Nah, I'm not dodging anything. Not wanting to change the subject isn't the same as dodging. I asked for a specific thing, and got a list of right-wing trigger words (safe spaces, etc.) and things that aren't accepted by the main stream left (equality of outcome, etc.).

Then you came in and started yelling about how I'm not addressing the fringe of the left because you didn't actually read the conversation.

You're trying to have a conversation I wasn't having and then throwing out insults for me not wanting to change the topic. We can talk about what things are actually accepted by the mainstream left if you want, or you can keep trying to change the topic to the fringe and I'll keep pointing out that you're insulting me for not wanting to change the topic.


Oh, and if you note I did acknowledge Duff's post, because he actually did post something that could reasonably be said to be "the mainstream left" that has issues.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 21 2020 11:03am

no, you're at the same time being too biased about what is in the mainstream of your party by being semantic and also ignoring pandering as being a part of the platform, when you hold both of these against right wingers.

basically what i said all long. you're just being semantic and refusing to accept anything unless it fits into Joe Biden's official platform, anything short of that and u chalk it up to trigger words.

i brought up right winger pandering to the KKK for a reason, but ur bias prevents you from seeing your hypocrisy. what can i expect from someone who thinks their party is the good one lol. left, right, doesnt matter. your both cut from the same cloth and incapable of being critical of yourselves, that costs too many points.

I'm not interested in just sitting and criticizing the fringe left because we would just sit here all day and agree that different fringe ideas are bad. That's why they're fringe. The left is the origin of new ideas and they get refined before they are brought into the fold.

I'm trying to have a conversation about that process, where ideas are toned down to be brought into the main stream, and you're desperate to get me to criticize the fringe and throwing out juvenile insults along the way. I asked XistenZ for a list of fringe ideas that are now mainstream, and I got a list that included ridiculous bullshit that isn't mainstream like mandated equality of outcomes. Then you jumped on how I'm just so biased that I won't criticize equality of outcome.



And you should look at Levee's posts again, because he agreed with both of us back to back, specifically agreeing with me on the post that got you so triggered.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 21 2020 11:14am

Normally adults with an iq of 70 or so and above handle it like this:

-person a makes claim
-person b asks what definitions they're using for the terms in said claim
-person a defines
-person b redefines
-conversation continues along agreed upon definitions

you two seem fairly in line with what your definition of what "fringe" beliefs are, but you're using too restrictive of a definition for mainstream. when we have national democratic candidates pandering to the fringe in order to garner votes and that same pandering leeches into policy in a process you simply chalk up to "refining" i'd say that is the mainstream. if mainstream is nothing but specific policies put forth by national POTUS candidates that's a very tight definition that is biased towards your side of the argument. we have entire states acting on fringe rhetoric, mayors afraid to shut down safe spacer, sanctuary cities built on safe space ideology, BLM protesters calling for police to leave inner cities to create safe spaces, etc. when it's happening all across the nation it's mainstream. and how many years have leftists called southern US right wing politics mainstream because northern conservatives pander to those narratives to keep an electoral chance at winning? how many people call out refusal to denounce the KKK as mainstream to the right, etc.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 21 2020 11:26am

You could make this a lot easier even, by simply agreeing mutually to stop using the word that’s being argued about.

The "national democratic" candidate got beaten pretty thoroughly both times, and some aspects of his platform got incorporated into the more moderate candidate's platform. Seems like that's the process in action. If Bernie's policies were main-stream on the left, I think Biden would have likely lost. Still though, that depends how you define your "main stream left". I'd argue that it lies a bit to the left of where Biden and Obama campaign, but not where they actually end up while governing.

I don't see it as specific policies put forth by national POTUS candidates. That would bias the "main stream left" to being too far right, I agree, but the "mainstream left" is also hard to pin down in the United States since there isn't really a political party that represents it the way the mainstream right is represented.

Sanctuary cities have existed for decades. In what way are they built on safe space ideology?
I don't see BLM calling for police to leave as being based on "safe spaces". They are literally protesting violence by the police, who are also abusing the protesters. Seems a stretch to call that "safe space ideology" unless you're taking an incredibly broad idea of what "safe space" means, and I think the "Mayors won't shut down safe space" just come from this misunderstanding as well.

"Safe spaces" as implemented by the actual main stream left are places where people of a group can go and be supported or not discriminated against. They've been used for a very long time in things like therapy and support organizations, where specific language isn't allowed because it's seen as harassing or detrimental. The biggest change in implementing "safe spaces" since 2010 has been to give it the name "safe space" and generalize it out beyond very limited places like AA meetings and group therapy. I mean hell, my in-laws house is a "safe space" for my father in law because I'm not allowed to criticize conservatism there or he will get angry and lash out. I don't see CHOP as an extension of safe spaces because it's more based on anarchism or whatever than "safe spaces", and regardless CHOP isn't exactly widely supported by the mainstream left.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 21 2020 11:54am

i'm not sure how that helps in this context. if person A claims "fringe ideas are creeping into the mainstream of democratic policies", and person B challenges this, they can't just avoid the definition of the word "mainstream". it's critical to the person's claim. just as critical as the phrase "fringe ideas". if the two people can't come up with a mutual definition then their disagreement is semantic, if only one person is willing to flush out the definitions that person is likely using semantics to steer the argument to a place they win.



reading this it just sounds like your definitions for "mainstream" are just for more specific than what Black was referencing, and piggy backing on that you're looking for a direct 1:1 or close jump from ideology to policy.

if black was claiming that national potus candidates will soon be calling for the abolition of ICE, gender neutral bathrooms, and defunding the police in an absolute sense your definitions would be very valid. given that i read his posts to mean that fringe ideology is creeping into policy in sneaky ways, that pandering is out of control, and this accelerates the rate of progression democrats generally want to make i dont think they're that valid.

to me anyone who's a prominent member of the liberal sphere at the level of congressperson, governor, mayor of a major city, and obviously POTUS candidates, fall into the main stream. and using a 1:1 connection for ideology ignores the watering down AND the fact that concepts from things like therapy and social work are used for different contexts when making policy. this happens all the time, labeling theory is used to justify hate speech legislation, etc. in the case of BLM, they see safe spaces, claim the ghetto needs to be a safe space because fear of cops is so great, and call for the removal of cops. this doesnt mean that if "safe spaces" didnt exist they wouldn't still be asking for this. safe spaces were introduced into academia from therapy, and then further inspired legislation ideas in politics and policing. also safe spaces have been used at protests, specifically on campuses, where many of these BLM think tanks come up with their ideas.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 21 2020 01:48pm

And if you want to talk about the bold, we can do that, but that's just not the conversation we were having.

Safe spaces are absolutely appropriate for college campuses. If an organization wants to hold meetings and designate it a "safe space" there's nothing wrong with that. They have the right to exclude from their meetings or else there's no club or organization. The real issue with "safe spaces" I've seen is where they aren't appropriate, like trying to designate a huge area a "safe space" when it's effectively public space, like what was done in Columbia MO where they tried to exclude reporters and make a "journalism free" area. Interestingly though, the journalism professor that tried that got fired, so I don't harp on it because it was solved pretty quickly. I think the current "exclusion of police" would have happened regardless, and is more based on physical threat than any abstract "safe space ideology".

Like I said, I see a "mainstream left" to be inherently difficult to pin down in America. My main contention with XistenZ's list is that it included things like "equality of outcomes" that isn't accepted by any reasonable definition of "mainstream left" and is used as a boogeyman by the right. To me, that inclusion was pretty good evidence that he wasn't approaching the topic honestly and was being, as was describing himself, contrarian.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 21 2020 02:10pm

safe spaces in therapy are used as a way to heal without getting triggered, safe spaces on campus were created for the same purpose but have been perverted on many occasions. this perversion keeps the safe concept but alters the threat, where before it was language that illicit trauma it's now being used to protect against ideas that aren't connected to trauma, just a divergent political view. in the same way the physical threat of police is being used to change the threat, but the concept remains the same. but that's a dead horse so lets stop beating it.

as to equality of outcomes i find black to be correct being that outcomes are always the metric used to drive arguments for the left. if they dont want equality of outcomes then why reference outcomes so much? do u really think we'll get to a place where schools are fixed, but we still have less black doctors, and liberals will say "well they have the same opportunities so we dont need to do more"?

we hear this daily, not enough female CEOs, not enough black male oscar winners, not enough female women of color in congress, etc. in the binary of "equality of outcomes" vs "meritocracy" liberals unflinchingly shy away from meritocracy in any example i can think of. i mean Biden announced hed have a woman of color VP just to pander.

Oh, I see the issue with the "equal outcomes" stuff. We're looking at different scales. Having equal access at the micro level is important even if individuals with equal opportunity don't have the same outcome, but by allowing the micro level to have equal opportunity it will result in the macro level having equal outcomes. I.e. Everybody having equal access to being a doctor doesn't mean that all who try will be doctors, but it does mean that the final amount of doctors would be proportional unless there's a systematic issue.

If it's not a systemic issue then you're left with biology... at which point you're trending towards eugenics style of thought where different races are genetically distinct in their desirable traits.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 21 2020 04:57pm