Oh god you're not even a real person you're just a transmission cable of Jordan Peterson talking points. As you were.

As I were... what? I don't understand you. Don't dehumanize me. I am very much a real person. Politically, I consider myself centrist, and I'm not racist. But nor am I on board with the dictatorial dogma that is political correctness, and you expressed a desire to proceed to the extremes, beyond twitter mobs and de-platforming - to murdering people who don't adopt your dictatorial ideology. Don't you think, that before you start killing people for what you believe - and they don't, you should at least be capable of justifying those beliefs?

You're wasting your time, the guy you're talking to is well beyond reason. I've never seen him treat anyone who disagrees with him with anything but mockery and trolling, go talk to someone more deserving of your time, like, literally anyone.

Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-wingers seem to prefer other names. Left wing is a far more common self-description. — Echarmion

I think "conservative" is more popular but I do see it. Though I think the emphasis for both sides is about using left or right as a pejorative rather than self-describing positively. I would say most of your experience is just based on the circles you inhabit but it is a bit harder to self-describe as right-wing for various reasons, so maybe there's some truth to it.

It's good that you mentioned that you're a centrist, that will surely de-escalate things.

Thanks for the advice. I'll stop when it gets boring.

It's easy to be a centrist when the two main political parties have run away to the extremes. In practice, it makes me politically homeless. What I want to know, is what allows people like streetlightx - follow the left all the way to the extremes, and keep pushing?

I suspect, political correctness has a 'holier than thou' tendency that acts like a ratchet. No matter how unreasonable it becomes, there's no turning back. Anyone who doubts the absolute righteousness of the dogma is automatically a nazi - like JK Rowling, darling of the left for years, one sceptical tweet and she's the devil.

If racism is not an opinion - what is it — counterpunch

Factually incorrect.

Okay. As a matter of fact, humankind are a single species. In those terms, there is no such thing as race. And yet, left wing ideology insists there is. So, in scientifically rational terms - sure. IN political terms, not so much. The left simultaneously propose a contest between the interests of racial groups, and deny white people the right to compete.

I didn’t say that race is factually incorrect, I said that racism is factually incorrect.

Yes, I suppose you did. Were you virtue signalling?

If racism is not an opinion - what is it? — counterpunch

A negative bias, and one that is promoted in order to secure a dominant position.

left wing politically correct dogma seeks to control Western civilisation. — counterpunch

Both left and right critique political correctness but it’s not very centrists to claim that it’s a tool of the left to control civilization.

I don’t understand your question.

What I’m saying is that unlike an opinion such as so-and-so being the greatest musician, with a truth value determined by individual preference, the belief that one race is inferior to another and so deserving of lesser respect or opportunity or whatever is simply false whatever each person’s individual preference.

Also, while it seems beyond doubt that Trump himself is a despicable danger to the republic, it's also true that he has an instinctive street level type of understanding of the American public which surpasses that of his competitors. And that would include most of us here, as evidenced by how eagerly we remain addicted to the reality TV show which Trump is hosting. — Hippyhead

It could be argued that he’s responsible for the condition of the Republican Party today, and that he achieved it in only four years, so how good is his street-smarts? Did he understand his followers well enough to foresee their attack on the capital? Was that part of his genius plan?

He’s a conman and an unprincipled trickster. Tricksters always eventually get caught up in their own net.

Bias is exactly the same as opinion. Bias is a synonym for opinion. Not that it's a particularly significant point. I was merely drawing out the views of StreetlightX - who doesn't seem able to explain why he wants to murder people.

Similarly, I'm interested in what you mean by "dominant position" - particularly with regard to race. Are you saying that all white people have dominance over all black people? I don't think that's true; neither in the world, or within Western society. But then, I don't stereotype people based on skin colour. Left wing, politically correct ideology does - and so suggests that I, for example, a working class white man, am in the same racial stereotype as Eton and Oxford educated members of the Bullingdon Club; heirs to vast fortunes and the seats of power. I'm not. Not even close. I'm just as disadvantaged as my best friend at school who was from Trinidad. So left wing skin colour stereotypes fail; in that they discriminate against people like me, assuming I have some dominant position I don't have - even if, it might be argued some white people do.

This is a philosophy forum, and left wing politically correct dogma seeks to control Western civilisation. — counterpunch

The shame of this is that you'll never understand why that's hilarious.

You're right. I don't understand. It wasn't intended as a joke. Did I make a funny? Please explain it to me.

But that hardly matters as it's basically a religion and ideology than a scientific theory.

And anyway, I'm not so sure how much modern day leftism has to do with Marx anymore. — ssu

I recently blew up what I thought was a solid friendship by confessing that I no longer had an interest in reading or discussing Marx, especially in the context of what seems like the rapidly impending environmental disaster. By the time socialists achieve mass working class consciousness, Wall Street and the working class will have both drowned--literally or figuratively.

"Far left", "left" and "leftist" are still appealing labels, but when push comes to shove, what exactly do they mean? The "far right" and "right" seem like clearer labels. Editorial content in the Wall Street Journal (part of the Dow Jones company) seems consistently pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, pro-property, pro-reduced regulation, and so forth.

Solidly "left", even fairly "far left" publications and web sites are usually not in favor of abolishing private property and the corporation-protecting state. For that one has to turn to specifically revolutionary sites (most of which have been "preserved in aspic").

"Left" and "right" are maybe more terms of cultural and/or psychological difference, but even then they are 'leaky'. Leftists seem more tolerant of social deviation (until they are not). Right wingers seem resistant to social deviation, until they are not. (Example: the crowd that captured the capital last Wednesday looked a lot more like the anti-law-and-order hippies of old than I would have expected: blue jeans, beards, bare chested-tattooed, etc. Or maybe my cultural categories are out of date.).

Our old, handy, and familiar categories just don't work very well any more.

Also, while it seems beyond doubt that Trump himself is a despicable danger to the republic, it's also true that he has an instinctive street level type of understanding of the American public which surpasses that of his competitors. — Hippyhead

This is always the right-wing fallacy: an implicit and utterly dishonest definition of 'the people' or 'the public'. Trump is utterly bemused by 50% of the American public. They don't love him, so must be mistaken or traitors or weak or incompetent or something else that they're not. He cannot comprehend that anyone would disagree that he should get everything he wants at all times. There's no savvy there. He is immensely over-confident in himself and that is enough for a great many people.

By the time socialists achieve mass working class consciousness, Wall Street will have drowned. — Bitter Crank

:up:

Our old, handy, and familiar categories just don't work very well any more. — Bitter Crank

This is why we must return to Hegel as Lenin did after Oktoberrevolution comrade.

(Marxist yuk yuks)

This is a philosophy forum, and left wing politically correct dogma seeks to control Western civilisation.
— counterpunch

The shame of this is that you'll never understand why that's hilarious. — Kenosha Kid

Doctrinaire, "politically correct" ideologues would perhaps like to control Western Civilization, but really, how likely are they to succeed? A lot of people want to enforce their favorite etiquette manual, but barbarians keep ripping them up.

Bias is exactly the same as opinion. Bias is a synonym for opinion. — counterpunch

I think it might be fruitless to argue with such a discerning mind.

I was merely drawing out the views of StreetlightX - who doesn't seem able to explain why he wants to murder people. — counterpunch

I’m surprised that he bothered to explicitly state that he does not want to do that, to those few who are unable to discern expression/content, or merely read.

I'm interested in what you mean by "dominant position" - particularly with regard to race. — counterpunch

The other day a large group of predominantly white middle aged men stormed and ransacked our nations capital. Some of the security opened gates and took selfie’s with them. That demonstrates a dominant position.

Given that half of government and all of the media are steeped in political correctness; given that Kier Starmer leapt to his knees for Black Lies Matter, and unequivocally endorsed gender self identification - and that the London Mayor just spent £1.3m of public money promoting Black Lies Matter on New Year's Eve, given that Parler has been banned by Google in an ongoing politically correct crusade against freedom of speech, I'd say, they're getting there. Which takes me back to where I came in - with StreetlightX, saying he would murder racists. So how is any of this funny?

I don't see it that way. Rightly or wrongly, those people believed the election was a fraud - in much the same Democrats called the 2016 election a fraud. Go on youtube and search for John Oliver, voting machines, 2016. Maybe there's good reason to doubt the result. I don't know. I'm in the UK, a long way from the action.

Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.

But who should really be ashamed in all this is a highly politicised and polarised news media - who are quite willing to publish claims the election system is fraudulent without sufficient evidence; the left wing media in 2016, and the right wing media in 2020. The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of.

It doesn't demonstrate anything about racial dominance - as far as I can tell. If you think it does, please explain in what way. I don't see it.

Who should be ashamed in all this is a highly politicised and polarised news media - who are quite willing to publish claims the election system is fraudulent without sufficient evidence — counterpunch

News outlets are businesses that seek profit and consequently cater to their audiences. Some audiences want more factual information and others prefer a more opinionated (bias, as you say) presentation. Do they create news? Hopefully not. Trump is primarily responsible for continually chanting about voter fraud to his gullible base. If an authority figure repeats a lie enough times the weak minded will believe that it’s the truth. And boy did he repeat it. He claimed it as though it were fact rather than suspicion. News networks reported with whatever presentation suited their particular audiences. So by your reasoning it seems that the Divider-in-Chief should be ashamed.

It's just that it seems to me that people who are in righ wing circles will usually use a more specific label for their ideas, and many more who embrace some elements of "right wing" ideas will reject the label. This doesn't seem to happen to the same extent on the left. People will usually not object to be labeled left wing even if they are only really interested in social justice rather than econmically "left" ideas.

Of course this might all be my bias talking. But it seem like we associate "right wing" with "Hitler" and therefore bad much more quickly then we do the same with "left wing" and "Mao". — Echarmion

Ya, see I do not associate the right wing with hitler nor Mao with left wing, but I may be ignorant of the general consensus. You do hear that association made more often in the last 5-10 years, but I think this is more about a loud minority fringe on either side.

Well, no. It was tounge-in-cheek. Of course both are equally capable of being correct, but only one is actually correct (or moral, or least bad). We cannot find out via the labels though, we need to debate. I think this forum does a rather good job at the debating, for an online forum. It's not without bias, but nothing is. — Echarmion

Very true, key words are “online” and “forum”. Thats a low bar.
Bias can never be purged, only managed. The key to doing that is realising that at any given time, on any given topic, you could have your head up your ass. Thats what I do anyway lol
You cant purge it but you can try and minimise its influence by being aware of it.

Insofar as you're more likely to garner negative or even hostile replies to espousing "right wing" ideas, sure. But so long as the discussion remains for the most part honest and on topic, this is not necessarily a problem. — Echarmion

Not necessarily no, but ive seen some pretty gross displays by that left bias on this forum...though none of those incidences seemed like honest discourse.

I agree that it'd be best to not consider labels like left and right at all when engaging in a discussion. We won't all be able to avoid it all of the time. — Echarmion

Well I think its easier to dismiss people when you label them, thats why people do it. If you can make people associate right wing with hitler, then all your work is done. You call them right wing and you dont even need to talk to them at all. If you can call someone a left winger and have it mean “Moaist” then you no longer need to listen to that person, they are essentially a monster.

given that Kier Starmer leapt to his knees for Black Lies Matter — counterpunch

Yes, it must grate that people out there in some position of power believe that black lives matter, and are willing to show it.

Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. — counterpunch

If there had been evidence that there had been widespread and crucial election fraud, then there democratic systems would already have been worthless, so, yes, why not.

However not being able to accept defeat is not the same as believing you have won. The evidence for who won was determined by the count. There was no alternative count, like a secret will in a locked desk draw, with which to contest the first. The only evidence pointed to Biden winning the election.

So then no, after all. Since there was no basis to believe that Trump had been robbed, merely insisting on it doesn't justify the attempt to destroy democracy in process.

I see you you're new here. Welcome... ish. This is a philosophy forum and something has presumably attracted you to it. Here you are advocating that, if you do not want something to be true, you are justified in proceeding on the basis of its opposite, even to the extent of destroying democracy and attacking police officers. Is this a general philosophic position you have, or a special one you whip out for politics? Or are you not here for the philosophy at all, just for the right-wing propaganda?

Thank you for the warm-ish welcome. I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation - and I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future - despite your apparent determination to misunderstand, and blunder into extinction.

For example, you claim I advocate

if you do not want something to be true, you are justified in proceeding on the basis of its opposite, even to the extent of destroying democracy and attacking police officers. — Kenosha Kid

There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid. I said, I don't know if the election was fraudulent - but if it was, they did the right thing. If it wasn't - then they didn't do the right thing. If they acted on the basis of false belief - the consequences were wrongful.

That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. It's not capitalism. It's a lack of regard for science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, particularly, in the application of technology.

I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation - and I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future — counterpunch

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Sorry for the delay - I was washing up and making dinner. There's more to news than merely catering to the audience. There's supposed to be journalistic ethics - standards of practice for news organisations, and fake news is entirely unethical. Reporting what someone said - knowing it to be untrue, and not challenging it, is unethical. There's no excuse in profit making businesses, who only cater to their audiences supposed biases. That's like a doctor handing out puberty blockers to children who are suffering from gender dysphoria. It's utterly unethical.

I haven't paid Trump a great deal of attention. I know he has lent credence to claims of fraud, but I also recall the 2016 election being decried as fraudulent by the left - and what's missing, is the left saying the integrity of the democratic system must be assured. It seems like, they don't care if the election was a fraud because they "won." Or are we to suppose, Trump fixed what Obama left broken, and then declined to claim credit for assuring the integrity of the vote? He's soooo modest! Or are we to suppose that you were lying in 2016, and now - don't like the same lies used against your champion?

I haven't paid Trump a great deal of attention. I know he has lent credence to claims of fraud, but I also recall the 2016 election being decried as fraudulent by the left - and what's missing, is the left saying the integrity of the democratic system must be assured. It seems like, they don't care if the election was a fraud because they "won." Or are we to suppose, Trump fixed what Obama left broken, and then declined to claim credit for assuring the integrity of the vote? He's soooo modest! Or are we to suppose that you were lying in 2016, and now - don't like the same lies used against your champion? — counterpunch

Difference is that one could have contested much more in 2016 being Hillary won popular vote and lost electoral college vote. Yet neither Hillary nor Obama created years of narcissistic rallies, endless poisoning-well Tweets, and the like, such that such an event as a storming of a separate branch of government would even be fathomed by their followers... yet it is very predictable based on what we know of Trump, what he has created with his following, and the like. Obama was maligned for years about not being a citizen, and he sat there while the smug Don took power.