retrofuturist wrote: ↑
Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:51 am
... I personally regard the alt-right and SJW'ism with comparable disdain, for their ignorance, discrimination, intolerance, irrationality and emotional tantrums.
Ok, I think I'm with you so far. We prefer not to be subject to another's ignorance, discrimination, irrationality and emotion tantrums.
Anyone I've met here who is classical liberal, centrist, libertarian, right-wing, conservative, apolitical etc. typically believes in treating people as people... neither discriminating for, nor against them, based on identity classifications. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, they'll judge a member by their character, not by the colour of their skin (nor their race, sexuality, gender etc.).
How about judging the words instead of the people? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with general principles of civility? Or do you think judging people is really what this is all about?
In general, they're also usually well behaved and not likely to start crusades or smear campaigns which demonstrate intolerance towards, or seek censorship of those whose views may differ to theirs.
Are you referring the the smear campaigns you launch when you label others and (as you do in this very Topic) attack their perceived character rather than their words? Are you referring to deletion of posts with which you disagree on the basis that such comments are "meta discussion"? When you engage in identical so-called "meta discussion", it's permitted. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
As such, I find this process of repeatedly railing against the "alt-right" in discussions at this forum to be a pathetic ill-directed attempt to discredit views that one disagrees with, in a transparent attempt to smear them as extremist.
You have got to be kidding. You're the one who keeps bringing up George Soros and all that conspiracy theory garbage. The quote in the OP exactly describes the manner in which you (and others who espouse fringe conservative views) treat those with whom you disagree.
It is much easier to attach a label to an idea and dismiss it on that basis than to actually engage with it, and refute it, it seems.
Of course that's only a one-way street in your view, correct? At least that is what you appear to be saying. When people with my views are labeled as "trolls" or "hypocrites" or "virtue signalers," or when you label people as "pig-headed" or "quarrelsome" etc., that doesn't count in your book as labeling. Rather, you view it as the hard truth that people like me have to hear. Again, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Such outright dismissal may work on a personal level, because people can decide to consider or reject perspectives as they see fit, but inferring on implied moral grounds that others should do likewise is both disrespectful to the intellectual autonomy of others, and is intellectually bereft, because it uses argumentum ad hominem in lieu of reason, logic, or a well constructed argument. Such attempts are easily seen for what they are by those who aren't taken in by the destructive, faithless, adhammic and socially corrosive obsession of identity classification.
First, this comment violates TOS, as follows (not that you care):
Any subject matter that may be off-topic or is intended to cause disruption or harm may be removed without notice. This includes, but is not restricted to:
d. Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions - including psychoanalyzing other members, and predictions or threats of kammic retribution
f. Personal attacks, including the vilification of individuals based on any attributes - whether related to their personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age) or their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)
For example, I do not have an "obsession," but even if I did, your attempt to diagnose me as having an "obsession" is off-topic and a violation of TOS (not that you care).
Second, you are conflating "identity classification" with "identity view." Most of what you are saying does not make a lot of sense.
Look back at all your wacky George Soros commentary. I think you and I agree, if it looks like a duck ...
I'm fairly confident that I have accidentally landed on a forum which is at least highly influenced by viewpoints consistent with the alt-right. And here I thought the forum was devoted to discussion of Dhamma. Your comments above demonstrate otherwise.