Educational

Author Topic: Article 50 US code 842  (Read 389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Almighty Kek

  • Village idiot
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 5717
  • Karma: -18
  • Death to Normies! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2017, 05:23:24 PM »
It has nothing to do with labor unions.

FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.

Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.

Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??

It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.

Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.

Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.

Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96410
  • Karma: 4042
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2017, 12:10:42 AM »

Do "we"  think that President Trump is somewhat congruent to Nazis?

I would like to explore the evidence. please.

My reference was to Scrappy's comments about learning from Europe's 'horrible mistakes'. Scrap, as usual, is self-contradictory and full of shit.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16579
  • Karma: 2078
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2017, 12:43:21 AM »
It has nothing to do with labor unions.

FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.

Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.

Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??

It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.

Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.

Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.

Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.

Taking over Atheist communities, Gaming,.....
I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12138
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #33 on: October 20, 2017, 03:51:40 AM »
It has nothing to do with labor unions.

FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.

Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.

Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??

It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.

Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.

Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.

Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 03:57:25 AM by Jack »

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16579
  • Karma: 2078
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #34 on: October 20, 2017, 04:25:18 AM »
It has nothing to do with labor unions.

FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.

Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.

Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??

It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.

Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.

Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.

Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.

I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.

"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts. 

I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12138
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #35 on: October 20, 2017, 04:57:04 AM »
It has nothing to do with labor unions.

FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.

Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.

Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??

It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.

Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.

Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.

Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.

I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.

"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts. 


That's the thing about the left and right; they both have extremes, and both sides have some level of believing the other side is poisoning society with their sociological ideals. The left has always shared social philosophies with socialism, but from the standpoint of political ideology calling the far left marxists is no more meaningful than calling the far right fascists. Though suggesting the government step in as an oppositional force against the ideals of the left is indeed a fascist idea.

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16579
  • Karma: 2078
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2017, 05:59:33 AM »
It has nothing to do with labor unions.

FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.

Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.

Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??

It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.

Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.

Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.

Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.

I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.

"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts. 


That's the thing about the left and right; they both have extremes, and both sides have some level of believing the other side is poisoning society with their sociological ideals. The left has always shared social philosophies with socialism, but from the standpoint of political ideology calling the far left marxists is no more meaningful than calling the far right fascists. Though suggesting the government step in as an oppositional force against the ideals of the left is indeed a fascist idea.

I disagree. The right when given a lot of power suppresses in a different way. They become Religious authoritarians and push hard traditional values. I do not think that the "Far Right" is a natural extension of Right Wingers. I think that the Liberals are slightly different. My thinking is this. I mentioned the kind of Liberals I admire and like and see myself as within their political wheelhouse. Being able to look at less restrictive ideas and debate and entertain new perspectives and ideas. Being open-minded and accepting. But whilst this is great, imagine you have people who say "I am wanting to distance myself from the restricted and traditional approaches to society and culture and encourage more diverse and open ideas..." being embraced and then those people go all "....but if you do not embrace all of my new and innovative and diverse ideas then I will threaten, marginalise, doxx, humiliate, fire you"

In short, I see the road from moderate conservative to restrictive Religious Authoritarian zealot, and from moderate Liberal to Progressive zealot as being simply dialling up the ideology (and no I do not see either extreme as better). What I do not see is the NeoNazi fascist as being the natural extension of the Right winger.

I will be even more frank, I think that the mainstream conservatives are far more reasonable than the mainstream Liberals BECAUSE of two things. Firstly, I think Progressives have infested the Left and the moderate Liberal is being brainwashed or duped by the authoritarians OR they are bullied from dissent. Secondly, the Right is very reasonable by and large precisely BECAUSE they are not that empowered despite the Presidency. They very nice and reasonable for now. They are fighting hard against the Liberally driven establishment. They need allies. Once they get the power they will not need to be reasonable and nice and will start becoming the Religious Right again.

The moderate Liberal being checked by a moderate conservative is best.

I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96410
  • Karma: 4042
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2017, 09:49:03 AM »
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.

But carry on, children.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12138
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2017, 03:49:10 PM »
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.

But carry on, children.
Something I said?

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12138
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #39 on: October 20, 2017, 04:27:46 PM »
It has nothing to do with labor unions.

FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.

Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.

Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??

It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.

Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.

Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.

Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.

I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.

"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts. 


That's the thing about the left and right; they both have extremes, and both sides have some level of believing the other side is poisoning society with their sociological ideals. The left has always shared social philosophies with socialism, but from the standpoint of political ideology calling the far left marxists is no more meaningful than calling the far right fascists. Though suggesting the government step in as an oppositional force against the ideals of the left is indeed a fascist idea.

I disagree. The right when given a lot of power suppresses in a different way. They become Religious authoritarians and push hard traditional values. I do not think that the "Far Right" is a natural extension of Right Wingers. I think that the Liberals are slightly different. My thinking is this. I mentioned the kind of Liberals I admire and like and see myself as within their political wheelhouse. Being able to look at less restrictive ideas and debate and entertain new perspectives and ideas. Being open-minded and accepting. But whilst this is great, imagine you have people who say "I am wanting to distance myself from the restricted and traditional approaches to society and culture and encourage more diverse and open ideas..." being embraced and then those people go all "....but if you do not embrace all of my new and innovative and diverse ideas then I will threaten, marginalise, doxx, humiliate, fire you"

In short, I see the road from moderate conservative to restrictive Religious Authoritarian zealot, and from moderate Liberal to Progressive zealot as being simply dialling up the ideology (and no I do not see either extreme as better). What I do not see is the NeoNazi fascist as being the natural extension of the Right winger.

I will be even more frank, I think that the mainstream conservatives are far more reasonable than the mainstream Liberals BECAUSE of two things. Firstly, I think Progressives have infested the Left and the moderate Liberal is being brainwashed or duped by the authoritarians OR they are bullied from dissent. Secondly, the Right is very reasonable by and large precisely BECAUSE they are not that empowered despite the Presidency. They very nice and reasonable for now. They are fighting hard against the Liberally driven establishment. They need allies. Once they get the power they will not need to be reasonable and nice and will start becoming the Religious Right again.

The moderate Liberal being checked by a moderate conservative is best.
Fully agree with the last sentence. While not perfect, the US is functional due to a mixture of socialist and capitalist infrastructure, and that's because both the right and left are allowed a voice in the needs of society. Sometimes that causes conflict, but the democratic process isn't under attack by the left. For the government to be allowed to criminalize the existence of or association to either left or right wing originations would more likely be an attack on the democratic process, because it could be the beginnings of a single party system.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 04:30:26 PM by Jack »

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16579
  • Karma: 2078
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #40 on: October 20, 2017, 08:16:07 PM »
It is like those that thumb their noses and jeer at anything religious. People should acknowledge that much of what we get frmo culture, whether we believe or not was built on the foundations of faith based religion. Sure there were wars and various persecutions but also a lot of the art and literature and laws and such things that bind the society. So it ought to at the least have a respectful place at the table of cultural and societal changes.

What I am saying is that points of view should have a place at the table and no one system or ideology is perfect.

For example, I think gay people should have the right to marry if they want. However, that does not mean that I think that religious people should be forced to marry gay people. It is not a zero sum game. Giving a right or privilege should NOT be at the expense of another. I think that society and culture should work like that and any one side or one ideology getting everything they want successively is a problem and so is the refusal to even entertain another side.

I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Teh Stupid
  • *****
  • Posts: 96410
  • Karma: 4042
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2017, 01:56:14 AM »
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.

But carry on, children.
Something I said?

Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.
I know, I know, it's just that I don't know what should be there. :GA:
Could put some awesome Jack quote in there.

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16579
  • Karma: 2078
  • Friendly bastard
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2017, 02:05:51 AM »
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.

But carry on, children.
Something I said?

Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.

 :dunno:
I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12138
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2017, 09:14:47 AM »
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.

But carry on, children.
Something I said?

Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.
Children is plural, so it understandable how that could be construed when blasted into the wind of a discussion. This has been a good conversation. Neo-Marxist and neo-facists are terms used for far left and far right ideologies, and while I took the position of nullifying the meaning of these terms, that doesn't necessarily negate the existence of the terms, their meanings or usage. Sir_Les seems to have taken a middle ground on the topic. Kek has expressed a legitimate concern and suggested a solution. While taking the stance against this solution, I've also offered no alternate solution because I can't think of one.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 10:47:18 AM by Jack »

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Insane Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 12138
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Article 50 US code 842
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2017, 10:02:59 AM »
While universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, it's been a common perception those restrictions should be kept to a minimum beyond the restrictions of the law. Freedom of thought and expression is necessary to the environment of higher learning, to foster peaceful intelligent debate, for the sharing and advancement of knowledge and ideas. This cannot happen without the competition of ideas. For university administrators to placate a small subset of the student population who are intolerant of oppositional views, may possibly promote some level of harmony, but its a valid question to ask at what price.