The rationalization of politics

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jews-agree-that-farrakhan-is-anti-semitic-after-that-it-gets-complicated/

This is a very illuminating read, because it shows the blind spots identity politics creates in people.

In the article, it claims Jews on the right believe anti-semitism on the left is the problem. Jews on the left believe anti semitism on the right is the problem. Centrists are caught in the middle.

And this, in a nutshell, is why I just can't take all this political arguing seriously. They're not really about issues! They're about your party affiliation. And that's just stupid... What's the point of winning, if you have to sacrifice any sense of integrity to win? Isn't the point of politics an expression of your values?

If the answer is no, and you believe values is "relative" or some such hogwash, you're probably a terrible person who shouldn't have kids. Just saying.

centrist autofelatio imo.

Bashy is an Expert on having his head up his Fascist Hole.

I myself stick to a certain set of principles, the principles of classical liberalism largely set forth by John Locke, and my moral principles as a Christian. I don't really care for holding to a stance just based on tribalism.

Politicians don't have to anymore...This is why they invented the "Grey" concept.

Making it OK to do BAD Things for "Good Reasons".

It seems right now politicians operate with the concept of "at least we aren't the other guys," which is just insipid.

Can't really speak to anti-semitism. But more generally, I do have an issue with political groupings as a whole, how imprecise they are, and how they promote attacks on individuals and/or the group itself instead of ideas.

I mean, think about the umbrella that is "liberal" or "conservative." Think about how many different demographics fall under each. Should a Texas rancher and Wall Street business mogul be described using the same terminology? Should an anti-war protesting hippie and a middle class urban school teacher? And could you craft a policy platform to please them both? Possibly, but only if they both idealize the party affiliation over their actual interests. Hundreds of examples like that could be found.

I'm of the debate philosophy that you pull zero punches, but separate argument from individual and attack only the idea. But when it comes to identity politics specifically, it's hard to find anyone who doesn't conflate certain ideas with their self-image. So an attack on the former is an attack on the latter. Cue rants and rage, and watch as it spirals and compounds on itself.

It's like trying to use the term millenial unironically to describe anything. By most definitions, it includes kids waiting to have their first legal drink, and early 30-somethings who could easily be on their 10th job, 3rd kid, 2nd mortgage, etc. Tell me that sh*t is one demographic with a straight face. It isn't; it's just a marketing buzzword, but we eat it up, attack it or embrace it to suit our needs.

So it's not that I'm espousing a centrist view on whatever topic. But yeah, f*** political labels and the way they dumb down our national discussion of nearly anything.

Originally posted by Digi
Can't really speak to anti-semitism. But more generally, I do have an issue with political groupings as a whole, how imprecise they are, and how they promote attacks on individuals and/or the group itself instead of ideas.

I mean, think about the umbrella that is "liberal" or "conservative." Think about how many different demographics fall under each. Should a Texas rancher and Wall Street business mogul be described using the same terminology? Should an anti-war protesting hippie and a middle class urban school teacher? And could you craft a policy platform to please them both? Possibly, but only if they both idealize the party affiliation over their actual interests. Hundreds of examples like that could be found.

I'm of the debate philosophy that you pull zero punches, but separate argument from individual and attack only the idea. But when it comes to identity politics specifically, it's hard to find anyone who doesn't conflate certain ideas with their self-image. So an attack on the former is an attack on the latter. Cue rants and rage, and watch as it spirals and compounds on itself.

It's like trying to use the term millenial unironically to describe anything. By most definitions, it includes kids waiting to have their first legal drink, and early 30-somethings who could easily be on their 10th job, 3rd kid, 2nd mortgage, etc. Tell me that sh*t is one demographic with a straight face. It isn't; it's just a marketing buzzword, but we eat it up, attack it or embrace it to suit our needs.

So it's not that I'm espousing a centrist view on whatever topic. But yeah, f*** political labels and the way they dumb down our national discussion of nearly anything.

Awww...Is Puttybot getting all triggerd cause no one will treat it seriously.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Awww...Is Puttybot getting all triggerd cause no one will treat it seriously.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/B]

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I've been making this point for months, as a European, Socialist and Unionist, I bear no resemblance to a feminist SJW. We are both of the left though and Fly attractor and other retards with agendas would call us both leftists ascribing the same views and drives to us both.

Good to see you agree, in part at least. I feel like you whiffed pretty hard on acknowledging the "attacks ideas, not people" part of my post. But at this point I'll take what I can get on this board.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I am a silly retard-bot.

Good to see you finally admit to it.

😱

Originally posted by Digi
Can't really speak to anti-semitism. But more generally, I do have an issue with political groupings as a whole, how imprecise they are, and how they promote attacks on individuals and/or the group itself instead of ideas.

I mean, think about the umbrella that is "liberal" or "conservative." Think about how many different demographics fall under each. Should a Texas rancher and Wall Street business mogul be described using the same terminology? Should an anti-war protesting hippie and a middle class urban school teacher? And could you craft a policy platform to please them both? Possibly, but only if they both idealize the party affiliation over their actual interests. Hundreds of examples like that could be found.

I'm of the debate philosophy that you pull zero punches, but separate argument from individual and attack only the idea. But when it comes to identity politics specifically, it's hard to find anyone who doesn't conflate certain ideas with their self-image. So an attack on the former is an attack on the latter. Cue rants and rage, and watch as it spirals and compounds on itself.

It's like trying to use the term millenial unironically to describe anything. By most definitions, it includes kids waiting to have their first legal drink, and early 30-somethings who could easily be on their 10th job, 3rd kid, 2nd mortgage, etc. Tell me that sh*t is one demographic with a straight face. It isn't; it's just a marketing buzzword, but we eat it up, attack it or embrace it to suit our needs.

So it's not that I'm espousing a centrist view on whatever topic. But yeah, f*** political labels and the way they dumb down our national discussion of nearly anything.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say.

If you want to go under the R or the D label, have at it. It's the "No enemies on our side" philosophy I can't stand, even if that enemy tramples on a fundamental key issue.

I mean, sure, no one wants their side to look bad. But taking a principled stance isn't bad, imo. It shows you actually give a crap about the things you claim to care about when it hurts the other team.

Selective outrage just looks like you care more about image then substance.

Originally posted by cdtm
It's the "No enemies on our side" philosophy I can't stand

while i definately agree with this statement, i personally can't stand all false equivalencies peddled by self-styled centrists. the problem is not equal on both sides of the spectrum.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
while i definately agree with this statement, i personally can't stand all false equivalencies peddled by self-styled centrists. the problem is not equal on both sides of the spectrum.

Again, No: there is no superior side here. It's not up for debate.

there is a vastly more numerous and violently radicalized side in the US, and apologists waiting to dismiss even their terrorist attacks of mass-murder attempts. and it's not on the left.

Originally posted by Surtur
Again, No: there is no superior side here. It's not up for debate.

i will point out false equivalency where i see it. cry about it, silly pretend-mod.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i will point out false equivalency where i see it. cry about it, silly pretend-mod.

And I'll point out what you're pointing out is bullshit when I see it. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
there is a vastly more numerous and violently radicalized side in the US, and apologists waiting to dismiss even their terrorist attacks of mass-murder attempts. and it's not on the left.

No, sorry. eg Antifa is just as bad as the Alt-Right (Nazis), cos fisticuffs and broken windows is a crime and murder is a crime.