blame space
Banned
where's the my dick's history month?
Why does GAF lean so much to the left in politics?
- Thread starter Schattenjäger
- Start date
- Status
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
But that's a lie.
It's what they like to tell themseves and to everyone else but the truth is that conservatists LOVE to have the government get busy and big on everything they support. Starting with Defense, protection of marriage laws, "teach the controversy" laws, the war on drugs, tough on abortion laws...
This "small government" thing is just a false pretense. It is just political posturing.
Judging by the GOP's current policies, conservatists won't have any issue whatsoever with the government getting as big and inefficient and bloated on the policies they support while they will bash as "big government, overreaching" anything they don't support EVEN IF IT MEANS they will bash politicians who enact "small government" policies that they don't support. Ergo the matter of the size of the government is not at the core of conservatism.
Just look at the JSF program: the F-35 program is an unmitigated disaster and a by-the-book money blackhole. Lockheed has been missmanaging the entire thing (including at least one instance of gross accounting missmanaging). The F-35 was supposed to be technologically inferior to the F-22, but cheaper. Inferior it is, right... but it's gonna cost more to the taxpayer per plane!
But interestingly, conservatives do no care about this. They do care about the government mandating energy saving bulbs instead.
That's because liberals are used in the sense of liberal values in America, while in Europe, the term has been coopted by conservative parties that use the name 'Liberals'.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
I don't know why others are liberal, but for me it comes down to the way the main right wing party presents itself and social issues. I'm liberal on social issues and therefor can't stand those in the Republican party pushing their religious morals into law. That gives them a strike in my book.
Then it comes down to the contradictions in their arguments. Take for instance this Medicare dust up. Currently the Republican presidential candidate is campaigning on that he will make tough decisions for Medicare; that he will keep the defined benefits the same. But then he goes and blames Obama for making a tough decision on Medicare that extends its solvency for another 8 years. He also is going to change they way Medicare operates from a defined benefit plan to a defined compensation plan. Basically the Republican party does a lot of double talk which really turns me off, strike two.
Another thing I usually do is consider what each party would do if the situation is reverse. Say that Obama kept his tax returns secret and only released 2007 and 2008. Don't you think the Republican party would be all up in that? This is strike three in that they are unwilling to do what they demand others to do. And these are just some of the things that make me distrust the main right wing party. I'll give Libertarians props in that they actually put themselves out there and say what they actually believe. I also like them for their social views.
Then it comes down to the contradictions in their arguments. Take for instance this Medicare dust up. Currently the Republican presidential candidate is campaigning on that he will make tough decisions for Medicare; that he will keep the defined benefits the same. But then he goes and blames Obama for making a tough decision on Medicare that extends its solvency for another 8 years. He also is going to change they way Medicare operates from a defined benefit plan to a defined compensation plan. Basically the Republican party does a lot of double talk which really turns me off, strike two.
Another thing I usually do is consider what each party would do if the situation is reverse. Say that Obama kept his tax returns secret and only released 2007 and 2008. Don't you think the Republican party would be all up in that? This is strike three in that they are unwilling to do what they demand others to do. And these are just some of the things that make me distrust the main right wing party. I'll give Libertarians props in that they actually put themselves out there and say what they actually believe. I also like them for their social views.
Social conservatism is inherently evil, and I think that's where the schism originates from.
It's a shame that fiscal conservatives feel like they're being persecuted merely by association, and as a result are less likely to publicly discuss their views (at least on NeoGAF). I personally don't agree with fiscal conservatism, but unlike its social counterpart, it is not inherently evil, and there is merit in discussing it.
I make no apologies for social conservatives who are rightfully removed from the forum, however. They have no place in modern society, let alone on a message board where rational thought and equality are championed.
It's a shame that fiscal conservatives feel like they're being persecuted merely by association, and as a result are less likely to publicly discuss their views (at least on NeoGAF). I personally don't agree with fiscal conservatism, but unlike its social counterpart, it is not inherently evil, and there is merit in discussing it.
I make no apologies for social conservatives who are rightfully removed from the forum, however. They have no place in modern society, let alone on a message board where rational thought and equality are championed.
greyshark
Gold Member
Ironic that you support the same oppression and bigotry towards the people you have a problem with.
Vermillion
Banned
Yet we mustn't forget that ignorant people often hold the same beliefs as educated ones.
I'm not speaking of bigots, of course.
akachan ningen
Member
the so called left in this country are just as bought the right. there is no true liberal party in this country.
true change starts at the bottom.
true change starts at the bottom.
You cannot oppress oppression.
cutmeamango
Banned
Yes you can, that's how villains are born.
Sure you can. It's just completely and utterly justifiable.
How do you stop it?
cutmeamango
Banned
You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian.
Relinquish power or make it obsolete. Erase the notion of power afterwards too.
Or you follow a consistent principled logic that allows you to tread the fine line between efficacy and principles.
Not easy, but certainly possible.
cutmeamango
Banned
I wish we could open a window to an alternative past to see how far Robespierre would have gone.
I don't know this character, but a quick Wiki-ing of his name tells me this is a dumb straw man of a comment.
cutmeamango
Banned
Hold it cowboy! As far as mad men he was, his idealism of equality and power to contain power (as contradictory as it may be), and ignoring 'the terror', was interesting.
I personally, pessimistic enough, do not believe humans are capable of a horizontality in terms of power, I don't see the possibility as you do.
EDIT:
And to a totally off topic question, as this post is already totally off topic: Is there no obligatory world history class in the US?
I don't understand
"idealism of equality and power to contain power"
and "horizontality in terms of power".
On one hand, they kinda make you sound like a smarty pants. They also make you incomprehensible.
I mean... the first point is like... you don't believe in a constitutional frame work or something. I mean... isn't that in a sense the system that provides its constituents with an institutionalized sense of power?
And the second point is... what democracy?
But... neither of those ideas really relate to what I quipped?
What I was alluding to with "consistent principled logic that allows you to tread the fine line between efficacy and principles." was a form of utlitarianism that accounts for complex interactions and knock on effects as well as the uncertainty of outcomes...
A philosophy which gives us the handy rule of thumb - take as much time and resource as possible given the circumstances to determine the most effective outcome. With more time and resources, you get to consider a greater set of implications and knock on effects - but the goal is simply to trend towards the best outcome for all concerned.
As for the edit question, I wouldn't know. I grew up in Australia... and our world history generally extended to World War 1 and 2, and the English colonization of Australia. In retrospect, that's quite a failure of our education system to provide us with a well rounded understanding of the world... but there you go.
radioheadrule83
Banned
My personal politics have been fluid for years - Labour is the traditionally liberal vote winner in the UK, and their lurch to the center wasn't why I didn't vote for them at the last election, it was that they'd blown things in a great many respects and I viewed the current party as unelectable.
Looking in from the outside, at the Republicans in America, they look wholly unelectable too. How anyone can even consider it with the way they act in congress, thinking about election year rather than the people they serve in these tough times, or how they acted when in power: blowing hundreds of billions on two stupid wars, the dispassionately slow fed reaction to the floods, stewardship of the economy and financial regulation that led to the sub prime crisis that nobody in the world has yet recovered from... What about the stupid things their figureheads say and do on an almost weekly basis.
I look at that and I am baffled. How can anyone want to vote for this party right now? Or is it more that they don't want to vote for the other one? I think perhaps the reason is that some people want some of what the Republican party offers, but not necessarily all of it. I am sure not all American conservatives are religiosos, gun nuts, war mongers or dispassionate welfare haters...
I am in favour of occupying a middle ground myself, and representing as much of the electorate as possible. Bill Clinton popularised that idea in the 90s. He called it The Third Way. And it makes sense if you think about it... It's only a minority at the politically extreme fringes who are wholly liberal or conservative, most of us are a blend of the two.
I am socially liberal, in that I believe law abiding innocents, the vulnerable and the elderly have a human right to survive in this awful, cruel life with a basic level of dignity. I believe the law should exist to protect us, not to impose fascistic ideological norms upon us. I don't believe that people should be subject to prejudice because of their sex, age, race or religion... I am abhorred by attempts to subvert democracy and disenfranchise voters. I am happy to be taxed as long as my government performs and uses that money to lift the whole country and not just their friends. I will change my voting habits dependent on how well a government represents me and spends my money, I don't vote based on the colour or logo of a party.
On the other hand, I believe a modicum of fiscal conservatism is healthy and vital. We can't spend and spend without consequence, tax should be simple and understandable, how it is spent should be as transparent as possible. I also believe in strong, tough law. Not in over legislation of the tiniest stupid thing, but in stern consequences for crimes that harm society.
What makes me err more liberal in voting habits is that its nearly impossible to vote for conservative parties without horrible social consequences: abandonment of the vulnerable, religious pandering, favouring employer rights over employee rights, a move away from regulation (despite many of the industries needing it being the most corrupt and profiteering in existence), disregard for international legal tenets like habeas corpus, war for oil or strategic assets and power projection...
I WANT a conservative party that can help me be free to be able to live and grow, build a life and a family, not one that just makes me free to profit.
Looking in from the outside, at the Republicans in America, they look wholly unelectable too. How anyone can even consider it with the way they act in congress, thinking about election year rather than the people they serve in these tough times, or how they acted when in power: blowing hundreds of billions on two stupid wars, the dispassionately slow fed reaction to the floods, stewardship of the economy and financial regulation that led to the sub prime crisis that nobody in the world has yet recovered from... What about the stupid things their figureheads say and do on an almost weekly basis.
I look at that and I am baffled. How can anyone want to vote for this party right now? Or is it more that they don't want to vote for the other one? I think perhaps the reason is that some people want some of what the Republican party offers, but not necessarily all of it. I am sure not all American conservatives are religiosos, gun nuts, war mongers or dispassionate welfare haters...
I am in favour of occupying a middle ground myself, and representing as much of the electorate as possible. Bill Clinton popularised that idea in the 90s. He called it The Third Way. And it makes sense if you think about it... It's only a minority at the politically extreme fringes who are wholly liberal or conservative, most of us are a blend of the two.
I am socially liberal, in that I believe law abiding innocents, the vulnerable and the elderly have a human right to survive in this awful, cruel life with a basic level of dignity. I believe the law should exist to protect us, not to impose fascistic ideological norms upon us. I don't believe that people should be subject to prejudice because of their sex, age, race or religion... I am abhorred by attempts to subvert democracy and disenfranchise voters. I am happy to be taxed as long as my government performs and uses that money to lift the whole country and not just their friends. I will change my voting habits dependent on how well a government represents me and spends my money, I don't vote based on the colour or logo of a party.
On the other hand, I believe a modicum of fiscal conservatism is healthy and vital. We can't spend and spend without consequence, tax should be simple and understandable, how it is spent should be as transparent as possible. I also believe in strong, tough law. Not in over legislation of the tiniest stupid thing, but in stern consequences for crimes that harm society.
What makes me err more liberal in voting habits is that its nearly impossible to vote for conservative parties without horrible social consequences: abandonment of the vulnerable, religious pandering, favouring employer rights over employee rights, a move away from regulation (despite many of the industries needing it being the most corrupt and profiteering in existence), disregard for international legal tenets like habeas corpus, war for oil or strategic assets and power projection...
I WANT a conservative party that can help me be free to be able to live and grow, build a life and a family, not one that just makes me free to profit.
Poor conservatives. They just want to oppress others and bring society back in time with their completely outdated and laughable ideals. Poor guys ;~;
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, but it basically just picks up where ancient history leaves off, and by the time they start teaching anything modern it becomes "US history, featuring all these other countries." You probably get more world history out of foreign language classes.
I've mentioned I live in Alabama, and unfortunately there are an awful lot of people like this. You'd seriously be surprised.
Just requires a certain black & white mindset and you're good.
We should always take a proactive stance against those who would seek to subjugate us and reduce our freedoms and dignity as human beings.
No?
That sounds like some slogan carved on a statue. Sure we should defend ourselves, but oppression doesn't turn into something else if you change the motivations behind it. Which is again a different matter from "whether we should oppress or not".
I won't say you don't have a point here - because you obviously do have one. To rephrase your general point (in a way I can agree with) - you're saying that by oppressing the voices of those you disagree with, you run the risk of oppressing legitimate points... assuming that you label those that you disagree as oppressors, or bigots or some such.*
*in fact, this isn't quite what you're expressing, but I try to exercise argumentative charity where I can.
To which the correct response is to ensure a clarity of thinking - that oppressive thoughts are not oppressed in the traditional sense; denying, attacking - but in a more liberal minded sense of been equipped with the correct knowledge and cognitive tools to allow people to naturally and correctly arrive at the conclusion that bigotry and other forms of oppression is in no way a positive thing for both the person or society. Also, to not pretending as though logically and morally broken positions should be given equal weighting or consideration as the modern media tends to be doing way too much of in this era.
We're dealing with a younger demographic that is more likely to critically analyze a given statement or fact. That this group has flowed towards liberal politics in the US says more about the streak of anti-intelllectualism currently degrading conservative orthodoxy. A generation ago the ivy leagues were the bastion of young Republicans. That's no longer the case.
Terra Firma
Banned
The question posed in the title of this thread is flawed. GAF's stance being called "so much to the left" only shows OPs extreme right wing bias. Of course, that would be the case outside of 'Merika. OP considers himself an "independent", the "centrist" equivalent in the US but "centrist" in a relevant manner, since a centrist outside the US would probably be called someone who leans "so much to the left" by the OP.
In essence, 'Merika already leans way to the right for anyone to use its political spectrum seriously.
In essence, 'Merika already leans way to the right for anyone to use its political spectrum seriously.
POWERSPHERE
Member
boom.
Manmademan
Member
Absolutely this. And the opposition to "government run!" healthcare is total bullshit. Obamacare is:
1.) Not government run by any definition, it's run completely by private healthcare companies
and
2.) A Carbon Copy of a plan not only proposed by congressional republicans during the Clinton administration, but one actually implemented in massachusetts by a republican governor in 2006. they're protesting their own plans as socialism, just because democrats are proposing them.
Meanwhile there's a current (again, bullshit) attempt by Romney/Ryan to paint Obama as someone slashing Medicare which IS a government run healthcare program that everyone loves. This is why it's hard to take conservatives seriously when they say things like this.
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
This is a classic (and stupid) piece of internet logic which loosely translates into "If you complain about the guy who's calling you a nigger/chink/faggot/bitch/homo etc, you are no better than he is."
It really is a fat load of fucking shit. The republicans have won. Both parties are actually republicans - one is insane, emotional and irrational, using the dirtiest tactics possible to pull the discourse continually over to the extreme right. The democrats are simply there to hedge the republican bet. Both parties dance on the string of their corporatist masters.
The left has lost their representation - but most just don't realize it yet.
Yep. Pathetic, but to the ignorant it seems to score points.
Manmademan
Member
Well, the problem isn't one of "balls." The problem is that the current system makes it very hard to pass anything productive- as watered down as Obamacare is, it only passed by the slimmest margin possible, and even then because a republican senator (Specter) defected because he was getting primaried by a tea party candidate. Passing TRULY progressive legislation like single payer is an impossibility.
In addition, conservatives have spent a VERY long time building up conservative media networks that basically function as the propaganda arm of the republican party. AM radio, Fox news, print outlets like the WSJ and blogs like drudge and breitbart actively coordinate republican talking points to give the illusion of truth to bullshit, so it doesn't actually matter what's actually said in a debate.
The country has been moving farther and farther rightward and getting increasingly polarized because of it.
metalslimer
Member
Because many people actually come from Europe so the idea of government healthcare, higher taxes, and gay rights seem so far left to the American conservatives. The truth is Gaf is probably in the center which the far right conservatives of America (and Gaf) interpret as being evil socialists commie liberals. The idea of conservatism is limited government? Give me a fucking break. This is only used as an excuse, but when the religious nuts try anld pass anti gay legislation the conservatives will eat it up. American conservatives are only limited government when a democrat is in office. And no I won't use the world liberal because there are very few liberal democrats
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
Don't forget the free speech argument.
Some guy: "I believe that all Mexicans should be sent back to Mexico unless they serve three years in the army!"
Some other guy: "Dude, that is racist."
Original guy: "Why are you against free speech you liberal fag?"
Manmademan
Member
That's the thing. The fact that Obamacare IS a copy of what Republicans wanted to do in 1994, and what romney actually DID in 2006 HAS been brought up. Repeatedly.
But right wing media will either refuse to acknowledge it, or deliberately misrepresent it. Remember "Death Panels?" Meanwhile, these outlets will paint any other outlet that doesn't agree with them (say, CNN, or NPR) as "mainstream media" controlled by democrats that is lying to their audience, when the exact opposite is true. Thus we get a feedback loop of conservative nonsense, and an environment where those who get their information from conservative media ONLY get their information from conservative media, and will not entertain any sources that challenge republican talking points.
Definitely not true.
No. ignorant inflammatory statements that lack factual or logical basis earns you a ban. Kinda like the one you're making. (Don't worry, you won't be banned, otherwise there'd be a graveyard in here already. But seriously, that's the kind of shit that people pull repeatedly to earn themselves a ban).
Manmademan
Member
If you spent more than thirty seconds in the poligaf thread, you'd know that there are more than a few well known conservative posters there, and those that did earn bans (Kosmo, BigSicily) didn't earn those bans just for "disagreement."
the leniency applied to anyone who has an opposing viewpoint is far, far less than those that agree with the majority.
Some people get away with saying whatever the fuck they want, i get banned for saying stuff like "grow up" (and that wasnt even to a specific person).
If your conservative you damn sure better watch what you post.
How often do we see inflammatory posts about conservatives that suggest they are uneducated rednecks (DAM LIBURLZ THIS IS AMERICUH!)? There in this thread, no less.
I was more referring the the 12 Romney threads that show up daily in OT. I'm sure whoever the mod for the community poligaf thread has a repertoire with it's common posters.
In general, moderation occurs on a global contextual basis (that is, mods remember who you are and what you've said in the past, and account for a pattern of behaviour - bans are not always for a single post, but an accumulation of posts that indicate discussion negative behaviour). There's also a good amount of spikiness in terms of what you get banned for (i.e. you might get away with some comments some days, other days, another moderator sees you and bans you for what would've been innocuous to another mod). Certainly, I've got a couple of long bans on my record that I still to this day feel to be less than justified.
But unless you're willing to compile the stats and instances of who is banned for what, showing clearly your methodology... it's difficult not to dismiss your concerns as anecdotal and something of a persecution complex reinforced through confirmation bias.
Manmademan
Member
If you read the thread carefully, you'd already know that those who identify as conservative, especially strong conservative are far more likely than liberals to be less educated. The pew survey that was thrown around some pages back had nearly 40% of those who identify that way having only a high school degree or less, as well as trending white, male, and southern. You can disagree with the findings all you want, but the rampant spelling errors and profanity in your posts isn't really doing a whole hell of a lot to help your case.
As for the Romney threads vs. Poligaf itself, it's not a matter of moderation, it's that the random OT threads are far more likely to attract posters with only a casual understanding of politics (or worse), and those posters who throw around unsubstantiated, poorly spelled, profanity laced claims are more likely to earn bans.
What's stopping you from posting 12 Obama threads daily?
Judging a poster based on statistical data is ok then? Fine, it still makes you a jackass.
Please, point out my rampant spelling errors, i would love it.
Clearly the use of the word "fuck" means i'm white, male, and southern.
metalslimer
Member
The conservative persecution complex on this board is quite interesting to watch because instead of trying to argue their points rationally and have a lively debate people just whine about people hating on them.
Manmademan
Member
I didn't judge "A" poster on statistical data, and you won't find me claiming I did. your complaint was that this thread had been claiming conservatives were uneducated rednecks, and I said that the poll backs this up. conservatives as a whole are less educated than liberals are. And I didn't say that you SPECIFICALLY were white, male, or southern, but the claims that conservatives trend this way has a basis in fact- and the Republican party has gone out of it's way to appeal to these voters. You want to dispute this? feel free to dig up your own info that contradicts it and I'll back down. I'll wait, but something tells me it might be a while.
as for your spelling/grammatical errors, sure, why not.
You can complain all you want about conservatives being tagged as uneducated, but lacking a basic grasp of grammar, as well as liberal (heh) use of profanity to make your points isn't helping you to break the stereotype.
- Status