Brian Peacock wrote:
Of course, they're a 'Leftist' so they're wrong straight off the bat.
Are they correct?
Brian Peacock wrote:
Look, point to anyone here who condones the routine use of political violence, left-leaning or otherwise. Now contrast that with Nazi's who think the physical option is legitimised by the ends justifying the means.
They do? Who? The alleged Nazi, who denied being a Nazi, Spencer, who was punched - did he believe in the routine use of political violence?
Does the fact that you think someone thinks the physical option is legitimized by the ends justifying the means, mean that it is ethical to punch that person?
If so, if a person has concluded that it is ethical to punch someone because they think violence is justified, haven't they just justified violence? And, is it then ethical to punch THEM (the anti-Nazi)? And, haven't we now simply descended to the best and hardest puncher winning?
Brian Peacock wrote:
When asked their opinions about a wide range of political issues the bell curve has the majority of people in the big bulge in the middle - some are a bit right-leaning and some are a bit left-leaning, but most are moderate and centrist in their outlook.
Of course, to everybody in the Ultra-conservative camp everyone to the left of them is a vilifiable Leftist, and therefore wrong automatically. Same goes for the Ultra-Liberal camp, everyone to the right is basically a fascist or a fascist lapdog, and therefore wrong. But for the majority, those who occupy the middle ground, there'll be some who are left-leaning on some things and right-leaning on others. For example, the majority of centrist left-leaning folk will accept the basic principles of market capitalism, which is traditionally seen as a belief which signifies right-of-centre politics,
Well, I don't know if you can say that "traditionally" it's seen as right of center. Laissez-faire capitalism originated as a Liberal concept.
But this whole issue of punching Nazis has little, if anything, to do with whether or not someone views someone else as right or wrong. The only relevance there is that from an ethical perspective, it would seem to make the most sense that whether someone is right or wrong, or really, really, really, wrong, does not determine whether they are able to express their view and be protected by the law from violence and that it is unethical to punch a non-violent person because of what they believe or express.
Brian Peacock wrote:
and the majority of centrist right-leaning folk will accept the basic principle of redistributive taxation, which is traditionally seen as a signifies of left-of-centre politics. Along with that, everyone who doesn't really think about these things too deeply will advocate their own political positions as representing the norm - even if the norm is to be found, and actually resides, in the middle of the bell curve: moderately left-leaning rightish.
The US has two main right of centre political parties, the right-centrist Democrat party and the righter-than-that GOP. I don't think it's unfair or unduly contentious to say that with Trump to the fore the GOP has moved a little further right that it might otherwise have. It's easy for GOP sympathisers to categorise everybody to the left of them as Leftists, but are they as extremist in their outlook as the rhetoric might suggest? No, they're mostly moderate in their outlook - and given the state of US politics they're probably mostly moderately-right in their outlook too. Calling politcaly moderate centrists 'Leftists', and implying that this categorisation marks them out as extremists, is not only a fallacious ad hom it's self defeating because it alienates the moderately-minded left-leaning US voter. Those are the people who have been out on the streets because they're feeling the pinch of the 'us-and-them' atmosphere Trump et al have created. Now, if Trump and Bannon, and their chums, followers, sympathisers, acolytes and apologists are going to categorise those who disagree with decidedly right or far-right politics as Leftist I think it's incumbent upon them to provide the definition of 'Leftist' they're working to - the definition which categorises everyone in the left-hand two thirds of the bell curve as extremist in their views even while it comprises mostly those of the political centre ground.
I think what happens a lot is those on the left are more and more categorizing anyone who disagrees with them as fascist and Nazi and white supremacist and patriachal and oppressive, etc. The hyperbole is strong on the left these days. Not everyone, of course, but enough.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
Have I said that the police shouldn't intervene?
You like to accuse others of being disingenuous. FFS, take a look in the mirror.
