# Are Liberals Too Weak?



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Most of you already know that I'm a filthy, commie liberal, but I don't want this post to be about the virtues of either left- or right-wing politics. Distance yourself if you can (it's difficult though!).

What I'm wondering about is the impact that the left and right have on culture and public thought. My feeling, quite simply, is that the right have developed a better meme for themselves. They have a certain visceral indignation and outrage, and tend to play to people's moral fears. I'm not saying it's better, but I think left-wingers tend to be more measured, or at least play less directly to people's emotions, instead appealing to thought. Whether or not this is laudable, I think it's disappointing and ineffective. I think it also partly stems from the wishy-washy live and let live, often patronising attitude of many liberals, which praises kind tolerance of all ways of life above all else. **** tolerance; I think we have a right to be outraged, and we ought to be expressing it with vehemence.

I may be clouded by anger because I see such political idiocy wherever I turn (and I really wish U.S. politics didn't stand centre stage because it's much more insane than European politics, which is where I live and is what I'd rather hear about. I'm looking forward to the day that the U.S. sinks below China), but I'm sick of being so principled. Our education systems are so dire that they don't leave enough room to calmly appeal to people's intellect - it's not possible when we teach individuals to discount science in favour of anecdote. It's pretentious and ignoble of me, but I think we ought to be as bullying and manipulative and as scaremongering as the right in order to get our way. The right accuses us of doing it already, but we don't, and I think we actually ought to live up to their accusations.

Either that, or we all just move to Norway.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

They definitely are. Even the left in the US is way too far to the right for me. If I lived there, I would have nobody to vote for. The funny thing is - in Australia, I am considered to be to the right of center!


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

They definitely are. The Democrats in the US, for example, are such sissies! They insist on playing fair in a game where the other side hasn't been playing fair in decades. They let the Republicans walk all over them. In a way, it's understandable that they are just stunned beyond belief watching the shameless behavior of the Republican side, but at some point they have to pull themselves together and do what it takes to win.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Different approaches, but they're basically two sides of the same coin. Top priority for both sides is to remain in power, and they will compromise any principle to accomplish this. So ultimately, they're all a bunch of sissies who want nothing more than to please their masters in return for a career in politics.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

By US standards I am a left-leaning independent - which places me well to the right of center in European politics. As an independent my take on various subjects doesn't follow party lines, so is pretty much all over the place, but on average... moderately liberal.

In my view, the plutocrats control the Republican party, and enough of the Democratic party to make it ineffective on social issues. The two-party system is solidly entrenched. The liberals don't have the organized _and well-financed_ propaganda machine that determines _Congressional_ elections. As the extremely limited success of the Obama administration demonstrates, Congress is where it's at. I think we are all screwed.

:wave: [waving goodbye to good times]


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think you folks are right about those in the major parties, but there's a reason I used "liberals" as a general term, rather than referencing the Democrats or any particular party. My thought is that, disregarding the self-interest of those who make politics their career, when you look at grass-roots movements or Average Joe Liberal, their influence on politics is woeful because they're too bloody forgiving about bigotry. I think part of the problem is a patronising strain of liberalism which someone (Dan Dennett perhaps?) called "belief in belief" - in terms of religion, it's the idea that they don't need the trappings of religion, but it's a force for good for less educated people. And while liberals are rolling over, saying that everyone is entitled to believe whatever tripe they want (religious and political), the right are saying **** alternate points of view, everyone is going to live by MINE. In other words, the condescending niceness of the left means that they're basically giving up without a fight. We've got to get nasty!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

"We're heading back to the dark ages." - Frank Zappa 1989


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think you folks are right about those in the major parties, but there's a reason I used "liberals" as a general term, rather than referencing the Democrats or any particular party. My thought is that, disregarding the self-interest of those who make politics their career, when you look at grass-roots movements or Average Joe Liberal, their influence on politics is woeful because they're too bloody forgiving about bigotry. I think part of the problem is a patronising strain of liberalism which someone (Dan Dennett perhaps?) called "belief in belief" - in terms of religion, it's the idea that they don't need the trappings of religion, but it's a force for good for less educated people. And while liberals are rolling over, saying that everyone is entitled to believe whatever tripe they want (religious and political), the right are saying **** alternate points of view, everyone is going to live by MINE. In other words, the condescending niceness of the left means that they're basically giving up without a fight. We've got to get nasty!


I disagree with your understanding of the situation AND your proposed remedies. It appears that the indraft has sucked you into a polarized position. To paraphrase Mr. Nixon in 1960, you won't be bothered (in this thread) by Hilltroll72 anymore.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I'm looking forward to the day that the U.S. sinks below China),




lol Actually, I wouldn't mind being taken over by China, as long as they became a bit more humanitarian-like...but I've always wanted to learn an Asian language and that would certainly give me the proper motivation.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> lol Actually, I wouldn't mind being taken over by China, as long as they became a bit more humanitarian-like...but I've always wanted to learn an Asian language and that would certainly give me the proper motivation.


Indeed, because the U.S. humanitarian record is stellar.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Indeed, because the U.S. humanitarian record is stellar.


Oh, yea, right..... Well basically what I'm trying to say is I don't want me or my friends and family dying in a sweat shop or something.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Indeed, because the U.S. humanitarian record is stellar.


Well, Poley, when you find yourself in those "I hate America" moods just remember that *I* didn't do all that....that was my President, and congress, and stuff. And I was too young to vote back then. So I'm off the hook this time.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I disagree with your understanding of the situation AND your proposed remedies. It appears that the indraft has sucked you into a polarized position. To paraphrase Mr. Nixon in 1960, you won't be bothered (in this thread) by Hilltroll72 anymore.


You may be gone, but I'll point out anyway that I'm not being polarized - I haven't attempted to offer a characterisation of all liberals, only a "strain". My complaint is that I find this strain particularly pernicious. There are many examples of it too - here in the UK, you have moronic left-wing secularists like Alain de Botton and Will Hutton who are utterly liberal and have no religious convictions whatsoever, yet they play into the hands of right-wing believers by saying it's all nice and fluffy and shrill people like Dawkins are ever so cruel and horrible.

Well, the more these people pursue this ultra-tolerant agenda, the more they're digging their own grave. In return, the most vocal and most politically influential religious people are not going to play nice - they're going to continue to try to impose their medieval morality on legislation. And a huge cause of this is apathy and unawareness. Take a recent poll of people in the UK who call themselves "Christian" (72%, I think). Well hardly any of them actually believe in the doctrines of the Church, they just call themselves Christian because they've been baptised or raised as such. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but then the institution of the Church takes the statistic as a reason to call our nation a Christian country and push for public and political life to favour it more. There are many, many kind, rational, reasonable people from all across the political spectrum with various beliefs, but the vocal right are taking advantage of the left's misguided kindness, when we should instead be calling out the venomous bigotry and theocratic intentions for what they are. When we do, we get called strident (by others on the left, no less!), but we've got to keep raising consciousness until people don't think it's vicious because it's not. And my earlier point was that we often try to play to people's sense of reason, but I think we have to be more emotionally direct. We don't have to lie, but it's not enough to say "well this just isn't empirically true"; we've got to adopt the Carl Sagan approach and say "it ain't true, _and_ it turns out that every atom in your body was forged in the centre of a star."


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Progressives know that race and sexuality don't matter, as long as we're all drones who have the exact same PC egalitarian opinions and beliefs. Isn't that nice?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Indeed, because the U.S. humanitarian record is stellar.


I'm not gonna stick up for the states, but it's nowhere near as bad as China in that regard.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Liberals are the strongest of them all, the most clever too, the most logically rigorous, the most resilient, and the most willing to sacrifice their own self interest for their cause.

There is no conservative Judith Butler, Anne Foster Sterling (her book on gender is incredibly rigorous, patient, etc). No reactionary Rosa Luxemburg or Trotsky. They've comfortable with themselves, or try to make themselves comfortable.

Conservatives are weak, they have no zeal, they go into business instead of philosophy and politics, etc. That's why they've been losing the battle for 200+ years.

Liberals were willing, 150 years ago, risk exclusion from society via their radical positions, but no conservative will risk the same.

Of course part of it has to do with the fact that the tide has been, since the French Revolution, in the direction of the liberals, that could be part of it. Kant said that if you don't history is going in the right direction, you'll sink into moral despair.

Of course it has something to do with strength in numbers, especially in the intelligentsia. Contrast the free pass that Sartre gets for supporting Stalin versus all the criticism Heidegger has to get through because he was temporarily a Nazi party member (and books continue to be written about him, attack him and everything he wrote, etc, decades after his death). You had the Fabian society in Britain, the Bloomsbury Circle, etc, were all very progressive, already at that time being a believer in God was blasphemy (Virgina Woolf made fun of T.S. Eliot for being a Christian).

There are few conservative Jacobins. If there were a conservative Robespierre, or a few of those in other countries, around the time of the French Revolution, and a few of them in power in each nation for the 19th century, we'd have no Marxism, etc. There's no conservative Stalin or Mao. Hitler was never as totalitarian as either of them.

Now, the ultimate reason behind the collapse of the belief in conservative values among the intellectuals and those in power, their lack of zeal, etc, I'm not saying I have an explanation.

Godwin, Wollstonecraft, etc, were willing to damn God and proclaim as truths that nobody believed in, and nobody would believe in for over a hundred years, but now their views are orthodox views and part of common sense.

The Roman spirit has been lost, the Medieval Spirit, etc.

Conservatives are wimps; look at the mild tone of Douthat or Brooks (NYTs OP-ED columnists) versus the Manichean drive of Krugman ,the damning tone of Dowd, etc.

I mean look at the people on our forum, the zeal and fire and Eviticus and Polednice and Science, etc, have no conservative counter-parts.



Dodecaplex said:


> The dogmas of empiricism are still alive and doing well. Quine be damned.


Don't worry Polednice, I haven't forgotten my thread. I was just too busy responding here. You'll get a due response in due time.

http://www.talkclassical.com/16563-karajan-hero-hype-11.html#post271836


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> I'm not gonna stick up for the states, but it's nowhere near as bad as China in that regard.


No, it's not, but people believe it's much better than it is.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

That's an interesting perspective bw; thanks. If only the zeal of those few greats trickled down to the average liberal today - I think the weakness I perceive, perhaps wrongly, is a modern phenomenon of navigating greater cultural diversity.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Yeah, Zizek has been hammering away at this point about the spirit of Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_2&oref=slogin



> These weird alliances confront Europe's Muslims with a difficult choice: the only political force that does not reduce them to second-class citizens and allows them the space to express their religious identity are the "godless" atheist liberals, while those closest to their religious social practice, their Christian mirror-image, are their greatest political enemies. The paradox is that Muslims' only real allies are not those who first published the caricatures for shock value, but those who, in support of the ideal of freedom of expression, reprinted them.
> 
> While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.
> 
> What, however, about submitting Islam - together with all other religions - to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.


Does anyone in Britain know how prevalent Sharia courts are?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

I don't trust the daily mail.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Progressives know that race and sexuality don't matter, as long as we're all drones who have the exact same PC egalitarian opinions and beliefs. Isn't that nice?


I think I'll politely ignore that, because I'm sure you don't really mean it, although you could be partially right. One needs to look at both sides of any question.... ; )

It's not really all that hard to attack conservatives on message boards. You just need to find your opening move. Be sure that you get in the first ad hominem attack, and make it a good one. Never forget Godwin's law, because your enemy certainly won't. Pounce on every irregularity of grammar and spelling--if your opponent doesn't seem to know the difference between "its" and "it's," make the most of it.

Certain topics are to be avoided. In particular, be sure to dodge any questions about the role of socialism in the economy of Greece.

That's about it, really.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> Does anyone in Britain know how prevalent Sharia courts are?


To be honest, I'm not sure. However, any decisions made in Sharia courts are non-binding, and can be overturned under British law--but for that to happen, there needs to be a plaintiff. Otherwise, it's no different than any other out-of-court settlement.

The issue mainly seems to arise in cases of enforced marriage. It's illegal to force a woman to marry a man she doesn't want to marry. Sharia does not supersede this right--but I have no doubt that the practice still happens.

Saudi Arabian or Iranian style Sharia doesn't exist here. You can't hack off people's fingers, arms, legs, heads, ears or eyes. (Well okay, it's hard to hack off somebody's eyes in the first place, but you know what I mean).


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

To be honest, I'm not sure. However, any decisions made in Sharia courts are non-binding, and can be overturned under British law--but for that to happen, there needs to be a plaintiff. Otherwise, it's no different than any other out-of-court settlement.

The issue mainly seems to arise in cases of enforced marriage. It's illegal to force a woman to marry a man she doesn't want to marry. Sharia does not supersede this right--but I have no doubt that the practice still happens.

I'm getting mixed messages.



> Why should any British court recognise a fatwa?
> 
> In 1996, Parliament passed the Arbitration Act setting out rules under which parties in a dispute have the right to go to an impartial tribunal to get justice without expensive litigation. *Muslims lawyers interpreted this as meaning that sharia courts could act as arbitration panels under the Act, they began in 2007, and their decisions are legally binding.*
> 
> ...


I guess this is OK, since no one's forcing these women to be Muslims. This whole boils down to rival conceptions of agency, what "coercion" is, etc. Of course coercion is problematic, but perhaps secular courts interfere with Muslims life (I've no expert on Islamic jurisprudence, I've read some of the Koran but there's mountains of exegesis, just like for every page in the bible there's 1000+ pages of debate over its meaning.)

Saudi Arabian or Iranian style Sharia doesn't exist here. You can't hack off people's fingers, arms, legs, heads, ears or eyes. (Well okay, it's hard to hack off somebody's eyes in the first place, but you know what I mean).

Obviously.

There's also the element of deterrence and enforcement through fear.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...honor-killings-happen-in-britain-u-s-too.html



> When Jasvinder Sanghera turned 14, she knew her time had come. As the sixth of seven daughters in a conservative Sikh family, growing up in the English industrial city of Derby, Sanghera had watched her parents pull her older sisters out of school, one by one, and send them to India to marry complete strangers-often men who abused them. The British educational system never questioned the girls' long absences and ultimate disappearances. Then, one day, when Sanghera came home from school, her mother presented her with a photograph of a man. Sanghera was told that she'd been promised to him when she was just 8 years old. "I was the one who said, 'No, I want to finish school, Mum. I just want to get an education,'" Sanghera said recently.
> 
> Her parents yanked her out of class, she said, and padlocked her in her room for weeks until she promised to submit to the marriage. "In the end, I agreed purely to buy back my freedom," Sanghera said. When her parents relented and allowed her to visit a friend's home, she ran away with the friend's older brother-at first sleeping in his car, and then in a cheap boardinghouse. When she called her family, she says, they told her, "You are dead in our eyes from this day forward. You can come home and marry who we say; otherwise, you are dead." When Sanghera refused, her family disowned her. "Even today, if I see my sisters, my family, they will cross the road and refuse to acknowledge me," she said. "All of a sudden, I had become the perpetrator. I was the one who had dishonored and betrayed them, and I had no family." She has lived as a pariah for the past 29 years.
> 
> Despite her ostracism, Sanghera eventually managed to finish her education and build a life for herself. Her obedient older sister Robina was not so lucky. The two girls had kept up a secret relationship and Robina told stories with allegations of horrific domestic violence inside her arranged marriage. Jasvinder begged her sister to appeal to their parents for help. But her mother and father made it very clear: it was Robina's duty to make the marriage work, for the sake of the family's honor. When Jasvinder was 22 and her sister 24, Robina set herself on fire. She suffered burns over 90 percent of her body and died a terrible death, leaving behind a 5-year-old son. When Sanghera heard of her sister's suicide-not from family members-she journeyed home. "I naively thought my mother would somehow run and take me back into her heart, or into the family, because [she had] lost a daughter in such a horrific way. But no, she made it clear. She said to me, 'You must not come to the funeral. You must not come to the house. You are not allowed to mourn her with us. If you come, you come when it's dark and nobody can see you.'" When Sanghera went to the funeral anyway, her family walked out of the room as soon as she entered. "Those who are meant to love you the most, your nearest and dearest, are doing this to you," Sanghera said. "You're completely isolated."


How to do measure "fear" and "coercion"? Etc. What percentage of these marriages are the result of "coercion"? Etc. For example. This girl's family 1. did not threaten her with violence. 2. did not break the law.



> "You are dead in our eyes from this day forward. You can come home and marry who we say; otherwise, you are dead." *When Sanghera refused, her family disowned her. "Even today, if I see my sisters, my family, they will cross the road and refuse to acknowledge me," she said. "All of a sudden, I had become the perpetrator. I was the one who had dishonored and betrayed them, and I had no family." *She has lived as a pariah for the past 29 years.


They merely disowned her. Of course this is not ideal, but there's nothing involuntary here.

Of course the ways that these honor killings happen, to actually *prevent it*, the measures will have to be somewhat totalitarian.



> But after a brazen murder attempt by her father-that Banaz recounted to disbelieving police officers-she decided to cooperate in pressing charges against her family.


So the police didn't believe her. OK, so in this instance disbelief was wrong, but what would happen in a world where the police believed in every time? It would be chaotic, angry daughters would threaten their fathers with accusations of threats of rape and murder and coerced marriages. *The power balance is very tricky. *In the Western world false rape accusations are a huge problem.

The comment on Troy Davis is also interesting.



> It seems such a pity that these parents can murder their girls, brutally, and force them into arranged marriages, in other words, take away and run their lives for them, from the beginning and when a murderer here in the states, such as Troy Davis is to be executed all the high profile people in the world has something to say about it. *Troy Davis was a vicious murderer of a police officer. *


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> I mean look at the people on our forum, the zeal and fire and Eviticus and Polednice and Science, etc, have no conservative counter-parts.


I often don't have the energy to read your full length posts, and am not in on the deep discussions that you, Science, Polednice, and others participate in, but I would like to point out that you were not here when Dr. Mike was. He was certainly politically conservative, but he also certainly had zeal and fire.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I often don't have the energy to read your full length posts, and am not in on the deep discussions that you, Science, Polednice, and others participate in, but I would like to point out that you were not here when Dr. Mike was. He was certainly politically conservative, but he also certainly had zeal and fire.


He was precisely who I was thinking of. I think DrMike was a rather eccentric exception though. I don't think I've ever come across anyone else with his beliefs who wasn't a simple troll.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

"Honour killings" are absolutely illegal in this country. There have indeed been some, under the supposed umbrella of Sharia, but the penalty for murdering your daughter for fornication is about thirty-five years in prison for the indignant dad. If that doesn't act as a deterrent, then I don't suppose anything will.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

People on the far left have institutional support. The left wing equivalent of dr mike are in universities.

https://twitter.com/#!/hystericalblkns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks

Bell Hooks has taught at some of the most prestigious private universities in the United States across the country. Yale, USC, Oberlin, etc.



> "All white women in this nation know that their status is different from that of black women/women of color. They know this from the time they are little girls watching television and seeing only their images, and looking at magazines and seeing only their images. They know that the only reason nonwhites are absent/invisible is because they are not white. All white women in this nation know that whiteness is a privileged category. The fact that white females may choose to repress or deny this knowledge does not mean they are ignorant: it means that they are in denial."
> - bell hooks





> "Part of the racialized sexism wants everyone to think that a 15-year old Mexican is not a girl, she's a woman. We know she's a girl. We can never emphasize this enough, because this is the fate of colored girls globally right now: the denial of their girlhood, the denial of their childhood, and the constant state of risk and danger they are living in."


The same people fight for contraception to be available to teenagers and targets patriarchy, which threatens to "repress" teenage sexuality.



> "Given the way universities work to reinforce and perpetuate the status quo, the way knowledge is offered as commodity, Women's Studies can easily become the place where* revolutionary feminist thought and feminist activism *are submerged or made secondary to the goals of academic careerism."





> I went back to the counter and asked a helpful black skycap to find the supervisor. Even though he was black, I did not suggest that we had been the victims of racial harassment. I asked him instead if he could think of any reason why these two young white folks were so hostile.
> 
> Though I have always been concerned about class elitism and hesitate to make complaints about individuals who work long hours at often unrewarding jobs that require them to serve the public, I felt our complaint was justified. It was a case of racial harassment. And I was compelled to complain because I feel that the vast majority of black folks who are subjected daily to forms of racial harassment have accepted this as one of the social conditions of our life in white supremacist patriarchy that we cannot change. This acceptance is a form of complicity. I left the counter feeling better, not feeling that I had possibly made it worse for the black folks who might come after me, but that maybe these young white folks would have to rethink their behaviors if enough folk complained.
> 
> ...


http://www.english-e-corner.com/comparativeCulture/core/deconstruction/frameset/Killing_Rage.htm

What about the non-white patriarchy? Etc. The Arabic and Persian Patriarchy?



> For example, we can now say well, *here's this white boy who plays the blues, and it's the same blues. You strip the blues of its complex psychohistory,* and listeners forget that it's not just this thing that's about can you play an instrument and can you sing a certain style, but that it brings with it an ethos of culture and experience. You strip it of the ethos that gives it its particularity, and say well, you see, it was not that unique or great. Because if it were, it would not be so easily translatable or appropriated


But when the Vienna Philharmonic doesn't let women in it's "sexist", etc.

Before anyone says that this is "extreme" and "an exception".

Look at her credentials. She teaches at YALE.

"Honour killings" are absolutely illegal in this country. There have indeed been some, under the supposed umbrella of Sharia, but the penalty for murdering your daughter for fornication is about thirty-five years in prison for the indignant dad. If that doesn't act as a deterrent, then I don't suppose anything will.

I don't know who you're arguing with.

No one ever asserted, implied, insinuated, or even hinted at the legal status of honor killings. Homicide is universally illegal.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> He was precisely who I was thinking of. I think DrMike was a rather eccentric exception though. I don't think I've ever come across anyone else with his beliefs who wasn't a simple troll.


There are _many_ Mormons out there like him. The Book of Mormon is a hard row to *** for anyone intelligent enough to achieve a doctorate in science. Any one who can manage it is not a 'simple troll'.

[had to stick my nose in again; you are way out of your depth is this pond, _Poley_.]

[_Edit: _ Wow. The software asterisks out garden tools! What the eff is the world coming to?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> There are _many_ Mormons out there like him. The Book of Mormon is a hard row to *** for anyone intelligent enough to achieve a doctorate in science. Any one who can manage it is not a 'simple troll'.
> 
> [had to stick my nose in again; you are way out of your depth is this pond, _Poley_.]
> 
> [_Edit: _ Wow. The software asterisks out garden tools! What the eff is the world coming to?


Please note two things: 1) I was talking of my experience online rather than offering a characterisation of people at large; 2) I was doing the precise opposite of calling DrMike a simple troll.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Please note two things: 1) I was talking of my experience online rather than offering a characterisation of people at large; 2) I was doing the precise opposite of calling DrMike a simple troll.


Noted. 1) Your experience is clearly inadequate. 2) That's obvious; you were insinuating that Mormons in general are simple trolls, which is why I felt the need to 'stick my nose in again'. Sorry about that. Bon Voyage, guy.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Noted. 1) Your experience is clearly inadequate. 2) That's obvious; you were insinuating that Mormons in general are simple trolls, which is why I felt the need to 'stick my nose in again'. Sorry about that. Bon Voyage, guy.


1) Well, considering the fact that I've been accused of needing to get out more, I take it as a good thing that my online experience is inadequate. 2) I made no connection between DrMike and Mormonism, you did. What went through _my_ mind was actually evolution denial, and if you take a look around the interwebs, you'll be hard-pressed to find people who routinely deny evolution as serious and palatable as DrMike. Your olfactory senses deceive you.

Adieu, mon ami.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

IN relation to the Australian political scene now, my opinion of your opinions here, Polednice -



Polednice said:


> ...My feeling, quite simply, is that the right have developed a better meme for themselves. They have a certain visceral indignation and outrage, and tend to play to people's moral fears.
> 
> ... but I think left-wingers tend to be more measured, or at least play less directly to people's emotions, instead appealing to thought....


...I can respond to same as starthrower here -



starthrower said:


> Different approaches, but they're basically two sides of the same coin. Top priority for both sides is to remain in power, and they will compromise any principle to accomplish this....


In other words, "left" and "right" are basically much the same. The "left" here (the Australian Labor Party) have difted more and more to the right, and the "right" here (the Liberal-National coalition) have gone the same way. So you have a kind of meeting of the minds, a homogenisation, which I think is no good for plurality, diversity of opinion or the political system as a whole. Very vanilla.

Not that I like extremism, but at least the Greens party have some interesting policies, as do some of the independents, both "left," "right" and "centre." I'm not a rightist by any means, but I do like how Far North Queenslander independent MP Bob Katter just speaks his mind (eg. how policies of the major parties are often inefficient, poorly thought through and delivered, and in the end cost jobs and hurt the economy). But I don't like the more out-there "loony" policies of the Greens or independents though.

As to this -



> ...Whether or not this is laudable, I think it's disappointing and ineffective. I think it also partly stems from the wishy-washy live and let live, often patronising attitude of many liberals, which praises kind tolerance of all ways of life above all else. **** tolerance; I think we have a right to be outraged, and we ought to be expressing it with vehemence.
> ...


Trust me, I've been on the end of the vitriol of the PC brigade, on the ground here. Especially certain "femmenazis" who tow the line of the likes of Germaine Greer and other dinosaurs. It's ironic how I've been called PC on this forum, yet I'm anything but. I'm more for common sense, not politics and dogma of any kind. I'm not anti politician, or anti religion or whatever, I'm just for people of any creed or political allegiance who do good things for the community at large. & Ms. Greer ain't one of them, neither are any ideologues, "left" or "right" or in-between...


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Polednice, Just two things in reply to your statement re: *tolerance* and *outrage.* Tolerance and moderation {live and let live, or for those religious people among us, "The Golden Rule} are the bases and underpinnings of all Western democracies. As regards outrage {and I speak as an American liberal here} we must choose our battles and targets with care, lest we descend into the pit in which the very people and causes which are a threat to us exist. Self-defense by all means; unwarranted and wanton violence and aggression, no-go. If I misunderstood your points, I apologize.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

samurai said:


> @ Polednice, Just two things in reply to your statement re: *tolerance* and *outrage.* Tolerance and moderation {live and let live, or for those religious people among us, "The Golden Rule} are the bases and underpinnings of all Western democracies. As regards outrage {and I speak as an American liberal here} we must choose our battles and targets with care, lest we descend into the pit in which the very people and causes which are a threat to us exist. Self-defense by all means; unwarranted and wanton violence and aggression, no-go. If I misunderstood your points, I apologize.


Certainly no violence, I was just advocating dirty talk!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> ."Honour killings" are absolutely illegal in this country. There have indeed been some, under the supposed umbrella of Sharia, but the penalty for murdering your daughter for fornication is about thirty-five years in prison for the indignant dad. If that doesn't act as a deterrent, then I don't suppose anything will.
> 
> I don't know who you're arguing with. No one ever asserted, implied, insinuated, or even hinted at the legal status of honor killings. Homicide is universally illegal.


I wasn't implying for one instant that I thought you approved of honour killing. However, incidences of honour killing, enforced marriage, the requirement for retrospective proof of a bride's virginity (in the form of blood on a towel), and suchlike, are the aspects of Sharia that tend to get reported here, and I'm just pointing out that these practices have no legal backing under British law. (I'm not even sure whether they're actually part of Sharia, to be honest).


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> There are _many_ Mormons out there like him. The Book of Mormon is a hard row to *** for anyone intelligent enough to achieve a doctorate in science. Any one who can manage it is not a 'simple troll'.
> 
> [had to stick my nose in again; you are way out of your depth is this pond, _Poley_.]
> 
> [_Edit: _ Wow. The software asterisks out garden tools! What the eff is the world coming to?


Are you sure about this? I'm going to have a go:

Dirty-assed ***

EDIT: You would seem to be right. How are we, now, supposed to describe on-line the familiar appearance of a common garden implement after a hard day's weeding which has caused muck to overspill the top of its blade?

LATER EDIT: Well, I've found a workaround for it:

Dirty-assed ђoe


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Are you sure about this? I'm going to have a go:
> 
> Dirty-assed ***
> 
> ...


What the heck is that character? And can we still call a spade a spade?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> What the heck is that character" And can we still call a spade a spade?


Well, yes today, but maybe not tomorrow.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I might be unnecessarily defensive, but before this gets ugly I just want to say, preemptively as it were, that the only "spade" in my family is _me_.

Thread duty: Yes, liberals are too weak, but on most fronts we're winning anyway.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I might be unnecessarily defensive, but before this gets ugly I just want to say, preemptively as it were, that the only "spade" in my family is _me_.
> 
> Thread duty: Yes, liberals are too weak, but on most fronts we're winning anyway.


Are you perhaps aware that a spade is a kind of shovel, often employed in gardens? I used that word in the test to see if the software was 'aware' of urban pejorative jargon; apparently not. Yet, the forbidden gardening tool must be banned because its name is a homonym for a black slang term.

??


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Nothing racist was intended. I'm not a racist, and neither is Hilltroll. Let's try this one out:

Baryancistrus.

EDIT: Well, it goes through okay. It's the name of a genus of loricariid catfish (the South American suckermouth family). It has been known to cause problems with website language filters because it contains the word "Aryan," as in "Aryan supremacy."


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Sauli Niinistö, the morning after being elected President of Finland:



http://imgur.com/Zl1SQ


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2012)

Wow - gone two months, and still stirring up arguments! Even when I am not trying!

(I'm not back, just couldn't help commenting on this)


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

DrMike said:


> Wow - gone two months, and still stirring up arguments! Even when I am not trying!
> 
> (I'm not back, just couldn't help commenting on this)


I hope you'll consider dropping back in for a week or two at the beginning of the flu vaccination season, to help me lecture this bunch of logs. ; )


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> I might be unnecessarily defensive, but before this gets ugly I just want to say, preemptively as it were, that the only "spade" in my family is _me_.
> 
> Thread duty: Yes, liberals are too weak, but on most fronts we're winning anyway.


No wonder the world is down the plug hole!


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm not sure about what politicians, liberals or conservatives, are like in the UK but if they are anything like the US I wouldn't trust any of them. It really doesn't matter to me if i politician is liberal or conservative, they all seem sleezy to me. I used to be a liberal. I believed that their plans may lead to a better world but then I realized how imperfect our governments are and that it really doesn't matter what a person's views are. Liberals will fight to get whatever they want whether it is best or not, and conservatives will do the same.


----------

