| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
thellama73 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
 Posted: November 01 2012 at 07:51 |
 tamijo wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The word "extreme" is used to discredit a position without actually having to talk about it. |
Taliban is still extreem in the way they understand their religion and the aproach against those they dont like.
Sadly the same kind of extreeme aproach is spreading amongst some Christians/Right Wingers.
I think its hard to talk about those people without using the word extreeme, because otherwise you give the impression you think every conservative is like Breivik, or every muslim thinks like Taliban. |
What are you talking about? I constantly hear the left complain about the imminent threat of theocracy, but religion is less popular and less prominent now than it has been at any other time in history. Where are these Christians who react to having their faith insulted by violent riots? The Pope has softened his stance on most social issues. How can you say that Christianity is more "extreme" now than it was ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago? There is no evidence of this, it's just one of those baseless canards that liberals repeat over and over again hoping that eventually someone will believe them.
|
|
|
 |
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 08:04 |
thellama73 wrote:
tamijo wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The word "extreme" is used to discredit a position without actually having to talk about it. |
Taliban is still extreem in the way they understand their religion and the aproach against those they dont like.
Sadly the same kind of extreeme aproach is spreading amongst some Christians/Right Wingers.
I think its hard to talk about those people without using the word extreeme, because otherwise you give the impression you think every conservative is like Breivik, or every muslim thinks like Taliban. |
What are you talking about? I constantly hear the left complain about the imminent threat of theocracy, but religion is less popular and less prominent now than it has been at any other time in history. Where are these Christians who react to having their faith insulted by violent riots? The Pope has softened his stance on most social issues. How can you say that Christianity is more "extreme" now than it was ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago? There is no evidence of this, it's just one of those baseless canards that liberals repeat over and over again hoping that eventually someone will believe them.
|
I did not say "Christianity is more "extreme" now", I said that with some idiots (like Breivik) you can make good use of the word extreeme.
Everything else you read out of my post, is only happening in your mind.
Nothing Anti Christian or Leftist in my post, unless offcourse You are amongst those very rare people who think Breivik had infact good reason for his actions.
Infact im advocating that by good use of the word you can show that YOU DO NOT BELIVE, every Conservative/Christian is like him.
Edited by tamijo - November 01 2012 at 08:07
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 08:07 |
|
I have no idea who this Breivik person is.
EDIT: Oh, that guy. Well you can't use a Norwegian as an example, those people are crazy. They listen to black metal bands who burn down churches and ritually sacrifice one another.
Edited by thellama73 - November 01 2012 at 08:10
|
|
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 08:12 |
Well i dont think we disagree, in some cases the word is fine.
The problem with those words are when you use them too often, suddently almost every democrat is extreeme left, and every Repuplican extreeme right. Used like that its totaly pointless.
Edited by tamijo - November 01 2012 at 08:19
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 10:45 |
I think most of the people painting Obama this way are actually the ones who seem to be foaming at the mouth.
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 10:52 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
I think most of the people painting Obama this way are actually the ones who seem to be foaming at the mouth. |
I agree completely.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 17:01 |
Epignosis wrote:
The word "extremist" in America is used to paint someone as a boogeyman. It's almost a useless term anymore.
I got a political postcard (from Florida) painting a liberal candidate as being "extreme" on abortion and gay marriage. What does that even mean? Is the conservative group that funded this ad implying that they would like a "moderate" approach to abortion and gay marriage?
The word "extreme" is used to discredit a position without actually having to talk about it.
There are other such words.
|
Whenever has the term "extreme" been used as anything other than a pejorative in this context? 
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 17:08 |
To which context are you referring?
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 18:41 |
Epignosis wrote:
To which context are you referring?
|
The broader one.
|
|
What?
|
|
King of Loss
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16888
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 18:49 |
The Doctor wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
I think most of the people painting Obama this way are actually the ones who seem to be foaming at the mouth. |
I agree completely. |
He's a corporatist, which is very much the opposite of being a socialist.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 18:57 |
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
To which context are you referring?
|
The broader one. |
I was in agreement that an "extreme" measure can be the correct one. Unfortunately that term is used to immediately discredit a person or position.
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 19:25 |
King of Loss wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
I think most of the people painting Obama this way are actually the ones who seem to be foaming at the mouth. |
I agree completely. |
He's a corporatist, which is very much the opposite of being a socialist. |
Again, I agree completely. He is a corporatist. That's why I can't understand those who claim he's an extremist socialist. It makes me disapprove of democracy because then you have to let those people vote. 
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 19:30 |
|
The Obama/Democrats = Socialist thing is honestly one of the greatest scams of all time.
Its gotten to where I stop telling people why they are wrong and just call them stupid now.
Also it's my nature to be kinda peeved when words are just thrown around. Bama and both parties are indeed corporatists. Maybe they should just be the corporatist party and get rid of all the silly fighting that goes on!
Edit: To this day I've never gotten a good answer on how he is a Socialist. The near universal is "uh taking from the rich and giving to the poor" and this has come from educated smart people, the real horror.
I never knew every president we've had since Wilson was a socialist!
Edited by JJLehto - November 01 2012 at 19:32
|
|
King of Loss
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16888
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 21:44 |
The Doctor wrote:
King of Loss wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
I think most of the people painting Obama this way are actually the ones who seem to be foaming at the mouth. |
I agree completely. |
He's a corporatist, which is very much the opposite of being a socialist. |
Again, I agree completely. He is a corporatist. That's why I can't understand those who claim he's an extremist socialist. It makes me disapprove of democracy because then you have to let those people vote.
|
But we're free to elect our own corporate puppet dictators. 
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: November 01 2012 at 23:59 |
|
The Democratic party isn't entirely corporatist (I'm somewhat certain). What I would like is to see the Republican Party fade away, then have the Democratic party split in two, liberals and corporatized
I agree that the Socialist label is really strange. It just appeared all of the sudden right about the same time the Tea Party people came on stage. Obama is not a socialist. He's not even a liberal. Republicans do this with words though. Earlier on they found out that the public had a bad reaction to the word 'liberal' as a label. Dukakis lost his election because of the label. Republicans would insist that Clinton was a liberal when he clearly was not. When Obama got elected it seemed as though the public regarded the term 'liberal' as less of a pejorative. Presto! Someone hit Socialist as a pejorative. The pejorative came first. The actual rationale for the substance came second. That's as near as I can figure out.
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: November 02 2012 at 06:00 |
JJLehto wrote:
The Obama/Democrats = Socialist thing is honestly one of the greatest scams of all time. Its gotten to where I stop telling people why they are wrong and just call them stupid now. Also it's my nature to be kinda peeved when words are just thrown around. Bama and both parties are indeed corporatists. Maybe they should just be the corporatist party and get rid of all the silly fighting that goes on! Edit: To this day I've never gotten a good answer on how he is a Socialist. The near universal is "uh taking from the rich and giving to the poor" and this has come from educated smart people, the real horror. I never knew every president we've had since Wilson was a socialist!
|
Did you see the Stewart/O'Reilly debate? Stewart made a good point when he asked O'Reilly if he wanted to get rid of Social Security. When the answer was no, Stewart pointed out that O'Reilly is a socialist as well.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 02 2012 at 07:14 |
Once an extreme measure is attributed to an extremist view it becomes indelibly tainted. For example if extreme regulation of an industry or business sector is proposed there is a counter reaction from proponents of a free market economy because regulation is an extremist-tainted term, even if that extreme regulation is self-imposed, self-governed and self-regulated or if direct intervention has the desired positive effect; conversely extreme deregulation is also an extremist-tainted term even though some sectors (of the market or public service) could benefit from deregulation, or in the least, services will not be harmed by deregulation. Misconceptions about regulation and deregulation do not stem from the extreme measures themselves, but from the views of extremists. There is a gross misapplication of cause and effect that results in these misconceptions, especially in economics, seeing things in black and white so that cause A must result in effect B rather than effect A-prime (A')... (or more accurately effect B is perceived as the result of cause A since we can only measure effects). For example bank lending is governed by a myriad of causes (eg market forces, economic climate, regulation, investments, etc), if an increase in lending follows a change in regulation then proponents of deregulation will claim this occurred in spite of regulation while proponents of regulation will cite an immediate cause and effect victory (if that was the intended effect of regulation) and if lending decreases the opposite occurs.
Regulation and deregulation are extreme measures, just as nationalisation and privatisation are extreme measures - the perception is that the extremists will want to apply these carte blanche across the entire economy because what worked for one sector in a certain economic climate over a short time-interval will work for all sectors in all economic climates in perpetuity. Whether that is true or not is immaterial because examples of failures are far more damning - it is far easier to use examples of a particular philosophy failing than it is to use examples of a philosophy succeeding, therefore it is easier to discredit a measure you would philosophically oppose than it is to support it.
|
|
What?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 02 2012 at 07:24 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
The Obama/Democrats = Socialist thing is honestly one of the greatest scams of all time. Its gotten to where I stop telling people why they are wrong and just call them stupid now. Also it's my nature to be kinda peeved when words are just thrown around. Bama and both parties are indeed corporatists. Maybe they should just be the corporatist party and get rid of all the silly fighting that goes on! Edit: To this day I've never gotten a good answer on how he is a Socialist. The near universal is "uh taking from the rich and giving to the poor" and this has come from educated smart people, the real horror. I never knew every president we've had since Wilson was a socialist!
|
Did you see the Stewart/O'Reilly debate? Stewart made a good point when he asked O'Reilly if he wanted to get rid of Social Security. When the answer was no, Stewart pointed out that O'Reilly is a socialist as well. |
Which is why O'Reilly is not a good person to have at debates. He has inconsistent positions, unlike most of us who post here. Obama is a liberal, and continuing to say he is not does not change that. Perhaps by European standards he is pretty centrist, but compared to the median American he is quite far left. He is on record as supporting: • Higher taxes • Expanding federal government and employment indiscriminately • Gay marriage (the one thing he and I agree on) • Increased regulation on business • Keynesian monetary policy • Deference to the international community • Stronger labor unions (card check) • Late term and partial birth abortions • Cap and Trade carbon regulations • Government subsidies for "green" energy companies (that then go bankrupt) • Strict limits of campaign finance • Amnesty for illegal immigrants • Extending unemployment benefits (apparently indefinitely) • Government control of the health care market (which not a single republican voted for and was disapproved of my a majority of the country according to all opinion polls) All of those are liberal positions. All of them are Obama's positions. He's a liberal.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 02 2012 at 07:50 |
|
Liberal =/= Socialist.
|
|
What?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: November 02 2012 at 07:56 |
Dean wrote:
Liberal =/= Socialist. |
I never said otherwise. I was responding to HackettFan's claim that "Obama is not even a liberal" which I have heard repeated by others as well.
Edited by thellama73 - November 02 2012 at 07:59
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Political discussion thread
