TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The tone of political debate on major controversial issues these days

Go To

Funnyguts Since: Sep, 2010
#126: Jan 12th 2011 at 8:31:53 AM

I haven't seen violent rhetoric from PETA, unless you count any calls to free testing animals as violent and not just stupid.

OscarWildecat Bite Me! from The Interwebz Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Bite Me!
#127: Jan 12th 2011 at 8:37:08 AM

I wonder if there is something inherent to the nature of left wing extremist groups that make them less "organized" in the sense that right wing extremist groups are?

Please spay/neuter your pets. Also, defang your copperheads.
Bur from Flyover Country (Living Relic) Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#128: Jan 12th 2011 at 8:37:33 AM

Throwing red paint at people doesn't count?

RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Desertopa Not Actually Indie Since: Jan, 2001
Not Actually Indie
#130: Jan 12th 2011 at 8:43:02 AM

Honestly, I don't think that the present tone of political debate inspiring violence is an issue of serious concern. What is an issue of serious concern is that it almost certainly leads to the country being run less well, which is very much a matter of life or death, and occurs on a much larger scale.

...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.
RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#131: Jan 12th 2011 at 8:48:38 AM

[up]Best post in- wait for it- the damn thread!

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#132: Jan 12th 2011 at 8:53:04 AM

"Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front press office [..] said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but “if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.”" (source)

"Do not be afraid to condone arsons at places of animal torture." "It's not about loving animals. It's about fighting injustice. My whole goal is for humans to have as little contact as possible with animals." If an "animal abuser" were killed in a research lab firebombing, "I would unequivocally support that, too.
- Gary Yourofsky, formerly president of the animal rights group ADAPTT — and now a national lecturer for PETA source

Then there's the Holocaust on your Plate campaign...

And of course, the cooking mama parody is very violent and gory, though that's less rhetoric and more "Look meat is violent so don't eat it".

edited 12th Jan '11 8:54:32 AM by Yamikuronue

BTW, I'm a chick.
rjung He's just some guy, you know? from Fifth and Main (Five Year Plan) Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
He's just some guy, you know?
#133: Jan 12th 2011 at 10:22:04 AM

I love how there are folks still trying to equate obscure nutjobs that nobody pays attention to with a former US Vice-Presidential candidate who has her own high-profile TV show and regular guest appearances on major news networks.

—R.J.

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#134: Jan 12th 2011 at 10:38:54 AM

@rjung:

If a Liberal disagrees with you, odds are he'll just say "Let's agree to disagree, " and maybe go somewhere so he doesn't have to have the argument anymore, realizing it's futile. A conservative, however, cannot tolerate knowing that you're still out there, having views/beliefs/lifestyles that are different. If you're lucky, they'll just simmer in silent anger... and if you're unlucky, it's time for the broken windows, flaming crosses, and Public Displays of Ammunition.

I like how you were born in the 20th century and have constructed a worldview in which it's impossible to explain the 100 million deaths perpetrated by Marxists (i.e. leftists).

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#135: Jan 12th 2011 at 10:57:11 AM

@Rotter: Some left wingers are Marxists. Not all Marxists are left wingers. Not all left wingers are Marxist.

I would add that equating a political side you disagree with "those people who killed 100 million in the last century" is exactly the sort of problem described in the topic, that of unconstructive approaches to political debate. Do we want to play that game? Do we want to add up the deaths of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Caicescu, who we'll arbitrarily categorize under the "left", and see if they're more or less than the combined deaths inflicted by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Shah, Trujillo, Pinochet, Marcos, the House of Saud, and everyone else we can arbitrarily group under the "right"? And if we play that game, do you think anyone will really win?

If we're trying to find unpopular groups to affiliate our opponents with rather than discussing our opponents' policies, something is seriously fucking wrong.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Bur from Flyover Country (Living Relic) Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#136: Jan 12th 2011 at 10:58:10 AM

If we're trying to find unpopular groups to affiliate our opponents with rather than discussing our opponents' policies, something is seriously fucking wrong.

QFT.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#137: Jan 12th 2011 at 10:59:15 AM

People seem to like my posts on this thread (and related threads) for some reason.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Bur from Flyover Country (Living Relic) Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
#138: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:00:52 AM

Because rationality is sexy.

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#139: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:04:23 AM

@Taoist:

Some left wingers are Marxists. Not all Marxists are left wingers.

Marxism is a materialist political philosophy based on the eradication of all social inequality. If that's not leftist, "left" and "right" have no objective meaning.

I would add that equating a political side you disagree with "those people who killed 100 million in the last century" is exactly the sort of problem described in the topic, that of unconstructive approaches to political debate.

It's also true. I don't know why playing nice is considered more important than speaking truth.

Do we want to add up the deaths of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Caicescu, who we'll arbitrarily categorize under the "left", and see if they're more or less than the combined deaths inflicted by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Shah, Trujillo, Pinochet, Marcos, the House of Saud, and everyone else we can arbitrarily group under the "right"?

Um, no. When I say I'm right-wing, I mean it in the original sense, defined by the seating in the French National Assembly, of supporting monarchy and a state church. So I suppose you can count Franco. tongue

edited 12th Jan '11 11:05:21 AM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#140: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:09:19 AM

[up][up]Damn straight.

[up]Dude, your ideology is one of the dead branches of political evolution. A dead end. An abandoned field. Abandon that narrow valley. It has no issue. Come join us into the open plains of the mainstream valley!

"left" and "right" have no objective meaning.

DAMN RIGHT. Just like "marxist" doesn't have an objective meaning and can encompass lots of varieties. Just like Christian can cover anyone from Coptes, to Jah people, to Unitarians, to mormons, to the WBC.

It's also true. I don't know why playing nice is considered more important than speaking truth.

If you keep speaking misleading half-truths that stall the debate and don't take anyone anywhere, that's what you'll get. No one benefits from that. Do you go on telling people you find sexy how you would bonk them? A Chewbacca Defense needs no lies, yet it is still, in spirit, a lie, and sinful.

edited 12th Jan '11 11:14:25 AM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#141: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:16:01 AM

@Raw: If I cared about being mainstream, there would be nothing to stop me from becoming evil when evil is popular. Maoism was mainstream to progressives of The '60s.

The problem with wanting to be popular above all else is that, when society is evil, anyone can become Eichmann.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#142: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:19:04 AM

[up]They were misinformed as to what maoism actually meant. I was a maoist as a kid. I didn't know what that really meant, I had those books of the official records of the meeting of the Party and the glorious long march and I bought it all, I didn't have the capacity to question that.

But one thing is being on the vanguard, and another is being in a freaking dead end. Alone. That is not healthy.

Embrace singularitarianism! SCIENCE will save us all!

edited 12th Jan '11 11:19:44 AM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#143: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:38:52 AM

"left" and "right" have no objective meaning.
Sounds correct to me. "Liberal" and "conservative" are political cultures, not objective categorizations of policy. Policies should be judged on their own merit, not the cultural affiliations of the people pushing them.
It's also true. I don't know why playing nice is considered more important than speaking truth.
Playing relevant is more important than anything. If your categories group the Bolsheviks, the Anarcho-Syndicalists of old Barcelona, the American Indian Party, and Bernie Sanders together (as far as the culpability of an ideology in causing death) then there's no point to them. Shit, grouping Mao and Stalin together is hard enough, they're two fairly different varieties of murderous dictator. It's true that more people were killed in the 20th century by perpetrators with black/brown hair than any other hair colour, so what?
When I say I'm right-wing, I mean it in the original sense, defined by the seating in the French National Assembly, of supporting monarchy and a state church. So I suppose you can count Franco.
Technically that would get the Sauds on your side too. But by this definition, Ron Paul is not right wing. By this definition, thanks to how he threw out his old sponsor Franco's policies, this makes su Majestad el Rey Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor María (of the house of Bourbon) a left-wing Catholic monarch. In fact, doesn't her lack of support for theocracy make Her Majesty by the Grace of God Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (of the house of Windsor) a left-wing Protestant monarch too?

I don't see any effective function of such groupings aside from, for example, being able to say "Noam Chomsky is like Stalin!" when you want people to ignore him.

edited 12th Jan '11 11:44:46 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
UnabashedFornicator Since: Oct, 2010
#144: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:59:21 AM

Sarah Palin says, "it's about ME!"

edited 12th Jan '11 2:32:56 PM by UnabashedFornicator

GlennMagusHarvey Since: Jan, 2001
#145: Jan 12th 2011 at 12:08:20 PM

Rotty: I like how you were born in the 20th century and have constructed a worldview in which it's impossible to explain the 100 million deaths perpetrated by Marxists (i.e. leftists).

I like how you keep on thinking in 18th-century terms and have constructed a worldview in which it's impossible to explain the numerous deaths that occurred, albeit in smaller quantities, at the hands of xenophobic, racist, culture-warring, power-hungry, unethical rulers throughout all of history, including and up to 20th century dictators.

Also, what Radical Taoist said. Not all Marxists are leftists, and not all leftists are Marxists.

And also, what Radical Taoist said after that:

I would add that equating a political side you disagree with "those people who killed 100 million in the last century" is exactly the sort of problem described in the topic, that of unconstructive approaches to political debate. Do we want to play that game? Do we want to add up the deaths of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Caicescu, who we'll arbitrarily categorize under the "left", and see if they're more or less than the combined deaths inflicted by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Shah, Trujillo, Pinochet, Marcos, the House of Saud, and everyone else we can arbitrarily group under the "right"? And if we play that game, do you think anyone will really win?

If we're trying to find unpopular groups to affiliate our opponents with rather than discussing our opponents' policies, something is seriously fucking wrong.

Rotty: Marxism is a materialist political philosophy based on the eradication of all social inequality. If that's not leftist, "left" and "right" have no objective meaning.

What about environmental protection advocates? What if they're fine with the existence of social inequality?

Also, when you use the term "Marxism" do you actually mean "communism"?

And what Raw Power said about objective meaning: "left" and "right" are terms used by different societies and different people to mean different things. The terms themselves have no objective meaning; some issues that are considered "right-wing" for one country may be "left-wing" for another.

Rotty: Maoism was mainstream to progressives of The Sixties.

News flash:

  • That's not a picture of Mao Tse-Tung, it's a picture of Che Guevara.
  • Maoism does not include lots of flowers and trippy drugs.

Radical Taoist: Shit, grouping Mao and Stalin together is hard enough, they're two fairly different varieties of murderous dictator.

Not to mention that they kinda fucking hated each other after a while.

I don't see any effective function of such groupings aside from, for example, being able to say "Noam Chomsky is like Stalin!" when you want people to ignore him.

That's what a lot of political speech is like these days—it's basically whatever you want it to be, to demonize your opposition and glorify your side. Truth is often the first and most forgotten casualty.

edited 12th Jan '11 12:09:29 PM by GlennMagusHarvey

Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#146: Jan 12th 2011 at 12:26:08 PM

What about getting back on topic instead of arguing who gets to tar who with which brush?

RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#147: Jan 12th 2011 at 12:29:57 PM

[up]What? It's an idiom?

edited 12th Jan '11 12:30:12 PM by RawPower

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#148: Jan 12th 2011 at 12:38:47 PM

Sorry, yes, an idiom meaning "who gets included in this group". In other words, arguing about which nasty people were Rightists and which were leftists.

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#149: Jan 12th 2011 at 12:51:13 PM

"Tar and feathering"

Fight smart, not fair.
RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#150: Jan 12th 2011 at 1:01:14 PM

[up][up]Well, were were actually arguing that such an argument is counterproductive.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Total posts: 178
Top