seemed to start from a position of "The current administration is taking away everyone's rights" and ended with a list of grievances going back to the 80s.
[/SPOILER]
I said both parties have been taking away human rights. I'm not CNN, I'm the libertarian-leaning left.
Dems lately focusing on the immigration situation and making everything about that. I agree with them that it's egregious but I agree with the GOP that mainstream Dems will take your rights away just as quickly. Over different issues maybe. But Obama was no big friend to liberty IMO.
Libertarian left is a meme and cute term commie filth uses to hide their true claws. You don't want a government, but you want welfare, and forced "equality" at gun point of someone who you are forced to pay for it.
On a kinder note since you do random Q&A and I enjoy that, how do you take your coffee Warren?
Libertarian left is a meme and cute term commie filth uses to hide their true claws. You don't want a government, but you want welfare, and forced "equality" at gun point of someone who you are forced to pay for it.
One thing I disagree with Libertarians with is their tendency to visualize guns forcing people to do things.
"Don't subsidize state college, that could somehow obliquely cause police brutality! But do turn a blind eye to actual police brutality, because that 'doesn't matter'!". While I (and probably most people) agree with Libertarians on their original ideals of liberty, and I definitely cheer on Rand Paul when he's on my side against regime change wars etc, he and the corporate wing of the Libertarians are kinda seriously stretching whenever they try to talk about anything.
Maybe you think Paul sounds sane in this clip and Bernie sounds insane. But to me, it sounds the other way around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A
One thing I disagree with Libertarians with is their tendency to visualize guns forcing people to do things.
"Don't subsidize state college, that could somehow obliquely cause police brutality! But do turn a blind eye to actual police brutality, because that 'doesn't matter'!". While I (and probably most people) agree with Libertarians on their original ideals of liberty, and I definitely cheer on Rand Paul when he's on my side against regime change wars etc, he and the corporate wing of the Libertarians are kinda seriously stretching whenever they try to talk about anything.
Maybe you think Paul sounds sane in this clip and Bernie sounds insane. But to me, it sounds the other way around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A
I don't seem to ever support police brutality, but what happens if I stop paying taxes for things I see as bigoted or wrong? I don't want cops hitting people, if I stop paying for it? I get the shit kicked out of me and drug to a cell.
If I want to run a company that says we don't let black people in, what happens? Now wouldn't all you and your hip progressive friends just boycott and let the market run me into poverty?
The police are also absurdly over armed, and I'm still fucking waiting for another suppressor and it'll be 9 or so more months, I have serious hearing problems. Cops can just ask and get a can. I will spare you ranting more, but I don't much like how you say we agree but then put words I'm ok with police violence in my mouth.
Like I said before, libertarians do not have a whole platform. They have opinions on some specific issues. I like some of the Koch brother's stuff, they're against the rampant incarceration going on, they are against the war on drugs, and they're against people who've gone to prison having to wear a scarlet letter from then on.
My issue with any political position that doesn't include strong national defense is that means your real position is going to be the one of whoever does have a strong military and is willing to use it.
I also believe isolationism simply does not work, even if we bury our heads in the sand the rest of the world keeps doing its thing, and since we have to live in the same world as everyone else we have a vested interest in peace and civility worldwide.
I'm a little disappointed you didn't ask me any questions on my positions, it seems only fair you should get to grill me back, but then, this is the warren lynch shitpost general thread, not the corbin dallas multipass thread.
So sensitive!
But the libertarian left is real. Some idiots like to say "Libertarians cant be left because the left monolithically wants to take your freedoms!"
Meanwhile dems say the same things about the right.
It's all hogwash. People come in so many different varieties of personality and belief.
And who votes more often with Rand Paul than any other Democrat senator? Ron Wyden the progressive! And who does even more than that? Bernie fuckin Sanders
No, this is not me getting fee fees rustled, it's what many people have called you out on.
When you are hit with a point, you slink away or make insults. It's not polite, or right morally. I openly just said I'm against police brutality, and you responded with no you aren't. No proof, you just said I'm ok with cops randomly beating people. I then expanded, even more how I'm not ok with it and feel they are over militerized, then you rant about that washed up old commie Sanders.
How's his dream land of Venezuela doing? Oh yea 40,000% inflation. His ideas are bunk he's wrong and people are DYING because of it. Fuck him and his bigotry and lack of economic understanding to appeal to people who never had real jobs grew up rich (oh that sounds like him and John Flynt) selling to poor rubes like you.
I'm a little disappointed you didn't ask me any questions on my positions, it seems only fair you should get to grill me back, but then, this is the warren lynch shitpost general thread, not the corbin dallas multipass thread.
Why would I want to grill you? You should have whatever position you want to have.
There was some attempt at a request to get me to categorize you? Ok, "centrist independent with sympathy for libertarians and some of the "anti cultural marxism" stuff, although generally socially liberal", right?
Most of the Democrats in my town would write you off as a "secret Republican" and not even knock on your door. But I would knock. I get more sympathy and understanding from the independent right than I do from the mainstream left sometimes. Some may see some of my views on the issues as "extreme", but my tactics are in the populist center. Knocking on doors and doing your best to listen to ordinary people is where it's at most of all, not colors of flags. Bernie's widest in-state base in Vermont isn't the hippies. It's the independent small farmers. I try to be like that. Except in Malden instead of farmers we have underpaid working schmoes like me.
No, silly, I thought maybe you would want to know why someone who isn't a nazi disagrees with the democrats, much like I wanted to know why someone who isn't an authoritarian would go along with the progressives. I wasn't asking you questions to try to change your mind, I was asking you questions to see if you had anything to change my mind. And to be fair, you brought up a couple of good points, so I did learn something.
Maybe my position isn't as nuanced as yours, so there's nothing to follow up with. I guess I'm ok with that too, but I'd love to get people on the other side of the aisle to see their opponents aren't actually evil nazis, and that we generally agree on a lot.
No, silly, I thought maybe you would want to know why someone who isn't a nazi disagrees with the democrats, much like I wanted to know why someone who isn't an authoritarian would go along with the progressives.
I disagree with the Democrats too. Pretty strongly. It's no great mystery to me why someone would disagree with a party which has lost thousands of seats in the past 10 years.
I wasn't asking you questions to try to change your mind, I was asking you questions to see if you had anything to change my mind. And to be fair, you brought up a couple of good points, so I did learn something.
I'm not trying to talk you into identifying as a progressive. Going from "progressives are like regular Democrats, but worse" to "progressives agree with centrist independents on a lot of things they both disagree with mainstream dems about" is a lovely progression to have made, and I feel accomplished if I've got you that far. We can still disagree about immigration or SJWs or whatever given individual topic.
Maybe my position isn't as nuanced as yours, so there's nothing to follow up with. I guess I'm ok with that too, but I'd love to get people on the other side of the aisle to see their opponents aren't actually evil nazis, and that we generally agree on a lot.
Well... ok. But I don't think I've made the transition in thought about progressives that you think I have, although I do feel I've got a clearer view of your own politics. The thing is, I think many people who call themselves progressives would completely disagree with some of your stated positions, or only have a similar sounding premise "This administration is taking away everyone's human rights". But, as we saw, digging into that statement reveals a number of other issues that you mean by it. Just because someone else says the same phrase as you doesn't mean they'd give the same answers to my questions that you did.
To be completely honest, what I've taken from this is that much of your own political platform is not clearly defined. I feel that is a common problem, most people just pick a team and really only care about a couple of issues, but they project the worst parts of the other team to their supporters. But obviously if everyone else is doing it, then logically I should assume I'm doing it too. That's where you come in. You aren't on my political team, so to speak, so it's unlikely you share all my blind spots. Therefore you are in a fairly unique position, as I am receptive to your point of view, and not only that, if you convince me I'm missing something I will pass it on. I hope that you'll reflect on why you had such a hard time defining what you meant by "This administration is taking away everyone's human rights", and whether you think your fellow progressives mean the same thing by it. Because to me that's the core issue that's being moralized, and is the reason trump supporters are being called nazis.
And since I'm picking at your positions I thought it was only fair to give you the opportunity to get some revenge by pointing out where my own positions are poorly defined or self-contradictory.
The thing is, I think many people who call themselves progressives would completely disagree with some of your stated positions, or only have a similar sounding premise "This administration is taking away everyone's human rights". But, as we saw, digging into that statement reveals a number of other issues that you mean by it. Just because someone else says the same phrase as you doesn't mean they'd give the same answers to my questions that you did.
Yes. Including the phrase "I'm a progressive." Hillary Clinton is clearly not the same kind of a "progressive" as Bernie Sanders is. But a lot of politicians love that word now, including, in Massachusetts anyway, a lot of Republicans. To be clear, I'm a "Bernie Sanders-wing progressive", aka "progressive populist democratic socialist".
To be completely honest, what I've taken from this is that much of your own political platform is not clearly defined. I feel that is a common problem, most people just pick a team and really only care about a couple of issues, but they project the worst parts of the other team to their supporters. But obviously if everyone else is doing it, then logically I should assume I'm doing it too. That's where you come in. You aren't on my political team, so to speak, so it's unlikely you share all my blind spots. Therefore you are in a fairly unique position, as I am receptive to your point of view, and not only that, if you convince me I'm missing something I will pass it on.
It's pretty clearly defined to me. You just don't know me very well yet. But ask away!
It's fair to assume that since I worked for Brianna and sometimes take on the mantle of a "radical", I must be some hyper-partisan, wedge-issue-focused hypocritical windbag. And I'm sure I can be sometimes. But as folks noticed here before I even knew the thread existed, there's a lot that Brianna and I don't agree on. And I think most so-called "Berniecrats" share my opinions on those things.
Despite the spin otherwise on many fronts. I saw Alex Jones saying recently that Ocasio-Cortez was a "communist" who wants to bring "total corporate control of the USA". Uh, she can be one thing OR the other, but....
Lol. Not that I'm saying you believe Alex Jones.
I hope that you'll reflect on why you had such a hard time defining what you meant by "This administration is taking away everyone's human rights", and whether you think your fellow progressives mean the same thing by it.
I didn't say "this administration", I said "both parties". I didn't have a full answer of what I meant right away because I was busy/distracted/exhausted. But I gave you a pretty comprehensive answer later.
Well I don't agree with it. I don't think Trump supporters are Nazis (okay maybe a few but not most), and have pointed out that much of my strongest base in Malden is Trump supporters. I think what Trump is doing with immigration right now is appalling and does echo Nazis in a way. And the violence at his rallies really did seem stoked on purpose to me. I think he himself does have some fascist-esque tendencies. And SOME of his supporters even more. But calling every Trump supporter a Nazi is crazy. That's like half the country, including tons of ordinary conservatives who just wanted supreme court justices etc.
And I think he has done some good stuff in Syria and North Korea probably, even if he's an ass-face. I think Hillary would have done even more war stuff than he is doing.
And since I'm picking at your positions I thought it was only fair to give you the opportunity to get some revenge by pointing out where my own positions are poorly defined or self-contradictory.
Well I appreciate it but I don't have the energy to really pick on people unless they have power over my community. Make fun of people who make fun of me yes. Make records of when Councillor Spadafora lied, sure. especially on stage. But to care how much a regular person was "hypocritical" about one of their beliefs, in their own mind? That's their business. If they want to talk issues I'll talk issues. But if they don't want to, what business is it of mine?
Maybe some people want to be thought police, but that's not my bag. I do like arguing and debating the issues, but to me it's not personal. Except when it is.
No. We have threads on neo-Nazis too. Extremism itself is a funny thing.
Also just to get into the SJW thing a bit, do you even realize it isn't an animus against "social justice" that causes the disgust with SJWs as they are called? The term is sarcastic. It isn't against "justice" itself. It is a mockery of the concept that these idiots actually are for "justice."
They aren't. They're a joke. You should be close enough to the phenomenon to know that.
