A brilliant take on the Regressive Left

[Mac1958]

Her concept of the intent of 1A is spot on...as is her assessment of free speech as practiced here in the US. The Bernie-Trump comparison was a good example.

It's easier to craft well intentioned boxes for groups of people than it is to respect those individuals who choose to climb out and go a different way. The vitriol directed toward women and minorities who reject the 'stereotypes' of the Regressive Left is any thing but representative of the classic Liberal Way.

I very much agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's statement (paraphrased) - the government must never be allowed to enact laws where some ideas cannot be criticized.

She and Maajid Nawaz, two brave souls fighting for an Islamist Reformation, are all but begging the Regressives to stop making things even more difficult for them. They can't understand why liberals are doing this, and it's why Nawaaz refers to them as the Regressive Left - these people have abandoned liberalism in favor of the most regressive religion (religion!) on the planet. They are not liberals, they are illiberal.
.

 

[Pogo]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.

I don't think you can predict what I will have said in post 41, if the thread even lasts that long.

I simply asked for an example of your premise. Here we are 20 posts and four more invitations later and you still can't think of any. Zero. Given that, we must assume that premise doesn't exist in the real world and is therefore a Strawman.

It ain't rocket surgery. If you can't articulate your point --- you don't have one.

 

[Mac1958]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.

I don't think you can predict what I will have said in post 41, if the thread even lasts that long.

I simply asked for an example of your premise. Here we are 20 posts later and you still can't think of any. Zero. Given that, we must assume it doesn't exist.

It ain't rocket surgery. If you can't articulate your point --- you don't have one.

Great, thanks.

By the way, does the lady in the OP have a point?
.

 

[Pogo]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.

I don't think you can predict what I will have said in post 41, if the thread even lasts that long.

I simply asked for an example of your premise. Here we are 20 posts later and you still can't think of any. Zero. Given that, we must assume it doesn't exist.

It ain't rocket surgery. If you can't articulate your point --- you don't have one.

Great, thanks.

By the way, does the lady in the OP have a point?

No idea. I haven't watched the video. Because I'm still waiting for the premise.

 

[Mac1958]

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.

I don't think you can predict what I will have said in post 41, if the thread even lasts that long.

I simply asked for an example of your premise. Here we are 20 posts later and you still can't think of any. Zero. Given that, we must assume it doesn't exist.

It ain't rocket surgery. If you can't articulate your point --- you don't have one.

Great, thanks.

By the way, does the lady in the OP have a point?

No idea. I haven't watched the video. Because I'm still waiting for the premise.

Ah, so you're just trolling.

Shocker!
.

 

[Pogo]

Suppose I started a thread that proposed "Here's a brilliant take on the racist right!" and bubbled about some video that made that point.

And you came in and said "can you give an example of this racist right?

And I said "humma humma humma"

And you said, "that's not a premise. I'm asking for your premise for the title you starte with. Can you cite some?"

And I said "humma humma, go look up the following people for their take on it".

And you said, "that's still not an example of your premise. Do you even have one?"

And I said, "whatever I cited wouldn't be enough, and furthermore humma"

And you said, "Just show me an example. Give us a starting point".

And I said, "I don't play these games. You're trolling".

Whelp--- that's where we are. Going nowhere.

/thread

 

[Mac1958]

The Regressives do hate this topic.


.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Freedom!

Personal liberty!

 

[LoneLaugher]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.
.

I am an honest, decent liberal. And you are a passive aggressive message board troll.

Let's embrace each other for what we are.

 

[Mac1958]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.
.

I am an honest, decent liberal. And you are a passive aggressive message board troll.

Let's embrace each other for what we are.

They just gotta make it about me.

I love it. Always a good sign.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.
.

I am an honest, decent liberal. And you are a passive aggressive message board troll.

Let's embrace each other for what we are.

They just gotta make it about me.

I love it. Always a good sign.
.

Of course. You don't like this topic. I understand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Holy crap, this lady constantly blows my mind. I used to say I had three favorite thinkers - Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Sam Harris and Camille Paglia - but I have to change it to four.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an incredibly brave woman who is fighting for a modern Islamic Reformation, and is (not at all coincidentally) under regular attacks from the Regressives as a result.

Here, she and honest liberal Dave Rubin (former member of The Young Turks) discuss the behaviors of the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

At 6:14, she says: "It used to be the Left that would take up the defense of the weak. And now, unfortunately, we live in a time when it is the Left that has decided to define weak units as groups and not as individuals."

Brilliant, brave lady.

Jesus, one more brilliant thread by the most closeted RW'er in the history of politics.

 

[Pete7469]

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Bed wetters like pogo are as intellectually curious as a goldfish. Not only will he not look anything up, he will belittle the source of information in order to marginalize it in hopes others will ignore it as well.

 

[Moonglow]

What your fallacy is is posting what a few people say and thinking millions agree and follow..

 

[Mac1958]

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Bed wetters like pogo are as intellectually curious as a goldfish. Not only will he not look anything up, he will belittle the source of information in order to marginalize it in hopes others will ignore it as well.

Yes, I get that all the time, and that's why I no longer bother trying to educate those who pretend not to know what I'm talking about. I showed him where to go online, I even showed him what to TYPE IN. They know precisely what I/we are talking about.

There's a wealth of material to back up what I'm saying, but it's never "good enough" because it shines the light on them. And I only use liberals to make points about the Regressives, so they can't attack & dismiss the source as being just from some conservative.

I (and the list of honest liberals I always provide) have them nailed on this, and that's why they get so pissy with me. These are not liberals.
.

 

[Mac1958]

More from another honest liberal, Douglas Murray:

"I'm a gay man, I'd love to have gay marriage, approved by the Catholic Church. They're not going to. Meantime, I really, really wish these people would reserve their ire for the people who don't just want to stop me from getting married, but want to throw me off a CLIFF."

 

[Pogo]

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Bed wetters like pogo are as intellectually curious as a goldfish. Not only will he not look anything up, he will belittle the source of information in order to marginalize it in hopes others will ignore it as well.

I don't NEED to "look anything up" Goober --- I didn't make the ass-ertion here The OP did that, and he can't back it up.

Me, I never post an assertion I'm not ready to back up. That's why my arguments are honest and this one isn't.

 

[jc456]

What your fallacy is is posting what a few people say and thinking millions agree and follow..

and shit, I thought he was admiring someone. Isn't that what happens mostly in a message board? hmmm, why are you here then?

 

[AntonToo]

Holy crap, this lady constantly blows my mind. I used to say I had three favorite thinkers - Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Sam Harris and Camille Paglia - but I have to change it to four.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an incredibly brave woman who is fighting for a modern Islamic Reformation, and is (not at all coincidentally) under regular attacks from the Regressives as a result.

Here, she and honest liberal Dave Rubin (former member of The Young Turks) discuss the behaviors of the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

At 6:14, she says: "It used to be the Left that would take up the defense of the weak. And now, unfortunately, we live in a time when it is the Left that has decided to define weak units as groups and not as individuals."

Brilliant, brave lady.

What is the point of your parsing out regressives if you jump all in on broad-brushing statements about The Left?

 

[Mac1958]

Holy crap, this lady constantly blows my mind. I used to say I had three favorite thinkers - Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Sam Harris and Camille Paglia - but I have to change it to four.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an incredibly brave woman who is fighting for a modern Islamic Reformation, and is (not at all coincidentally) under regular attacks from the Regressives as a result.

Here, she and honest liberal Dave Rubin (former member of The Young Turks) discuss the behaviors of the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

At 6:14, she says: "It used to be the Left that would take up the defense of the weak. And now, unfortunately, we live in a time when it is the Left that has decided to define weak units as groups and not as individuals."

Brilliant, brave lady.

What the fuck is the point of your parsing out Regressives if you jump all in on broad-brushing statements about The left?

Because the Regressives are repellent to me, and partially responsible for Trump being in the White House.

And fortunately, that opinion does not require your approval.

Thanks for asking.
.