Another day, another killing by a right wing fringe group

[Ed Oscuro]

Cool, I see escadrille spent a good few hours putting his mad ESL skillz to use. Next time I'm in the dock on Law & Order I'll take the public defender because his comic timing is terrible

However, what you fail to realize is that I can also claim that there is a massive amount of conservative extremism on the internet, filth of an even more violent and racist nature than what is lapped up daily by conservative book-buyers and radio-listeners.

I find it endlessly amusing that some people will write what is completely obvious, and then attack people who bring out other topical points as being "missing the point." Uh, no, I'm just talking about other things which certainly fit within the greater discussion.

I see what you refer to daily when reading the comments sections of American news sites, and I doubt anybody reading this thread contends that radical right-wingers don't make fools of themselves daily on the news sites (that being a comments thread I would have expected to have more calls for cop killings - but looking at the first couple pages of comments it's just more anti-black foolishness). The incivility of their posts are certainly not beneficial to democratic society, but that's not just because they're spreading hate (which doesn't alter the thinking of many), but because they often undermine the foundation of democratic debate. I often think that some of the most absurd commentators I see on the 'net (i.e. "Obama is a Disease," the supposedly pro-Catholic, anti-abortion firebrand who spammed incessantly on one comments thread at ABC news or somewhere back around the time of the President's speech to Notre Dame) have to be spoilers intended to discredit various groups.

Look at that San Francisco Gate comments thread again - are people taking up arms against unruly black people? No, because reading some stupid shit on the 'net does not install a reverse morals chip in your brain, contrary to what Escadrille seems to think.

More to the point, are they talking about positive ways the Bay Area community can allow all its members to live in respect for each other and the law? Yes, but it seems to me a sizable portion of them are taking time out to chastise certain racist comments (deleted long ago), instead of discussing other positive steps that they could take, or addressing other inequities in the covering of racial news (i.e. dealing with the issue that more black-white violence in the States is perpetrated against whites by blacks than the reverse). It's not wasted breath, exactly, to call out a racist, but it's not the height of what society can aspire to.

My comment that leftist agitation is "equally annoying" makes perfect sense when you consider that, as a normal person, I hate to see people who self-identify as "liberals" calling for cop killings; it's merely a personal evaluation of a single comment versus another. The worst leftist comment is bound to be on par with the worst right-wing comment. I didn't say all leftist agitation, nor did I compare the balance of right-wing to leftist agitation. Somebody's been reading too much into my comments.

My concern, and the concern of anybody with half a left hemisphere, is that the effect of "squeezing out the moderates" means that normal-thinking people will have less of a chance to consider arguments on their merits, instead of simply on political considerations. This effect is seen dramatically in parts of the Middle East.

Of course, I'm sure that Escadrille will complain that I'm "missing the point" if I say that we need not only to worry about the prevalence of hateful right-wing rhetoric (he's also going to point it out again because he didn't notice where I affirm it is a problem; that's never been debated), or the undermining effects of left-wing ideology (not as big a menace, but the less hateful ideology on all sides, the better), and also of false-flag societal engineering carried out by people pretending to be one thing or another, but finally also of the confusion around simple ideas which are often no longer being argued on their merits but merely as a matter of their proponents.

Leftist unrest is obviously not a major part of contemporary American society, as it was during roughly the last quarter of the 19th and first quarter of the 20th centuries (a point I made repeatedly just because I could but mainly to put the lie to comments that right-wing agitation is flat-out "worse"), nor am I a proponent of witch hunts against untoward "thoughtcrimes."

This all begs the question that, after having established all these threats (and others besides), what the hell are ya gonna do about it? I guess arguing with fellow left-of-center types about what they do or don't understand about the other side on a shooters messageboard is being proposed as a solution to the problem by Escadrille. For myself, I like to find out what other people are thinking and collectively reach understanding, instead of pretending that I have the wisdom and legal training of the ages and all others should bow deeply before me.

Also, I'm betting that his next post will use a synonym for "screed" (even though I've mainly been posting historical fact and very little subjective commentary, at least until this post) and will have at least five pairs of quote tags - that or he never posts in the thread again. Nothing broadcasts maturity and security of one's opinion like attempting to attack every single sentence. The symptom of an inability to focus on more than two sentences at a time seems mildly schizophrenic.

Considering the topic is political extremism and killing, I'm surprised it took this long for Godwin's Law to take effect.

Consider that
a.) the thread is still alive, and
b.) nobody but me is paying attention to you, and I'm finding more interest in what the others are talking about
c.) PROTIP: one sentence replies need to be witty quips in order to be worthwhile. Otherwise you should try making points like a normal human being does, i.e. by making statements and providing evidence aside from "your logic failz." You didn't even stick "QED, bitch" at the end of any of them, so their worth is reduced further.

[escadrille]

Cool, I see escadrille spent a good few hours putting his mad ESL skillz to use.

Some kind of racist reference perhaps? Charming.

However, what you fail to realize is that I can also claim that there is a massive amount of conservative extremism on the internet, filth of an even more violent and racist nature than what is lapped up daily by conservative book-buyers and radio-listeners.

I find it endlessly amusing that some people will write what is completely obvious, and then attack people who bring out other topical points as being "missing the point." Uh, no, I'm just talking about other things which certainly fit within the greater discussion.

A lie. I was pointing out that your claims of widespread leftist extremism on the internet is an illogical argument, since the same claim can be made about right-wing extremism on the internet. Your comments not only did not aid your argument, but are detrimental to it. If you can ever recall what your argument was.

Look at that San Francisco Gate comments thread again - are people taking up arms against unruly black people? No, because reading some stupid shit on the 'net does not install a reverse morals chip in your brain, contrary to what Escadrille seems to think.

A lie. I never made this claim. My position what that conservative extremist rhetoric is more prolific and more violent that liberal extremist rhetoric. A point which you have struggled pathetically to refute.

My comment that leftist agitation is "equally annoying"

One of my initial statements what that conservative and liberal rhetoric is equally annoying. You started this dispute by commenting on this position, introducing the subject of killing. You don't seem to even understand what your own position and the relative positions of others are.

Leftist unrest is obviously not a major part of contemporary American society, as it was during roughly the last quarter of the 19th and first quarter of the 20th centuries (a point I made repeatedly just because I could but mainly to put the lie to comments that right-wing agitation is flat-out "worse"), nor am I a proponent of witch hunts against untoward "thoughtcrimes."

Perhaps you should elaborate on this or any other historical arguments you seek to make. I think your vagueness is intentional in order to mask your lack of understanding of this subject. Make a serious historical argument and I will be happy to correct all of the errors or outright lies you are sure to produce.

Also, I'm betting that his next post will use a synonym for "screed" (even though I've mainly been posting historical fact and very little subjective commentary, at least until this post) and will have at least five pairs of quote tags - that or he never posts in the thread again. Nothing broadcasts maturity and security of one's opinion like attempting to attack every single sentence. The symptom of an inability to focus on more than two sentences at a time seems mildly schizophrenic.

I like that you call my very sanity into question, a nice balance to your earlier racist implications. Clearly without any capability for honest or logical debate you are quickly reduced to the vague pronouncement and the lazy ad hominem.

I will indeed continue to correct your falsehoods and errors line-by-line, so that they are better exposed and understood.

I would not use the word "screed." Perhaps "tantrum" would be appropriate. I am increasingly convsinced that I am talking to a child.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, I won my bet. Hey Escadrille, you owe me a dollar now. I'm being generous; I was tempted to say $50 (plus a bonus of $10).

Cool, I see escadrille spent a good few hours putting his mad ESL skillz to use.

Some kind of racist reference perhaps? Charming.

You meant to say "ethnocentrism," or linguacentrism if you want to be "precise." You ought to work on just reading things carefully instead of rushing off to lecture people about every skill (reasoning, language) you haven't been employing to notable effect.

A lie. I was pointing out that your claims of widespread leftist extremism on the internet is an illogical argument, since the same claim can be made about right-wing extremism on the internet.

You really seem to want to make that claim. For goodness sake; drop the other shoe and just say it. As I've said, endless times, and not at all vaguely (as you keep claiming), I don't disagree that conservativism, and thus the right-wing ideology at its fringe, is more widespread, but that doesn't mean that leftist rants are non-noteworthy (look at that, could that be an articulated argument!?). Remember this is the Internet we're talking about; every silly thought is magnified a thousand times by the sheer volume of people posting it.

Your comments not only did not aid your argument, but are detrimental to it. If you can ever recall what your argument was.

I posted it very clearly, in a single paragraph, in my last post. Try putting your amazing skills in "trained English" to find out what it was! Report back immediately.

You're not drawing me into this childish game of writing two-sentence non-rebuttals; they don't advance the discussion or the common good, and it's simply beneath me. It's not beneath you, apparently.

Look at that San Francisco Gate comments thread again - are people taking up arms against unruly black people? No, because reading some stupid shit on the 'net does not install a reverse morals chip in your brain, contrary to what Escadrille seems to think.

A lie. I never made this claim. My position what that conservative extremist rhetoric is more prolific and more violent that liberal extremist rhetoric. A point which you have struggled pathetically to refute.

I haven't ever tried to refute it, can you not get that through your cranium?

Yes, it's a "lie" when I do it, but a "simple misunderstanding" when you do it. Got it.

[escadrille]

Well, I won my bet. Hey Escadrille, you owe me a dollar now. I'm being generous; I was tempted to say $50 (plus a bonus of $10).

Since I have systematically corrected your falsehoods numerous times before, it was not hard to predict that I would do so again. You keep pointing this out, so it obviously strikes a nerve. Perhaps you haven't realized that the best way to avoid this is to stop making false or ridiculous statements.

Cool, I see escadrille spent a good few hours putting his mad ESL skillz to use.

Some kind of racist reference perhaps? Charming.

You meant to say "ethnocentrism," or linguacentrism if you want to be "precise." You ought to work on just reading things carefully instead of rushing off to lecture people about every skill (reasoning, language) you haven't been employing to notable effect.

Indeed, I should be more precise when categorizing your ad hominem slurs.

A lie. I was pointing out that your claims of widespread leftist extremism on the internet is an illogical argument, since the same claim can be made about right-wing extremism on the internet.

You really seem to want to make that claim. For goodness sake; drop the other shoe and just say it. As I've said, endless times, and not at all vaguely (as you keep claiming), I don't disagree that conservativism, and thus the right-wing ideology at its fringe, is more widespread, but that doesn't mean that leftist rants are non-noteworthy (look at that, could that be an articulated argument!?). Remember this is the Internet we're talking about;

Actually, this again demonstrates your inability to understand your position or those of others. What was actually being discussed was the disproportionate amount of extremist conservative rhetoric in the mainstream media. You introduced the subject of the Internet, in both an irrelevant and illogical manner, as I have demonstrated.

Your comments not only did not aid your argument, but are detrimental to it. If you can ever recall what your argument was.

I posted it very clearly, in a single paragraph, in my last post. Try putting your amazing skills in "trained English" to find out what it was! Report back immediately.

Nothing there but the obfuscations and falsehoods I have already addressed.

You're not drawing me into this childish game of writing two-sentence non-rebuttals; they don't advance the discussion or the common good, and it's simply beneath me. It's not beneath you, apparently.

If you didn't make a false or nonsensical statement every two sentences, I would not need to correct you in this manner.

I think lectures about being "childish" from the individual who introduced ethnic slurs and accusations of insanity into the discourse should be taken for what they are worth.

My position what that conservative extremist rhetoric is more prolific and more violent that liberal extremist rhetoric. A point which you have struggled pathetically to refute.

I haven't ever tried to refute it, can you not get that through your cranium?

That is obviously false, though your performance has been so poor that you are wise to try to cover your tracks and shift the debate to new ground that might be more favourable to you.

[jp]

'Tis a shame what the neo-cons have turned things into. FYI Mr. Bullet Magnet, the only thing a real conservative cares about is freedom and liberty.

I'm quite aware that the "neo-cons" don't speak for every conservative (though, again, I wish there was more active resistance to the more disturbing trends from within), and am also aware that there are many different ways to define oneself as "conservative", which changes over time (and not everyone agrees on the terms for a given period either, as some economically-conservative types prefer to be called "classical liberals", etc.), but if you choose to define concern for "freedom and liberty" as what truly makes one conservative, I think you could say the same for anyone, though liberals believe that true freedom is arrived at through action as opposed to inaction on government's part. As the saying goes, where does one person's freedom end and another's begin - when a corporation is allowed to do whatever it wants, for instance, ethics be damned, to gain a competitive edge (see the previous Prescott Bush example), the company (in more directly human terms, it's owners) has/have more or less absolute freedom, but what about those it abuses or rips off to get where it wants to be? Can one really assume that, since nobody in Washington is writing laws that explicitly forbid them from "making it" just like the guys at the top have, they made a conscious choice to be where they are, and if they'd only tried harder they could be just as successful? How "free" are they, really?

Granted, I know that not every conservative is for completely abolishing the role of government in every capacity, but if you ask me history has almost without exception shown that when those on the "conservative" end of the debate get their way in these matters, most people become much less "free", using any meaningful definition of the word, than they were before, and a very small minority wastes no time in giving itself a monopoly over both physical resources and the reins of power. This is not to say that so-called "liberal" governments can be implicitly trusted, mind you - the way I see it, both governments and businesses, when you get down to it, are simply groups of people working in tandem, and, just like individuals, are thus both imperfect, corruptible, and have the potential to do much harm if not kept in check, either by themselves or by others. Most agree that government needs an external watchdog, and many outsiders spend a good deal of time keeping an eye on what they're doing - anyone who contends that said oversight is unnecessary is, quite rightly, laughed out of the room. Then you have those on the opposite end, who similarly insist that private interests will behave themselves on their own, and need no checks on their powers - that crowd, however, still has an overwhelming presence among the country's (and the world's) elite, though I find its case as incredibly weak as the hypothetical example I just gave.

All that said, I do not agree with the standard "liberal" position on all issues, and this debate goes far beyond what this topic was originally intended to cover - hopefully, though, when you hear the phrase "conservatives represent freedom," it might strike you as a good idea to truly consider what kind of freedom, and whose freedom, is really being talked about.

Whoa, hold up there skippy, I'm not your Political Science 101 professor, no need for an essay. The comment about liberties and freedom wasn't putting some "other ideaology" down, I was just saying that thats what real conservatives are worried about, not... gay marriages or Harry Potter or whatever the religious right is going nutty over.

[BulletMagnet]

The comment about liberties and freedom wasn't putting some "other ideaology" down, I was just saying that thats what real conservatives are worried about

I understand that, but again, I'd argue (in a nutshell) that A) Conservatives really aren't any more intrinsically concerned about "freedom and liberty" than liberals are, and B) If many self-described conservatives took a good, honest look at exactly the types of "freedom" that their leaders continually push for (most notably the freedom of the rich and influential to do anything they please to take advantage of those in lesser positions, and justify it by saying "well, all of them are free too, it's their fault that they haven't bettered themselves, not like the playing field's ever been tilted or anything"), they'd start having second thoughts about their affiliation.

EDIT - Also, @ escadrille and Ed - methinks whatever's going on between you two is starting to get a bit personal. I recommend you take any further such conversation to PM.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey escadrille, help me help you understand what's going on here.

Your posts have been like a caricature of Phoenix Wright if all he did (besides writing nonsense on a games forum and billing it to his clients, apparently) was just yell "OBJECTION" and then "A LIE" or "YOUR LOGIC IS UNSOUND." I haven't seen a single bit of reasoning from you other than "CLEARLY THERE IS MORE CONSERVATIVISM" and that you don't understand the logic behind a short quip I made.

Anyway, you're spending such a ridiculous amount of time trying to convince me of something (that isn't true, but I'll get to it in a bit) that I have to assume you're getting paid for it. Although I rather hope you're just wasting your time here, because I wouldn't want to be defended in a life or death situation in such a manner.

Anyway, to get back to the original, apparently incredibly important point that you keep insisting I "accept" (at this point I'm fairly certain you don't give a damn whether I acquiesce, or don't; you just want to hulk out): I said that left-wing (you may insert "liberal" here if you like) rhetoric is equally annoying as conservative rhetoric; and "leftists have killed people too."

Now, let's parse what that means (because apparently it needed to be, for the betterment of society).

Firstly, whether something is annoying is not the same as whether it currently represents a great menace to society.
Therefore, stating that the reasons something is annoying are the same for something else is not saying that is represents as great a menace to society. It IS saying that unchecked falsehoods and fanaticism may shortly prove to be a menace to society.

Secondly, I made (and have done so throughout the thread unless I've made a mistake somewhere) a clear distinction between leftism and "liberals." Here in the states you're likely to see "liberals" used as a blanket term for Democrats or anybody left of the Republican Party, which doesn't mean radical; it in fact is used contemporaneously to refer to many moderates. "Leftists" means people who are likely to value ideological purity and who often put beliefs ahead of short-term results, and people who may be classified as terrorists can be put into this group. I take issue with the idea that America is isolated from certain strains of political thought; just because we've had a longstanding conservative strain of thinking doesn't mean that others do not surface.

Thirdly, I just think there is something inherently absurd about taking issue with a clear-cut truism like "annoying for the same reasons; they've killed people too." Calling it "irrelevant" misses the bigger point which is that ideologues are often annoying and also often crazy enough to kill people.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I think that the mainstream "left" in North America (as opposed to South America with its own band of crazy leftists that have been in the news again since you decided to make this a big discussion) is murderous, but yeah, some leftists have gotten carried away.

Lastly, you are not the only person in the world and your wisdom of the ages means nothing to other people. That's just life. Because I don't care to obsess over the point you think is of overriding concern should mean nothing to you; I'm not sure whether to be flattered at the attention (you should be; everyone else has been ignoring your stunt), or disturbed by the apparent persecution for thoughtcrime against the liberal cause.

The End. Any further two-sentence line-by-line "assessments" by Escadrille will be summarily ignored without attention, and like any good Pratchett villain, their importance shrivels in the face of inattention.

___________________________________________________

The comment about liberties and freedom wasn't putting some "other ideaology" down, I was just saying that thats what real conservatives are worried about

I understand that, but again, I'd argue (in a nutshell) that A) Conservatives really aren't any more intrinsically concerned about "freedom and liberty" than liberals are, and B) If many self-described conservatives took a good, honest look at exactly the types of "freedom" that their leaders continually push for (most notably the freedom of the rich and influential to do anything they please to take advantage of those in lesser positions, and justify it by saying "well, all of them are free too, it's their fault that they haven't bettered themselves, not like the playing field's ever been tilted or anything"), they'd start having second thoughts about their affiliation.

EDIT - Also, @ escadrille and Ed - methinks whatever's going on between you two is starting to get a bit personal. I recommend you take any further such conversation to PM.

It seems to me that today most mainstream conservatives are interested mainly in not accepting an ounce of responsibility for the climate and finance that other countries may not. To be fair to this concern, we are facing many countries with high impacts on these areas that have had disproportionately small oversight or criticism (for finance I suppose the traditional havens i.e. Antigua and Switzerland; for climate, mass polluters like China - who in turn claim that the U.S. has been offshoring pollution). I haven't read carefully about the climate bill yet; so far it seems like predictable partisan noise from both sides to me - the one interesting point being that neither side will go as far as saying what the increasingly disenfranchised left (and science) has been insisting, which is that it doesn't go far enough.

The advice on me vs. the amazing Canadian lawyer is sound; I had been planning on tying this up neatly like I hopefully have for a while. It almost makes me wish Randorama and his self-important puffery would make a guest appearance, because he at least made an effort to be sarcastically entertaining

[escadrille]

Hey escadrille, help me help you understand what's going on here.

Your posts have been like a caricature of Phoenix Wright if all he did (besides writing nonsense on a games forum and billing it to his clients, apparently) was just yell "OBJECTION" and then "A LIE" or "YOUR LOGIC IS UNSOUND." I haven't seen a single bit of reasoning from you other than "CLEARLY THERE IS MORE CONSERVATIVISM" and that you don't understand the logic behind a short quip I made.

...

Lastly, you are not the only person in the world and your wisdom of the ages means nothing to other people.

You're the one who began this by addressing, and shortly thereafter insulting, me. I've simply been correcting your false statements. It was all laid out quite simply in the previous posts.

Anyway, you're spending such a ridiculous amount of time trying to convince me of something (that isn't true, but I'll get to it in a bit) that I have to assume you're getting paid for it.

I would say 5-10 minutes per post, which is admittedly more time than your nonsense is worth, but hardly a serious investment.

The End. Any further two-sentence line-by-line "assessments" by Escadrille will be summarily ignored

That's wise on your part. Your parade of nonsense and insults was embarrassing to watch. Perhaps this will teach you to refrain from such displays in the future.