CBS says it's OK to "punch a Nazi"

[*bfine32*]

This thread has gotten beyond ridiculous, but IMO. it does illustrate an important dynamic. "We must label".

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2019, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, the radical right still has some very repugnant ideas.  Now if you could only see the log in your own eye instead of the speck in theirs.

But, of course, when you squeal about the antics of liberals you never try to paint them all with the positions of the radicals, right?
I mean if someone posted multiple polls showing that only a small minority of liberals want to ban all guns you would not continue to argue that "The goal of liberals is to outlaw all guns" would you?  You wouldn't claim they are all just lying to keep their plan secret would you?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2019, 12:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's probably true (the perception I mean), and something I had to struggle with. I'm more or less constantly outraged. Not necessarily about every bit of news about him, but about the "old" stuff too. I would even make the case that spearheading the birther movement alone is reason to be outraged about this president. But as things stand, this episode is more or less irrelevant for my outrage, due to an excrutiating number of additional abhorrent behaviour of his. I do not see it as hyperbolic to put it that way.

And sure enough, from that perspective I see people reacting to the hysteria by almost reflexively siding against it. Be it because they are iconoclasts or because of a non-leftist ideology or whatever reason. Which sometimes seems inexplicable, gives the appearance of acceptance for Trump, or at least as if the critizism of the hysteria leads to throwing out the baby with the bathwater regarding Trump's actual deeds.

And I sure do agree that there also is hysteria, some quite cringeworthy even. But as I stated before (I think), that fact doesn't make Trump any better. I can just say that you and others often seem to give the impression as if it would. That's probably not fair at all to see it that way, but I find it hard to avoid that perspective at times.

Never said it makes Trump any better, but it sure as hell makes his detractors less palatable.  Given a choice between eating vomit or feces I'll choose neither every day.  This won't stop my from calling out vomit for claiming it tastes better though.

Quote:Has it flipped though? I still see conservatives that way, it's just that the leftists have become the same in their own ways. And yeah I hate that too.

To a degree, but I don't consistently read stories of right wing groups censoring, attempting to censor, protesting or mobing the shows of performers the way I see the far left doing.  I literally can't recall the last time a far right mob prevented a speaker or act from performing.  For the opposite I'd have zero trouble.

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2019, 12:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This thread has gotten beyond ridiculous, but IMO. it does illustrate an important dynamic. "We must label".

We have to be honest.

As I said before everyone wants to claim that they are "neutral" because they feel that is the only way people will take their opinion seriously.

Ever notice how no one will admit watching FoxNews yet somehow it is the highest rated news program in the world?

[*bfine32*]

(04-25-2019, 12:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: We have to be honest.

As I said before everyone wants to claim that they are "neutral" because they feel that is the only way people will take their opinion seriously.

Ever notice how no one will admit watching FoxNews yet somehow it is the highest rated news program in the world?

I have 0 desire to claim I'm neutral; nor do I listen to Fox News. As to it being the highest rated. you might have to consider the competition. CNN and MSNBC probably split the Right or a lot of folks from the Right watch Fox. I've had a bunch of Libs on here telling me what Fox says. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2019, 12:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-If-Trumps-wins-who-to-blame?pid=266986&highlight=privilege#pid266986

Post 49

"White privilege, sorry, it's just code for calling white people inherently racist." 


Okay,  Here is your example.  Please explain how this is not the standard conservative position on this issue.

I'm not arguing against the concept, but how it is used by many on the far left.  

(04-25-2019, 12:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Really?

Really.  If you're going to use an obvious antisemite like Omar to attempt to win this one you're just making it far too easy for me.

(04-25-2019, 12:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But, of course, when you squeal about the antics of liberals you never try to paint them all with the positions of the radicals, right?
I mean if someone posted multiple polls showing that only a small minority of liberals want to ban all guns you would not continue to argue that "The goal of liberals is to outlaw all guns" would you?  You wouldn't claim they are all just lying to keep their plan secret would you?

OOO, "squeal".  Not an deliberately inflammatory word, intentionally used, at all.  I call it as I see it, Fred.  You may disagree, I applaud your ability to do so without fear of reprisal.  I also take in the entirety of circumstances not the microcosm currently at hand.  You want to argue a point, do so, but don't try and make a single issue an example of an overreaching world view.  You have an issue with my positions, take them up individually and attempt to dismantle them, but do save us all a lot of time and spare us your attempts to slap labels on people in an obvious attempt to minimize their opinions.  BTW, you can stop now, you've made what passes for your point and I don't think digging deeper serves any real purpose.  

[hollodero]

(04-25-2019, 12:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Never said it makes Trump any better, but it sure as hell makes his detractors less palatable.

No doubt that's often true. I would argue, however, that not ALL detractors fall into that category.

(04-25-2019, 12:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To a degree, but I don't consistently read stories of right wing groups censoring, attempting to censor, protesting or mobing the shows of performers the way I see the far left doing.  I literally can't recall the last time a far right mob prevented a speaker or act from performing.  For the opposite I'd have zero trouble.

I don't know if that's entirely fair to put it that way. But there's sure truth to it and I won't defend said far left behaviour. It's appalling, self-righteous, immature and all that, I hate it too - it also isn't a mass movement.
As for the far right mob, maybe they act differently. But a Trump rally often wasn't a harbor of good behaviour, albeit often it was the speaker himself calling for violence multiple times. Also, a right wing mob shouts lock her up constantly, as if that were ok to do. And looking at the mob that posts at Breitbart is a glance in a human wasteland of hate. I really feel no side has a monopoly on bad behaviour from their mobs. You just claim the vomit tastes better :)

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-24-2019, 11:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You need to go read the thread.  It was basically an attack on liberals claiming they were hypocritical in their treatment of the Ellison accuser compared to the Kavanaugh accuser.  

Kind of hard to claim that an attack piece against liberals is "neutral".  Especially when it was clear that SSF had gotten his information from a right wing source because they were the only ones calling "anemia" a "domestic abuse injury".

Lots of people here CLAIM to read sources from both sides, but since I actually do I am able to call them out using obviously biased phrases like that.  If SSF had really read some more balanced reporting on that story he would not have fallen into that trap.

I didn't claim it was neutral.  

My opinion about whether I consider SSF a conservative or a liberal isn't based upon conversations like that, but whether his stances on political policy issues are conservative or liberal. Then I weigh if the preponderance of his stances or more conservative, liberal, or a mix of both.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-24-2019, 11:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's obviously true, but there has to be some kind of reference point from which one could determine which of these two things is worse. The man or the reaction to the man?

I'd argue the man, and when folks argue the latter they usually lose me. For that they deserve no labeling, no critizism and no dispute. 

- That SSF misled us regarding the number of threads he started, however, is definitely unforgivable. How could he have thought to get away with that?

I would say that reference point is different based upon the individual being annoyed.  I agree with you Trump is the more annoying of the two to me, but judging from SSF's reaction I'm not sure he would agree.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-24-2019, 11:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: White privilege

Israel

Electoral college

2nd ammendment

The media NEVER criticizing the left.

White Nationalism

Travel ban

Black Lives Matter

Criticism of Trump is "hysteria"

I guess what I'm thinking of is a political poll based upon issues voters would vote upon to determine where one falls on the political spectrum.  Someone posted one of those a long time ago.  I bet Matt probably knows of some that could help me out.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-25-2019, 12:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The script has not flipped.  You have.

Conservatives in Tennessee proposed a law making it illegal for a teacher to mention homosexuality in a class.  Comparative religion classes are considered "promoting Sharia law".  They want football players fired for kneeling during the national anthem.  They scream "racism" if anyone claims Jewish lobbyist ever give money to support their cause. They want to boycott stores that say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and cheer when their President claims he will make people say "Merry Christmas".  They fight against new mosques being built.  They oppose a pregnant women being given information on the option of abortion.  They oppose schools talking about birth control other than abstinence.  

That's in Tennessee.  How much of that do you think occurs where SSF lives in California?  Do you think regional differences in politics could shape how we interact with the world around us?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-24-2019, 10:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the bigger question on everyone's mind is why do you need to try so hard to label him as a conservative? 

Breech and I agree on nothing, but if he can see SSF as central then why do you have to dispute it? Dude's just giving his opinion. IMO SSF turned more to the Right after he saw the Left loose their minds when Trump won. We used to never agree now we agree quite often. But this thread shouldn't be about the poster.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-25-2019, 01:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I guess what I'm thinking of is a political poll based upon issues voters would vote upon to determine where one falls on the political spectrum.  Someone posted one of those a long time ago.  I bet Matt probably knows of some that could help me out.

It's almost like SSF prophecized this. http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-8-Values

(04-25-2019, 02:00 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's in Tennessee.  How much of that do you think occurs where SSF lives in California?  Do you think regional differences in politics could shape how we interact with the world around us?

This is honestly what I say a ton when it comes to SSF. I have said over and over that California Democrats have ruined him and that if he were out here in good ol' Virginia, he'd be fine with being a Democrat.

[GMDino]

(04-25-2019, 07:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's almost like SSF prophecized this. http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-8-Values


This is honestly what I say a ton when it comes to SSF. I have said over and over that California Democrats have ruined him and that if he were out here in good ol' Virginia, he'd be fine with being a Democrat.

A Democrat...but a liberal?

And not in the "classical" sense...but in the modern sense?  Those parameters change the argument.

I'd wager most think I'm one of the most liberal people on the board but I support gun ownership and am anti-abortion (although I think it needs to be a legal option and the choice lies with the woman).  I am pro Religious freedom...but believe that you don't have the freedom to make ME follow your religious tenets.

I believe in lower corporate taxes...but that they have to pay them. lol.   No more zero taxes at the end of the year.

My opinions are mixed and lean liberal (especially socially) but my more extreme positions put me in the liberal camp.  Yet I've voted for both parties and flirted with third party over the years.  

We get pigeonholed on this board based on a couple issues or a few posts.  Doesn't mean it is right, doesn't mean it is accurate.

Lastly SSF has been consistent about not being violent due to words or actions (others have not) but I think this particular thread was an attempt to dig a "liberals" who hate nazis for some reason. Just my opinion on it because I still don't see why a fictional television show equals a "PSA from CBS" saying its ok to punch a nazi. And he got rightly roasted for that. Now it's being used to "prove" his political views which it should not.

[Benton]

(04-25-2019, 07:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's almost like SSF prophecized this. http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-8-Values


This is honestly what I say a ton when it comes to SSF. I have said over and over that California Democrats have ruined him and that if he were out here in good ol' Virginia, he'd be fine with being a Democrat.

Yeah, unfortunately, that's where a lot of the money for the party comes from.

In Kentucky, Democrats are mostly pro-2nd, pro-life, pro taxpayer. Most of the taxes from the last decade have been from republicans in our state. But a Kentucky Democrats doesn't resemble a California or NY Dem at all.and, really, Kentucky republicans don't either. They're less pro-military and Pro-big business and more pro-christian nation state.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-24-2019, 11:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I enjoyed tweaking them and their self righteous indignation and I now equally (well maybe not equally as you enjoy nothing so much as you did in your youth) tweaking the indistinguishable in all but ideological bent "progressive" left.

stop dry handing it.

[hollodero]

(04-25-2019, 01:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would say that reference point is different based upon the individual being annoyed.  I agree with you Trump is the more annoying of the two to me, but judging from SSF's reaction I'm not sure he would agree.

I was referring to a more objective, less emotional reference point. Anti-Trump folks might be annoying, but Trump is beyond annoying and annoyance shouldn't factor into it so much. Is what I'd say. As soon as Trump is seen as, quoting SFF ,"certainly worthy of concern or consternation", that to me would be a full stop. Trump's conduct is startling, unsettling, and in the end almost anyone (including SSF, though I sure don't want to talk for him) seems to have a similar take once the outer layers of the onion are peeled away. Everything beyond that, including liberal hysteria, I'd consider of secondary concern, and that is where I feel I differ from many.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2019, 01:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would say that reference point is different based upon the individual being annoyed.  I agree with you Trump is the more annoying of the two to me, but judging from SSF's reaction I'm not sure he would agree.

It really has to do with the fact that Trump is what he is.  I expect no better from him.  His most vehement detractors consider themselves above his type of behavior which is why it annoys me more that they engage in it.

(04-25-2019, 07:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's almost like SSF prophecized this. http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-8-Values


This is honestly what I say a ton when it comes to SSF. I have said over and over that California Democrats have ruined him and that if he were out here in good ol' Virginia, he'd be fine with being a Democrat.

Very probably.

(04-25-2019, 09:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Lastly SSF has been consistent about not being violent due to words or actions (others have not)  but I think this particular thread was an attempt to dig a "liberals" who hate nazis for some reason.  Just my opinion on it because I still don't see why a fictional television show equals a "PSA from CBS" saying its ok to punch a nazi.  And he got rightly roasted for that.  Now it's being used to "prove" his political views which it should not.

Fred accused me of getting the PSA comment from some right wing site as it's a "talking point".  Fact is I did not.  I watched the clip and it immediately reminded me of a PSA.  It is possible for separate people to view a clip and come to similar conclusions.  In fact, that this is exactly what happened in this case it rather lends credence to the perception that this came off as a PSA.

(04-25-2019, 10:10 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: stop dry handing it.

Always good advice.

(04-25-2019, 02:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: I was referring to a more objective, less emotional reference point. Anti-Trump folks might be annoying, but Trump is beyond annoying and annoyance shouldn't factor into it so much. Is what I'd say. As soon as Trump is seen as, quoting SFF ,"certainly worthy of concern or consternation", that to me would be a full stop. Trump's conduct is startling, unsettling, and in the end almost anyone (including SSF, though I sure don't want to talk for him) seems to have a similar take once the outer layers of the onion are peeled away. Everything beyond that, including liberal hysteria, I'd consider of secondary concern, and that is where I feel I differ from many.

As I said above, Trump is what he is, you can either rationally point out his myriad foibles and questionable, even inept, decisions or you can get down in the mud with him.  Far too many people who claim the moral high ground have done the latter.  The worst offenders have cried Nazi, dictator for life, democracy crumbling, Putin's punk so often and for so long before you stop listening to it.  I've made the "boy who cried wolf" comparison many times since the 2016 election and, if anything, it's gotten worse since then.

[hollodero]

(04-25-2019, 02:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said above, Trump is what he is, you can either rationally point out his myriad foibles and questionable, even inept, decisions or you can get down in the mud with him.  Far too many people who claim the moral high ground have done the latter.  The worst offenders have cried Nazi, dictator for life, democracy crumbling, Putin's punk so often and for so long before you stop listening to it.  I've made the "boy who cried wolf" comparison many times since the 2016 election and, if anything, it's gotten worse since then.

I struggle to get a good answer out... I'd say ok, stop listening to it then. It doesn't matter that much if someone calls Trump a Nazi, it doesn't make him any less inept.
You factor in an aspect that does not really warrant being factored in. This is as irrational as those irrational folks you're (probably rightfully in many cases) taking issue with. Is what I'd say.

[*bfine32*]

(04-25-2019, 02:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It really has to do with the fact that Trump is what he is.  I expect no better from him.  His most vehement detractors consider themselves above his type of behavior which is why it annoys me more that they engage in it.

This is where I am on the subject. Far too often folks excuse their vile comments/actions on "Well Trump does it..." So they readily  admit to doing things they profess to despise. I think this thread is a prime example of that dynamic.

Perhaps others are swayed by Trump's actions more than I and perhaps that makes me a 'Trump Supporter". i just know we get to vote every 4 years. Dude is a narcissist and every failure/success he has achieved is derived from that fact. So is much of the love and hate; I guess I neither hate nor love him and in today's climate that = supporter.