Being a liberal without being an extremist.

@maxdancona,

Is an extremist part of a group that does NOT try to tear down the Constitution, or follow a lying madman?
If thats the case, count me in.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Is an extremist part of a group that does NOT try to tear down the Constitution, or follow a lying madman?
If thats the case, count me in.

1. If you say "I want to tear down the Constitution" then you are an extremist.

2. If someone else says "You want to tear down the Constitution"... then I would say that they are the extremist.

Do you disagree with either part of that?

Claiming that the other side is "tearing down the Constitution" is rather cliche by now. The two extremes have been yelling that at each other from at least the 1960s.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

but only one fostered a halfass attempt at an insurrection, do you agree?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Extremism can exist on either side of the US political spectrum. Extremism is characterized when someone.

1) Adopts a single political narrative as an absolute unquestionable narrative.

2) Fails to accept that their are valid points in different perspectives, and that good people can hold them.

3) Ignores or rejects clear facts that don't fit their ideological narrative.

4) Attack people who question the narrative (whether they are part of the other extreme or not).

Can you be a liberal (or a conservative) without being an extremist? Of course you can. The problem is that no one seems to be even making an effort.

As I said in the opening post, there are clearly people on both the political left and the political right who meet my criteria for extremism. Obviously any definition of extremism will be subjective, but any reasonable definition should be independent of political ideology.

The people who stormed the capital to find proof of election fraud clearly meet the definition of extremism (if that makes you feel any better). This was a very small number of people compared to the population of conservatives or the number of people who voted for Trump.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The people who stormed the capital to find proof of election fraud clearly meet the definition of extremism (if that makes you feel any better).

so do you disagree? your response can b taken several ways such as " I dont really agree with you but if I can make my point, lets say I do"

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Can you be a liberal (or a conservative) without being an extremist? Of course you can. The problem is that no one seems to be even making an effort.

Thats yer whole point?? I was wondering whre th hell you were leading me in this. ?? So you really think tht the Jan 6 uprising and follow up on disinformation is NOT xtremism?? wow, what does it take in MAX's world to stir up his "Togther Lets stop extremism". bones? Ya see, Id rather not live in an authoritarian kakistocracy,

ademocratic republic is a really badass form of govt, except for all the others

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That is ridiculous Farmerman. I agree with you on this point. I disagree with you on other points. That shouldn't be a problem.

The original post wrote:

Extremism can exist on either side of the US political spectrum. Extremism is characterized when someone.

1) Adopts a single political narrative as an absolute unquestionable narrative.

2) Fails to accept that their are valid points in different perspectives, and that good people can hold them.

3) Ignores or rejects clear facts that don't fit their ideological narrative.

4) Attack people who question the narrative (whether they are part of the other extreme or not).

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I was wondering whre th hell you were leading me in this. ?? So you really think tht the Jan 6 uprising and follow up on disinformation is NOT xtremism??

Come on Farmerman. This is silly. You are literally putting words in my mouth.

We can't have a reasonable discussion if you act like this.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That is ridiculous Farmerman. I agree with you on this point. I disagree with you on other points. That shouldn't be a problem.

The original post wrote:
Extremism can exist on either side of the US political spectrum. Extremism is characterized when someone.

1) Adopts a single political narrative as an absolute unquestionable narrative.

2) Fails to accept that their are valid points in different perspectives, and that good people can hold them.

3) Ignores or rejects clear facts that don't fit their ideological narrative.

4) Attack people who question the narrative (whether they are part of the other extreme or not).

You don't think any of those fit you? I certainly do.

3 Replies

@Mame,

No Mama, they don't fit to me.

1. I see myself as a liberal. I certainly agree with liberals on most social issues; immigrant rights and a pathway to citizenship, universal health care, a strong carbon policy and progressive taxation to name a few.

2. I believe that conservatives have valid points... even on issues where I still disagree them. And there are a few issues where I agree with the conservatives (at least partially).

3. I accept facts as facts no matter which side thinks fits their narrative. I can list facts where I agree with Hightor and Bobsal. I can also list where I agree with conservatives. Facts shouldn't have an ideological side, they are just facts.

4. You are going to say that I am attacking people, and I suppose I will give you this one. However, it is possible to attack a behavior without attacking people (I can point out cases where you are making an extreme argument in one case and accept when you are not being extreme in other cases).

Whether I am successfully doing this is a matter of subjective judgement I guess.

The idea of accepting all of the facts is pretty important for any reasonable discussion. I have no problem accepting facts from Mame, or Bobsal or Hightor... as long as they are objectively testable facts. I can give a multiple of examples of this.

(Edit: It isn't relevant, but it does strike me as funny that Mame is making a "both sides" argument here).

1 Reply

@Mame,

As an example. Notice my interaction with Hightor.

1) The fact I presented as that a relatively high number of Native Americans say that they will never get the vaccine (many give cultural and historical reasons for this). This shouldn't be up for debate, it is simply a fact.

2) The that Hightor presented was that a relatively high number of Native Americans have received the vaccine.

Notice the difference between me and Hightor. I accept both of these facts are true.. After all they are facts measuring different things. They are both truth and not all all contradictory.

Hightor is one-sided. He seems to reject the fact that doesn't fit his narrative. He made a couple of long winded and totally unnecessary posts proving his fact. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is silly to argue something when we are already in agreement. (If Hightor says that he accepts both of these facts as true, then I will withdraw this point...)

Both of these facts are true. Selecting which facts to believe based on the needs of your political ideology is unreasonable.

If you think there is a testable fact that I am not accepting, then post it here and I will accept it. But it has to be an objectively testable fact... and I mean objective as defined in this thread. https://able2know.org/topic/563237-1

2 Replies

Extremism can exist on either side of the US political spectrum. Extremism is characterized when someone.

1) Adopts a single political narrative as an absolute unquestionable narrative.

You have labelled people here as extreme liberals who are outraged when they may (and certainly are) not. That is unquestionable on your part.

2) Fails to accept that their are valid points in different perspectives, and that good people can hold them.

Someone had an opinion about the unvaccinated getting treated before the vaccinated and went on and on about how that was unfair and you did not accept that. That's a valid perspective from his point of view. And I consider that person to be a good person.

3) Ignores or rejects clear facts that don't fit their ideological narrative.

You have assigned attributes to some people here that are not true (only in your mind are they true), and it has been pointed out to you time and again - but you actually ignore and reject those clear facts because your id. narrative had already been decided.

4) Attack people who question the narrative (whether they are part of the other extreme or not).

You don't agree that labelling people as extreme liberals (based on your questionable knowledge of them) is an attack? You attacked me simply for asking for the definition of extreme liberal and evil progressive. You accused me of making a nasty post when all I wanted was to have a definition of the two. You don't call that an attack?

Yeah, I think you fit your own definition of extreme. You don't allow others to have their own opinions - you question, target and accuse with great predictability and regularity. Then you label them and make mocking threads about them.

1 Reply

@Mame,

If I have actually labeled you an extreme liberal, then I apologize. I realize I may have done so. And you make a valid point.

Your behavior on this forum is often extreme and pushes a pretty narrow ideology. I will stand by this statement.

I am also perfectly willing to have a reasonable discussion with you on topics where this is possible. I have nothing against you as a person.

The issue here is that this forum is being dominated by a narrow, rather extreme ideology, and that people who don't fit are attacked.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

So much for my other points! And I'd like some examples of when I have "often" been "extreme" and what my narrow ideology is.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Your views on Covid mandates are awfully one-side and (in my opinion) cruel.

I have never seen you defend a viewpoint outside of a narrow liberal bubble. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen it. You shouldn't care about my opinion, but if you do... point out where you have defended a conservative viewpoint and I will be duly impressed.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Not necessary to impress you. You still haven't answered the other 3 points.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Lol, it's not necessary to impress you either.

1 Reply

“I Remember Conservatism”: “To be a conservative today, you have to oppose much of what the Republican Party has come to stand for.”'
--David Brooks

I don't understand why the Republican party doesn't split so the Conservative Republican has a voice.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Hightor is one-sided. He seems to reject the fact that doesn't fit his narrative.

No that's not the case. I reject your interpretation of facts on which we both agree.

To basically claim that entire swathes of people should be excused from participating in nationwide vaccination programs for "cultural and historical reasons" simply reinforces the "victim" stereotype. "Oh, this happened fifty, one hundred, four hundred years ago; they are traumatized..." I don't buy that, nor do the tens of thousands of American Indians who have been vaccinated. Same with other minorities. Their acceptance or refusal of vaccines are based on individual choice and economic factors, not racial or ethnic identity. That's why I presented the facts which contradict your assertion. How is that being "one-sided?"

Quote:

... but it is silly to argue something when we are already in agreement.

You never let facts interfere with the conclusions dictated by your ideological narrative© – that's the only way you can conclude that we "agree". Yes, many people of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds are hesitant to get vaccinated. But many people of those same backgrounds feel differently. So I disagree that ethnic or racial origin is a sufficient reason to excuse people from public health mandates. I think your attitude is paternalistic and would, if legally recognized, pose profound dangers to future public health campaigns and result in sickness and death among selected populations

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

A 'vaccine' is a pre-emptive promoter of a defence mechanism.
A 'drug' alters biological confluence.

An 'ignoramus' is one who offers an un-informed opinion.

Have a beatiful Friday.

1 Reply

Being a liberal without being an extremist.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know