Politics, Mature and taboo > Political Pundits
The Progressive ideology exposed
Al Swearegen:
--- Quote from: Calandale on December 25, 2017, 09:32:29 PM ---
--- Quote from: Al Swearengen on December 25, 2017, 04:09:03 PM ---
Now if for nothing else Dinesh ought to allow a pause to reconsider some beliefs and wh we commonly hold them. For example, if we all know from history classes that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was a good guy fighting for slaves to be freed and he won the civil war against the Democrats in the South and now Democrats are the ones who have the black vote and malign the Republicans as being bigots.....what gives? I never really understood this but conventional wisdom was that Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats. But see that did not make much sense to me either. Swapping parties. Not changing party names but 100% of both parties changing sides? Changing values? Maybe but even were that so then still the crimes bad actions need to be owned by both parties (what is to be owned by the Democrats for their history and what is to be owned by Republicans for theirs). If Democrats are nice to minorities today, that is fantastic, when did they start and what blood is on their hands up to that point? If Republicans are terrible to minorities now, that is awful, when did that start and what blood is on their hands? What is their history?
--- End quote ---
Yes, but he is too simplistic in his dismissal of the established view. Even considering the black movement to the dems,
prior to the Civil Rights Act. There is a reason for the later shift, which comes from a confluence of Johnson's pushing
the Dixiecrats away and the Goldwater nomination. See, Goldwater's state's rights (especially when made explicit on
racial matters) played right into both a chance to relieve the burden of the CRA, as well as to the Lost Cause feelings -
there is no greater state's right than nullification and secession. That the Republican party slowly started to embrace
those views made for an easier home than following the Wallace banner.
The earlier shift is not merely economic either. FDR's non-discrimination order; Truman's integration of the army; Humphrey's
strong support for civil rights all factored in. They were bringing the dems into the palatable realm - at least nationally.
Equally though, other views motivated fairly conservative southern populations away, as the parties began to diverge more
on many issues. Some cultural, some economic.
--- Quote ---Then in comes someone like Dinesh and says "Here are some of the answers you were thinking about but could not find".
It is not just Dinesh too. Nor just Conservative viewpoints but there are a lot of Libertarians and a number of different Liberals that often come up with stuff which is really new and compelling and opens my eyes to alternatives I had not considered.
--- End quote ---
It's important not to be blinded by one ideological stance. But, he seems as unwilling to express the nuance of the reality
as do those hard on the other side of the issue.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
He puts it out there and we have an alternative position to consider. We do not have to buy it lock, stock and barrel but we can consider it. Pick out the things that sound interesting. Do our own research weigh them up against agreed knowledge.
I just see what he is doing in this respect. Not so much taking everything he says with a grain of salt but rather taking in what he says as a challenge to think upon.
Minister Of Silly Walks:
--- Quote from: odeon on December 26, 2017, 03:50:43 AM ---He appears to have made a career out of conservative conspiracy theories, successful only in preaching to the choir.
--- End quote ---
He doesn't seem to have a lot more substance behind what he says than Milo Yiannopoulos.
I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.
One example: as soon as someone starts talking about privilege he suggests that they go to the Dean's office and give up their place at the university to someone from a minority. That's not how affirmative action works. But it saves Dinesh D'Souza from having to come up with some actual arguments.
Another one: D'Souza says you can't have land rights for Native Americans because then you'd have to give back everything that anyone ever took from anyone else. Of course you can't undo all the wrongs of the world, nobody is claiming that. But when you have a portion of society who are dispossessed and disadvantaged by the past dishonest and murderous actions of your government and your ancestors, maybe making some small amends is a sign of the fairer society that you are becoming.
odeon:
--- Quote from: Al Swearengen on December 26, 2017, 03:51:15 AM ---Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
--- End quote ---
He doesn't HAVE to do anything. It's his credibility going down the drain if he goes all out with sensationalist claims that are easily proven to be wrong. Why waste time listening to someone like that?
odeon:
--- Quote from: Minister of silly walks on December 26, 2017, 04:28:19 AM ---I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.
--- End quote ---
I gave up pretty soon, too. What did it for me was the fact that this is his Youtube channel, yet he chose a heading like "D'Souza absolutely DESTROYS leftist college student". He's not interested in a discussion, he's interested in boosting his ego.
Al Swearegen:
--- Quote from: odeon on December 26, 2017, 04:35:49 AM ---
--- Quote from: Al Swearengen on December 26, 2017, 03:51:15 AM ---Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.
--- End quote ---
He doesn't HAVE to do anything. It's his credibility going down the drain if he goes all out with sensationalist claims that are easily proven to be wrong. Why waste time listening to someone like that?
--- End quote ---
Except, of course, they are NOT being proven wrong. With many things like this you can make defences against things he says and indeed the professor who is asking the questions in one of the videos tries this.
A lot of what can be argued is perspective. It is like if I said that Gay marriage should be legal everywhere across the world because it is ultimately not hurting anyone and giving away something at no costs which give rights to people who have not traditionally been unable to have purely on the basing of them being gay.
That to me seems pretty cut and dried in my mind. However (I apologise for the weak argument - I am sure someone who is anti-marriage could do a much better job) if I was ultra-religious I could say something like "The whole purpose of marriage is to protect the family and the nuclear family is the bedrock of society. It is to bind families under God and to commit them in a holy bond with God. It also allows their children to be born into this contract with God and be recognised by God and allow them to join their parents in afterlife" and blah blah blah. Whatever.
Now both points can be argued against and we can get into the weeds over it. But that does not mean either one is "wrong" it is simply different perspective. Such are the points that can be thrown at Dinesh. Easy to get into the weeds but I believe the biggest problem is the different between something being seen as disagreeable and something being wrong.
It is like something being morally wrong or morally right can often simply be a difference of your own subjective values rather than something being wrong on facts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version