Right-wing Extremism = courage to define themselves

[OODA_Loop]

I didn't do so to have fun, it fits with what I've learned since posting on this message board and reading how Callous Conservatives despise the poor, working poor, union workers, government workers and most minorities.

Are you 100% certain that your perceived reality is reality all of the time ?

 

[Dubya]

I didn't do so to have fun, it fits with what I've learned since posting on this message board and reading how Callous Conservatives despise the poor, working poor, union workers, government workers and most minorities.

Are you 100% certain that your perceived reality is reality all of the time ?

His reality puts you in the "a couple of dozen others" category, just like my reality does.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I didn't do so to have fun, it fits with what I've learned since posting on this message board and reading how Callous Conservatives despise the poor, working poor, union workers, government workers and most minorities.

Are you 100% certain that your perceived reality is reality all of the time ?

His reality puts you in the "a couple of dozen others" category, just like my reality does.

But in your reality "******" is a pejorative that rolls of the tongue and fingers with ease.

Context is paramount.

 

[Dubya]

Are you 100% certain that your perceived reality is reality all of the time ?

His reality puts you in the "a couple of dozen others" category, just like my reality does.

But in your reality "******" is a pejorative that rolls of the tongue and fingers with ease.

Context is paramount.

In reality, PM me again and see what I call you! I'll fill the page with the word.

 

[OODA_Loop]

His reality puts you in the "a couple of dozen others" category, just like my reality does.

But in your reality "******" is a pejorative that rolls of the tongue and fingers with ease.

Context is paramount.

In reality, PM me again and see what I call you! I'll fill the page with the word.

When abject racial slurs dont work what can you turn to ?

Are you raising children ?

 

[blackhawk]

The only opinion of you that truly matters is the one you have of yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I was going through some of my old posts when I found something I wrote a few years ago:

I've found that many liberals really dislike admitting that they're liberals. I don't mean that they would rather pretend to be conservative, but I think they hate admitting that they're liberals because that would suggest they're biased and partisan and perhaps even closed-minded to other ideologies. It's the Jon Stewart "restore sanity" BS. Of course "sanity" means "criticizing Republicans and Democrats who embarrass us". They love to decry conservatives for being incurious and hidebound by ideology, and conversely pretend that they have researched the facts and have come to what they feel is the smart, rational, logical conclusion, but that's not the case. They'd rather believe they're just smart and logical and truth-seekers rather than partisan hacks.

I'd forgotten I even wrote that, but I got a few Thanks' and repped for that post. I'm reposting it because I think it's part and parcel of the reason why it seems people are still so concerned about right-wing extremism and seemingly in disbelief that liberals could ever be extremist, given recent events with this cop-killer dude on the loose.

I've always had two thoughts when it came to the idea of right-wing extremism: 1) it's not as serious as liberals make it out to be...they just like painting us as crazy to make their ideas more tenable to people in the middle; and 2) to the extent that right-wing rhetoric is more animated than liberal rhetoric these days, it's probably due to the fact that each side has to have a period of that to figure out what they stand for and how to achieve their goals...liberals had their period of violence and extremist rhetoric in the 60s and 70s, which is where many of their ideas came out of.

But, I think it's something else, too. I think conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans are castigated as "extremist" because they dare to define themselves. Think about it. How often do liberals admit to being liberal? How often do Democrats call one of their own a "liberal"? How often has Obama called himself "liberal"?

Think about how offended liberals get whenever people accuse Obama and the Democrats of supporting socialist policies. Why is that? Socialism is an actual thing that exists. There's even a voting member of Congress who identifies as a socialist (Bernie Sanders).

Think about how, day after day, all the main hosts on MSNBC do is point to the sins of the Republican Party and conservative ideology, and yet, how often has Maddow or Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews called themselves a liberal? Jon Stewart does nothing but criticize Republicans and FOX News for being crazy, he had a "Rally to Restore Sanity", and yet, only when he's pinned down, will he admit he "has a bias".

How often do you hear about people warning the far-left about their extremist rhetoric? It's almost like they don't exist.

It really seems like the only place liberals have the courage to call themselves what they are is through the anonymity of the Internet.

Contrast that coyness with the right-wing. All we do is define ourselves. We wave our conservative banner proudly. We call ourselves libertarian. We make our representatives call themselves conservative or libertarian. We gravitate to people who proudly define themselves as such. Our ideas about government -- less taxes, less spending, less regulation, conservative social policy, etc -- are all apart of who we are. We have disagreements and fights about how much is too much, but we don't shy away from labeling ourselves with vague language...and that's our problem.

If you agree with our ideas, you're probably a conservative. At the very least, you aren't a liberal. But see, a lot of people don't like what being a conservative implies, or liberal for that matter, implies. So they hedge on defining themselves. So what liberals do is wrap up their ideas in the conceits of "intellect". Their ideas about soaking the rich in taxes, universal healthcare, more spending on the environment, etc. aren't "liberal", no, it's what any person who feels, thinks, respects science, respects math, respects facts, has common sense and the ability to use logic would conclude about the world. "Smart people" vote for Democrats, "conservatives" vote for Republicans, see what I mean?

The problem is, our ideas, conservative though they may be, are also based in fact and logic. I think that's why older people tend to be conservative; they no longer need the social validation of siding with the "smart crowd", which means they're free to actually make up their own minds and see things for what they are.

I think a lot of it has to do with the way political ideologies are classified and the way people believe a different ideology behaves, when they really don't understand it. There are politicians that are hard core conservatives and liberals, but they aren't extremists. I imagine the same is true with libertarians and statists, but I don't have much experience with statists. Once someone is an extremist, they really don't represent the ideology anymore, though they may agree or approve of some aspects of the root ideology, they identify with.

On an issue by issue basis, I'm going to share positions that are typically held by liberals, conservatives and libertarians, so collectively I fall into the moderate, liberal and libertarian corner. Collectively, it's far from being a conservative, but it isn't near being a hard core liberal. Moderates are also a political ideology, though it is often treated as if they don't exist or represent an ideology. Moderates do not like extremism of any kind and I doubt it's possible to be an extreme moderate for that reason.

I see problems in your analysis about liberals. The word liberal lost popularity because it has a duel meaning of permissive. Libertarians are the most permissive of any political ideology, so progressive conveys more of what liberals stand for than a word meaning permissive.

Radicals or extremists are more of a threat to their root ideology than they are to the opposing ideology. The reason is simply both left and right have to compete to attract the middle moderates and they are turned off by extremists. When you start factoring in how many people don't have much or any concern about politics, that middle ground can include a large group of people. Another factor when it comes to a person's political ideology is how the person views themselves and what they truly are. It's been my experience that liberals usually know they are liberals, but conservatives include many who are moderate and libertarians.

One of the things to consider is that radicals have to recruit from that root ideology, but there is a big difference in how radicals have recruited in the '60s and now. When the left recruited in the '60s, it was done on an individual basis, where a radical would approach a liberal and see if they agreed with them, or tried to push them to be an extremists, but today the right has an intentional collective approach to radicalize in bulk. There weren't left-wing think tanks preaching propaganda back then, but there are right-wing think tanks preaching propaganda now. Radicalizing the right is an organized campaign and the radicalization of the '60s was disorganized. One reason for the difference may be that liberals have a hatred for group think and are very independent minded despite how their opposition tries to portray them. Liberals aren't the type who will listen to a liberal Rush Limbaugh and that's why left-wing radio is rarely going to be successful in any form. Liberals also tend to be less interested in politics than conservatives, they are often highly educated and would rather spend time in their field, which isn't politics.

Is the radicalization of the right a threat? Hell, no it isn't! They will never get enough support for it to amount to anything, but the effort to do it just can't see that simple reality. It will hurt the right-wing, but it isn't threat to the left-wing.

Qball, you make the same mistake a lot of people do and that's to underestimate the size of the middle. Too many people only see a black and white world when it comes to political ideology and that assessment is way off reality. The right-wing will lose support by distancing themselves from right-wing extremism, but to not do it is political suicide and that is a fact. Don't ever underestimate the hatred moderates have for extremists or it will come back and bite you in the ass! Just because there aren't many moderates in political forums doesn't mean they aren't the major power in this country.

I agree with most of what you posted and particularly with your sense of the middle - that great silent majority exists, they fear extreme political ideologies, and the politics of hate and fear.

As the GOP continues to drift to the right, more and more moderate Americans will continue to drift away. As the children of baby boomer's marry and the boomer's first grandchild is a shade or two darker than their own child, a GOP stuck in the 20th Century will be fade away, unless they embrace change.

Today some members of the GOP leadership understand they must change their rhetoric, but today that is too little too late. Those who patronize others are despised as much or maybe more as those who openly express hate and fear.

 

[Qball]

Listen up, Libs! You must call yourselves "Liberal"! And by that, I mean limp-wristed, socialist, tax and spend NAZI's who are weak on defense, hate our country and want to impose sharia law.

OP...........you are not acknowledging the fact that 20 years of propaganda administered by crafty fuckers like Carl Rove and Newt Gingrich effectively altered the meaning of the term "liberal" in Americam political discourse.

It worked well. But not well enough. The word is being reclaimed. Your OP barely scratches the surface of the matter. And that.......is very "conservative" of you.

The word is being "reclaimed" by who? I'm not saying for liberals to call themselves that just so they can be seen as bad people, though I would suggest that fear of being pigeonholed by the more extreme of their ilk is precisely why many liberals refuse to call themselves that. I can sort of understand that, but then, the culture of pigeonholing an entire group based on that group's outliers is exactly what liberals do to conservatives. In fact, it exists specifically because of that same group.

 

[Qball]

Qball?

The fact that you imagine that anybody can define what they are and what they believe in ONE WORD is the problem.

Are you really entirely 100% in agreement with every detail and position of the GOP?

You are more than a simplistic label, are you not?

Well so is everyone else.

It isn't that one word encapsulates every political belief we have. It's that we're not afraid to call it what it is, generally speaking. It's not somehow more honest to avoid actually labeling your beliefs as something because that term may not describe every belief you have. And my point here is that liberals try and define their beliefs by what makes them look better than those who disagree with them, instead of the more official term that already exists.

What "official term"?

Who is the "offical" that defines what the word's conservative or liberal mean?

Am I what you believe a liberal is?

How do you know?

I might (almost definitely) agree with you on some issues and completely disagree with you on others.

I am not a label. Nobody really is.

Labels like that are designed to make YOU and ME stop thinking and start EMOTING.

No, they're not designed to that. I think you're looking at this as me demanding liberals to superficially label themselves, when it's closer to me noting liberals often fail to define their beliefs outside of what they are not and how awful people who disagree with them are.

If I have a set of beliefs about small-government, that makes me a conservative (or libertarian). It doesn't mean that's all their is to me or my beliefs, but it does mean those beliefs are tethered to some type of broader philosophical or sociological notion that I have decided I mostly agree with, but that is obviously up for debate and is not infallible. When you forgo that admission to say your beliefs are just what any sane, reasonable person would rationalize, you're basically taking the debate out of the question.

 

[Obamanation]

A jihadist says the same.

I think it's funny when somebody calls me an extremist. Sure don't know how God, family, Country, and hard work makes me extreme. It's the exact same value system our Nation was founded on and still the most common set of core values in our Country.

The left likes to arbitrarily call us extreme, but ask them to focalize that. They will start fumbling for certain. There are very few right wing extremist in America. In fact most Ind. and a lot of Democrats are conservative on most issues. They just have one or two issues they use to point their votes left. Typically, those issues aren't the most important for the Country - they are most important to the individual.

That type of self-serving attitude, well...

See what I mean... now, I'm a jihadist --- great focalization Jake! you summed me up nicely...

 

[JakeStarkey]

A jihadist says the same.

I think it's funny when somebody calls me an extremist. Sure don't know how God, family, Country, and hard work makes me extreme. It's the exact same value system our Nation was founded on and still the most common set of core values in our Country.

The left likes to arbitrarily call us extreme, but ask them to focalize that. They will start fumbling for certain. There are very few right wing extremist in America. In fact most Ind. and a lot of Democrats are conservative on most issues. They just have one or two issues they use to point their votes left. Typically, those issues aren't the most important for the Country - they are most important to the individual.

That type of self-serving attitude, well...

See what I mean... now, I'm a jihadist --- great focalization Jake! you summed me up nicely...

You exhibit the same personality and process of any worthy jihadist. Be proud of what you are, don't apologize or back up.

 

[Obamanation]

A jihadist says the same.

See what I mean... now, I'm a jihadist --- great focalization Jake! you summed me up nicely...

You exhibit the same personality and process of any worthy jihadist. Be proud of what you are, don't apologize or back up.

haha - I guess this means you aren't interested in having a fair exchange of ideas and ideals - just attacking this extreme right wingnut.

what is it? allah ackbar!

 

[JakeStarkey]

See what I mean... now, I'm a jihadist --- great focalization Jake! you summed me up nicely...

You exhibit the same personality and process of any worthy jihadist. Be proud of what you are, don't apologize or back up.

haha - I guess this means you aren't interested in having a fair exchange of ideas and ideals - just attacking this extreme right wingnut. what is it? allah ackbar!

Know your self! Good for you. You can't have "a fair exchange of ideas and ideals" because you are a reactionary. No different that way than a lefty.