Right, Left and coddling - Page 3

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Honestly, I've never heard of people worrying about it. It sounded radioactive.

Sure, because it's got the word "uranium" in it, and people don't know what "depleted" means in this context.

Quote:

I honestly think y'all are stretching to find a leftwing equivalent to, say, the rightwing fear that all the guns are going to be confiscated to usher in martial law and tyranny, but okay.

I'm reminded of the simultaneous claims from Chris Cuomo that nobody wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and from former Justice Stevens that we should repeal the 2nd amendment. I'm sure some fears about gun control are irrational, but not all of them.

Quote:

At least I know what sort of thing you were thinking of now.

I'm not sure you do. For my part, I never tried to establish any equivalency. Such a judgment is always subjective, and conditions and people change over time, so it's sort of a fool's errand. The only point I was trying to establish is that, contrary to Fudbucker's claim, there are irrational fears on the left. You haven't tried to refute that point, but haven't actually conceded it either. Instead, you basically moved the goalpost for Fudbucker to the question of equivalency. And I have no interest in chasing that rabbit down a hole.

baron · 27th April 2018, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Because of the elaborate and extreme care with which it's handled and removed from populated areas, right?

I don't know what you mean.

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Venom

Among the problems with Peterson's one-sided obsession with taking down the "extreme left"; how many people who believe 9/11 was an inside job are in political office and compare that to the number of Republican neo-Nazi sympathizers and people who believe Obama is a Muslim.

First, in regard to Peterson, he's a university professor. In the environment he works in, the extreme left is absolutely far more of a problem than the extreme right. It's only natural that he attacks the problem he is most directly confronted with. And it's not like he's in favor of the extreme right either, he's quite willing to denounce them to, and he does. That he doesn't do so with sufficient frequency to satisfy you seems pretty immaterial.

Second, in regards to politics, you're not going to be able to establish numbers on that kind of extreme belief. All your metrics are going to be subjective. And the best you can do is anecdotes, which are obviously subject to extreme sampling error. For example, there was the city councilman who recently said Jews control the weather and use that power to flood cities. What does that mean for the broader question of left-wing extremism? I could try to claim he's representative, or just the tip of the iceberg, but I don't actually know that.

kellyb · 27th April 2018, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not sure you do. For my part, I never tried to establish any equivalency. Such a judgment is always subjective, and conditions and people change over time, so it's sort of a fool's errand. The only point I was trying to establish is that, contrary to Fudbucker's claim, there are irrational fears on the left. You haven't tried to refute that point, but haven't actually conceded it either. Instead, you basically moved the goalpost for Fudbucker to the question of equivalency. And I have no interest in chasing that rabbit down a hole.

I inferred (it seemed like you were implying, but that might have been a misconception on my end) a claim of equivalency, because you were responding to this, which came before the "rational" comment:

Quote:

but the ones that populate the comments sections on places like Breitbart are very frightened people. Like I said, their list of "enemies" is nearly endless. Their embrace of Alex Jones and their pet conspiracy theories IS cartoonish.

Re: the second amendment, it was effectively repealed a long time ago, and it's the addition of "to usher in martial law and tyranny" that makes it all irrational.

kellyb · 27th April 2018, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by baron

I don't know what you mean.

Would you be comfortable rolling around in the waste from a nuclear power plant?

JoeMorgue · 27th April 2018, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Hell, through "Republicans, veterans, women, minorities, and the physically disabled" into that list, too. Trump mocked and berated them all.

Trump's voter base n 2016 was 42% female.

29% of Latino voters voted for Trump. 29% of Asian voters voted for Trump. 14% of LGBT voters voted for Trump. 60% of voting veterans voted for Trump.
31% of voters who weren't born in the United States voted for Trump. Even African Americans, the one group that really was amazingly one sided, still voted for Trump at about 8%.

They don't track voting statistics for disabled people, at least not that I could find anywhere, but I'd be amazed if a statistically meaningful percentage of them didn't also vote for him as well.

30, 14, 8... these aren't huge percentages I know. But they're big enough so we can't just... dismiss them as statistically anomalies.

Here's the thing. Those demographics; minority, women, disabled, gay, veteran... aren't the only thing in those people's lives. A candidate telling you that they are going to treat this demographic you happen to be a part of better is great and all but it doesn't override every single other factor for everybody.

This is something I think the Democrats have a hard time grasping. They say (rightfully in most all cases) that they treat Group X better but then got shocked and taken by surprise when they don't sweep Group X in the elections like they think they should because they don't understand that being part of Group X isn't the most important thing in everyone in Group X's life.

Democrats have never been 100% on understanding that demographics and .... identities I guess (not 100% the word I'm shooting for but close...) are not the same thing. Even pushing aside the truism that all of these groups aren't monolithic Borg entities that are all going to vote the same way just because of basic human variation

The Democrats could never grasp that there were things like ... a transgender teen living in a dying factory town in the midwest that cared about how his demographic was going to be treated... but worried about their being a job for him to live on when he moved out of his parent's house in a few years more. There are anti-abortion women. There are evangelical African Americans. There are... etc, etc, etc.

Too Long; Didn't Read: "Vote for me because I'll be nicer to your demographic" doesn't get you a vote from everyone in the demographic.

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by baron

I don't know what you mean.

I think she's saying that this extreme care exists because it really is dangerous, and wouldn't exist if it were not. Which is true, to a degree. But it's also that same extreme care which makes the risk to the general population very low.

Exposure to high levels of radiation is indeed very dangerous and bad for you. Exposure to low levels presents low risk. Since radiation is unfamiliar and cannot ordinarily be detected by our own senses, it combines both actual danger with fear of the unknown. As a result, our risk tolerance for radiation is very low, lower than for more familiar dangers (such as car accidents).

There is definitely an irrational aspect to that fear, but in general it's not really a left/right thing, but simply a human propensity to be bad at risk assessment. Things can get a partisan tilt if they have specific associations, though. So depleted uranium is associated with the military, and the iraq war specifically. Even though there is no radiological risk from depleted uranium, distrust of the military and the Bush administration help boost fear of that specific danger among the left more than the right.

baron · 27th April 2018, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Would you be comfortable rolling around in the waste from a nuclear power plant?

About as comfortable as rolling in a fire, or pouring boiling water on my head, or jumping off my roof or drinking the drain cleaner under my sink. Do you have a point here?

baron · 27th April 2018, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I think she's saying that this extreme care exists because it really is dangerous, and wouldn't exist if it were not. Which is true, to a degree. But it's also that same extreme care which makes the risk to the general population very low.

Exposure to high levels of radiation is indeed very dangerous and bad for you. Exposure to low levels presents low risk. Since radiation is unfamiliar and cannot ordinarily be detected by our own senses, it combines both actual danger with fear of the unknown. As a result, our risk tolerance for radiation is very low, lower than for more familiar dangers (such as car accidents).

Well that's it, it's the misrepresentation of a risk to an almost hysterical degree. You get people who won't even drive past a nuclear power plant but are happy to absorb thousands of times more radiation by taking a walk in the sun, or flying off on holiday.

And whilst nuclear waste is of course dangerous, the vast majority of it is not half as dangerous as people think.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There is definitely an irrational aspect to that fear, but in general it's not really a left/right thing, but simply a human propensity to be bad at risk assessment. Things can get a partisan tilt if they have specific associations, though. So depleted uranium is associated with the military, and the iraq war specifically. Even though there is no radiological risk from depleted uranium, distrust of the military and the Bush administration help boost fear of that specific danger among the left more than the right.

For some reason mistrust of nuclear tends to be a domain of the left. It's difficult to say why as you'd imagine they'd be in favour of an energy source that is several million times safer than, say, coal, but there you go.

BobTheCoward · 27th April 2018, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Would you be comfortable rolling around in the waste from a nuclear power plant?

If you swim in the ocean, that is what.you are doing. Nuke subs discharge waste directly to the ocean.

pgwenthold · 27th April 2018, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

But "mockery and berating of Democrats/Hillary Fans/Liberals*" does not seem to have been an impediment, has it?

Philosophically, I absolutely agree with taking the high road. That does not mean that slinging mud and insults is not an effective way of making things happen.

* Hell, through "Republicans, veterans, women, minorities, and the physically disabled" into that list, too. Trump mocked and berated them all.

Remember, Trump supporters like him because "He isn't politically correct and says what he thinks." But whatever you do, don't call Trump supporters "deplorable" because that would be mean.

It's all ********.

BTW, back to the "anti-science" discussion. Someone above asserted that, among the liberal anti-science positions is anti-vax. This just goes to show how much the ******** campaign works. There were at least two candidates in this election who were anti-vax. Green candidate, yes. The other was the republican candidate who got elected. Clinton was forcefully (not passively at all) advocating vaccination. So fringe left candidate is anti-vax and the mainstream right candidate is anti-vax. But it's the left who get accused of being anti-vax?

This doesn't mean, of course, that Trump voters are anti-vax. More likely, they just don't care.

Upchurch · 27th April 2018, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Trump's voter base n 2016 was 42% female. [...]

It does not change that Trump berated them and it did not matter. You're supporting my point.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The Democrats could never grasp that there were things like ... a transgender teen living in a dying factory town in the midwest that cared about how his demographic was going to be treated... but worried about their being a job for him to live on when he moved out of his parent's house in a few years more.

We could talk about the bald-faced reality-bending lies Trump told to that jobless transgender teen about clean coal or tariffs or whatever, too. Taking the low road gets results.

BobTheCoward · 27th April 2018, 08:06 AM

There is a dumb aspect to this. Obviously, nearly any subject has a set of beliefs that range from rational to irrational. Obviously, when someone mentions a belief it is implicitly focused on the irrational side of the line.

The debate should focus on what percent believe the irrational side.

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by baron

For some reason mistrust of nuclear tends to be a domain of the left.

Well, nuclear power is big business. So there's your association which biases perception.

kellyb · 27th April 2018, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by baron

About as comfortable as rolling in a fire, or pouring boiling water on my head, or jumping off my roof or drinking the drain cleaner under my sink. Do you have a point here?

You're the one who said:

"Radioactive waste is thousands of times less threatening to us than sunshine, a transatlantic flight, going to the dentist or the very rocks under our feet."

So...

BobTheCoward · 27th April 2018, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

You're the one who said:

"Radioactive waste is thousands of times less threatening to us than sunshine, a transatlantic flight, going to the dentist or the very rocks under our feet."

So...

I have used radioactive waste as a pillow.

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I inferred (it seemed like you were implying, but that might have been a misconception on my end) a claim of equivalency, because you were responding to this, which came before the "rational" comment:

Quote:

but the ones that populate the comments sections on places like Breitbart are very frightened people. Like I said, their list of "enemies" is nearly endless. Their embrace of Alex Jones and their pet conspiracy theories IS cartoonish.

That's the part I didn't quote. And I didn't quote it for a reason. I quoted a very limited part of Fudbucker's post, because the point I was making was specifically about that limited part. I'm not making any claims of equivalency or inequivalency, but I will note again that such questions are subjective and cannot be settled by debate.

baron · 27th April 2018, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

You're the one who said:

"Radioactive waste is thousands of times less threatening to us than sunshine, a transatlantic flight, going to the dentist or the very rocks under our feet."

So...

Yes, that is correct. What are you having trouble with here?

rustypouch · 27th April 2018, 08:18 AM

To answer the question in the OP, here's an article about Trump supporters whining about not being coddled.

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

You're the one who said:

"Radioactive waste is thousands of times less threatening to us than sunshine, a transatlantic flight, going to the dentist or the very rocks under our feet."

So...

There are conditions to that statement which make it true (ie, when it's properly handled). So he's right, if you accept certain reasonable assumptions, but it's bad communication style to not make those assumptions explicit.

There, I split the baby.

kellyb · 27th April 2018, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

If you swim in the ocean, that is what.you are doing. Nuke subs discharge waste directly to the ocean.

Wiki says that's been banned for a quarter of a century now.

kellyb · 27th April 2018, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There are conditions to that statement which make it true (ie, when it's properly handled). So he's right, if you accept certain reasonable assumptions, but it's bad communication style to not make those assumptions explicit.

There, I split the baby.

I was just saying it's not a threat to the population because of how it's carefully handled, which he seems to get one some level, but he's being obtuse.

baron · 27th April 2018, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There are conditions to that statement which make it true (ie, when it's properly handled). So he's right, if you accept certain reasonable assumptions, but it's bad communication style to not make those assumptions explicit.

There, I split the baby.

But that's the same for most things. Natural gas, oil, electricity will all kill you stone dead if handled incorrectly (and indeed are responsible for tens of thousands of times more deaths worldwide than nuclear fuel).

baron · 27th April 2018, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I was just saying it's not a threat to the population because of how it's carefully handled, which he seems to get one some level, but he's being obtuse.

I'm left wondering which forms of energy are improperly handled?

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I was just saying it's not a threat to the population because of how it's carefully handled, which he seems to get one some level, but he's being obtuse.

Originally Posted by baron

But that's the same for most things. Natural gas, oil, electricity will all kill you stone dead if handled incorrectly (and indeed are responsible for tens of thousands of times more deaths worldwide than nuclear fuel).

Seems like nobody likes half a baby.

aleCcowaN · 27th April 2018, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

...

Why doesn't the average Trump voter expand their hand to understand the other side?

Groupthink.

kellyb · 27th April 2018, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Seems like nobody likes half a baby.

I'm fine with my half-a-baby.

Baron's just getting on my nerves. lol

aleCcowaN · 27th April 2018, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Fine whatever. If anyone, from either side, believes that a full 40% of the population has gotten so cartoonishly evil that's there's no going back then start acting like it. Just start shooting them on sight as the inhuman monsters you think they are. Just straight go full Civil War if things really and truly are this far past the point of no return.

Exactly!

I want somebody to explain me which is the difference between considering any conservative a fascist nutjob and considering any colour person driving a car a security risk.

Do people in the States say "He's conservative but he's a good person", "I'm not discriminating anyone, I have a friend who is conservative", "I'm open-minded as conservatives, there are good ones, there are bad ones" etc.?

aleCcowaN · 27th April 2018, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Do we agree that Trump is unfit for the office?

(I stopped reading as commanded)

A majority of people plus states decided he's fit.

There's a very simplistic litmus test to perform:

"Trump is unfit for the office but Cruz is pretty fine"
"Trump is unfit for the office but Rubio is pretty fine"
"Trump is unfit for the office but Carson is pretty fine"

If you don't find any of the previous statements to be true, the problem is not in Trump and fitness.

kellyb · 27th April 2018, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

A majority of people plus states decided he's fit.

There's a very simplistic litmus test to perform:

"Trump is unfit for the office but Cruz is pretty fine"
"Trump is unfit for the office but Rubio is pretty fine"
"Trump is unfit for the office but Carson is pretty fine"

If you don't find any of the previous statements to be true, the problem is not in Trump and fitness.

Fitness is a spectrum. Trump is unusually, uniquely unfit.
I don't think anyone was arguing that McCain and Romney were "unfit" - they were just undesirable compared to the alternative.

BobTheCoward · 27th April 2018, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Wiki says that's been banned for a quarter of a century now.

I would have to see a link. We did it regularly and that was the aughts.

Fudbucker · 27th April 2018, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure, because it's got the word "uranium" in it, and people don't know what "depleted" means in this context.

I'm reminded of the simultaneous claims from Chris Cuomo that nobody wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and from former Justice Stevens that we should repeal the 2nd amendment. I'm sure some fears about gun control are irrational, but not all of them.

I'm not sure you do. For my part, I never tried to establish any equivalency. Such a judgment is always subjective, and conditions and people change over time, so it's sort of a fool's errand. The only point I was trying to establish is that, contrary to Fudbucker's claim, there are irrational fears on the left. You haven't tried to refute that point, but haven't actually conceded it either. Instead, you basically moved the goalpost for Fudbucker to the question of equivalency. And I have no interest in chasing that rabbit down a hole.

Of course, this is not what I claimed. The fear of an unfit President occupying the presidency is a rational fear.

aleCcowaN · 27th April 2018, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Fitness is a spectrum. Trump is unusually, uniquely unfit.
I don't think anyone was arguing that McCain and Romney were "unfit" - they were just undesirable compared to the alternative.

Then, you passed the test. I'm sure a one or two here wouldn't.

Groupthink is not the monopoly of the right, nor all the right.

Fudbucker · 27th April 2018, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

First, in regard to Peterson, he's a university professor. In the environment he works in, the extreme left is absolutely far more of a problem than the extreme right. It's only natural that he attacks the problem he is most directly confronted with. And it's not like he's in favor of the extreme right either, he's quite willing to denounce them to, and he does. That he doesn't do so with sufficient frequency to satisfy you seems pretty immaterial.

Second, in regards to politics, you're not going to be able to establish numbers on that kind of extreme belief. All your metrics are going to be subjective. And the best you can do is anecdotes, which are obviously subject to extreme sampling error. For example, there was the city councilman who recently said Jews control the weather and use that power to flood cities. What does that mean for the broader question of left-wing extremism? I could try to claim he's representative, or just the tip of the iceberg, but I don't actually know that.

"Survey results released by YouGov Friday show that 51 percent of Republicans said they think former President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, compared to just 14 percent of Democrats. Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election were especially convinced of Obama's African origins: Fully 57 percent said it was "definitely true" or "probably true" that the 44th president came from Kenya."
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-birthe...s-kenya-744195

"Just 35 percent of Republicans believed global warming was caused by humans, compared with 40 percent at about this time in 2017 when Trump had barely taken office. A full 89 percent of Democrats, meanwhile, believed humans caused global warming.

Just 42 percent said most scientists believe global warming is occurring, down from 53 percent last year."
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-ameri...l-shows-864550

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/108226/r...eationism.aspx

About half of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 election so the country can address claims of voter fraud, according to a new poll by the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...elections-poll

It is obvious Republicans are divorced from reality, and the problem is getting worse.

aleCcowaN · 27th April 2018, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/108226/r...eationism.aspx

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

It is obvious Republicans are divorced from reality, and the problem is getting worse.

It is obvious both paragraphs are divorced from each other.

Ziggurat · 27th April 2018, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Of course, this is not what I claimed. The fear of an unfit President occupying the presidency is a rational fear.

No. You didn't simply state that this one fear was rational, you said "There are frightened people on the Left, of course, but their fears are rationally grounded". There are more fears on the left than simply Trump being unfit for office. According to your previous claim, those fears are all rational. If you want to change your position now, go ahead, but that's what you said.

Mumbles · 27th April 2018, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Jesus Christ.

Fine whatever. If anyone, from either side, believes that a full 40% of the population has gotten so cartoonishly evil that's there's no going back then start acting like it. Just start shooting them on sight as the inhuman monsters you think they are. Just straight go full Civil War if things really and truly are this far past the point of no return.

But here's the problem.

The GOP has openly cultivated and taught outright racism for decades. Dolt 45 was hardly the first person to state something brazenly racist about Obama - think of Rush Limbaugh's claim that the Obama's economic plan was "forced reparations" - sure you can go to a doctor and get a job, white guy, but black people can, too, and you should be angry about it (Obama himself was outright against racial reparations - while Alan Keyes, of all people, supported them!). Or, think of Dinesh D'Souza's absurd fantasy of Obama trying to avenge his father by embracing "Kenyan anti-colonialism", as opposed to American anti-colonialism I guess. Think of Reagan's "welfare queen" and her "young bucks" buying steak for dinner, for that matter.

I called Dolt 45's supposed "voting commission" the voter suppression all-stars specifically because the republican members have spent decades openly trying to keep as many nonwhite people from voting as possible. I can't go to the voting booth and then vote in a way to calm the anger of people that are angry specifically because I got to the voting booth. I can't avoid a fight with someone who is hellbent on us having a fight, particularly when this person just shows up looking for a fight with me, and I've effected him in no negative way. I can't really avoid noting the racism of any person who is politically astute that supported Toupee Fiasco, since open white supremacism was the central tenet of his campaign and presidency. It's not that he didn't promise to *help* people based on their skin color - it's that he promised to *harm* people based on their skin color.

Frankly, it wouldn't shock me if even Dolt 45's complete unfitness for office was seen as a way to show that he'd somehow *still* be a better president than that Obama, simply because he's white.

And before anyone objects, this sentence is the only time I'm using the word "conservative" in this post. This is a look at Republicans as a political party.

Fudbucker · 27th April 2018, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. You didn't simply state that this one fear was rational, you said "There are frightened people on the Left, of course, but their fears are rationally grounded". There are more fears on the left than simply Trump being unfit for office. According to your previous claim, those fears are all rational. If you want to change your position now, go ahead, but that's what you said.

I cited an example: an unfit president. Another, obviously, is climate change.

Mumbles · 27th April 2018, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

I cited an example: an unfit president. Another, obviously, is climate change.

Also...who actually voted based on vaccination fears (which Dolt 45 peddled, and Clinton rejected) or on nuclear energy (which is basically a non-starter these days regardless)? I mean, possibly Nevadans angry about that storage facility in their state, but that seems to be bipartisan anger even there.

THis is, after all, a thread about presidential support first, and Jordan Peterson's ridiculous self second...

Upchurch · 27th April 2018, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Fitness is a spectrum. Trump is unusually, uniquely unfit.
I don't think anyone was arguing that McCain and Romney were "unfit" - they were just undesirable compared to the alternative.

He is not only uniquely unfit, Trump was also grossly unprepared for the job. I don't think he ever seriously entertained the notion that he could actually win. Since then, he has made no indication that he has even made much of an attempt to get up to speed to be president. He BS'ed his way in and he gives every impression of intending to BS his way through his term.

There are few modern Republican candidates I could get behind, but I didn't consider any of them existential threats to the US, until Trump.

27th April 2018, 07:27 AM	#81
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by kellyb Honestly, I've never heard of people worrying about it. It sounded radioactive. Sure, because it's got the word "uranium" in it, and people don't know what "depleted" means in this context. Quote: I honestly think y'all are stretching to find a leftwing equivalent to, say, the rightwing fear that all the guns are going to be confiscated to usher in martial law and tyranny, but okay. I'm reminded of the simultaneous claims from Chris Cuomo that nobody wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and from former Justice Stevens that we should repeal the 2nd amendment. I'm sure some fears about gun control are irrational, but not all of them. Quote: At least I know what sort of thing you were thinking of now. I'm not sure you do. For my part, I never tried to establish any equivalency. Such a judgment is always subjective, and conditions and people change over time, so it's sort of a fool's errand. The only point I was trying to establish is that, contrary to Fudbucker's claim, there are irrational fears on the left. You haven't tried to refute that point, but haven't actually conceded it either. Instead, you basically moved the goalpost for Fudbucker to the question of equivalency. And I have no interest in chasing that rabbit down a hole.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th April 2018, 07:38 AM	#82
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by kellyb Because of the elaborate and extreme care with which it's handled and removed from populated areas, right? I don't know what you mean.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

27th April 2018, 07:39 AM	#83
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by Venom Among the problems with Peterson's one-sided obsession with taking down the "extreme left"; how many people who believe 9/11 was an inside job are in political office and compare that to the number of Republican neo-Nazi sympathizers and people who believe Obama is a Muslim. First, in regard to Peterson, he's a university professor. In the environment he works in, the extreme left is absolutely far more of a problem than the extreme right. It's only natural that he attacks the problem he is most directly confronted with. And it's not like he's in favor of the extreme right either, he's quite willing to denounce them to, and he does. That he doesn't do so with sufficient frequency to satisfy you seems pretty immaterial. Second, in regards to politics, you're not going to be able to establish numbers on that kind of extreme belief. All your metrics are going to be subjective. And the best you can do is anecdotes, which are obviously subject to extreme sampling error. For example, there was the city councilman who recently said Jews control the weather and use that power to flood cities. What does that mean for the broader question of left-wing extremism? I could try to claim he's representative, or just the tip of the iceberg, but I don't actually know that.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th April 2018, 07:41 AM	#84
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I'm not sure you do. For my part, I never tried to establish any equivalency. Such a judgment is always subjective, and conditions and people change over time, so it's sort of a fool's errand. The only point I was trying to establish is that, contrary to Fudbucker's claim, there are irrational fears on the left. You haven't tried to refute that point, but haven't actually conceded it either. Instead, you basically moved the goalpost for Fudbucker to the question of equivalency. And I have no interest in chasing that rabbit down a hole. I inferred (it seemed like you were implying, but that might have been a misconception on my end) a claim of equivalency, because you were responding to this, which came before the "rational" comment: Quote: but the ones that populate the comments sections on places like Breitbart are very frightened people. Like I said, their list of "enemies" is nearly endless. Their embrace of Alex Jones and their pet conspiracy theories IS cartoonish. Re: the second amendment, it was effectively repealed a long time ago, and it's the addition of "to usher in martial law and tyranny" that makes it all irrational.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

27th April 2018, 07:42 AM	#85
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by baron I don't know what you mean. Would you be comfortable rolling around in the waste from a nuclear power plant?
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

27th April 2018, 07:47 AM	#86
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,144	Originally Posted by Upchurch Hell, through "Republicans, veterans, women, minorities, and the physically disabled" into that list, too. Trump mocked and berated them all. Trump's voter base n 2016 was 42% female. 29% of Latino voters voted for Trump. 29% of Asian voters voted for Trump. 14% of LGBT voters voted for Trump. 60% of voting veterans voted for Trump. 31% of voters who weren't born in the United States voted for Trump. Even African Americans, the one group that really was amazingly one sided, still voted for Trump at about 8%. They don't track voting statistics for disabled people, at least not that I could find anywhere, but I'd be amazed if a statistically meaningful percentage of them didn't also vote for him as well. 30, 14, 8... these aren't huge percentages I know. But they're big enough so we can't just... dismiss them as statistically anomalies. Here's the thing. Those demographics; minority, women, disabled, gay, veteran... aren't the only thing in those people's lives. A candidate telling you that they are going to treat this demographic you happen to be a part of better is great and all but it doesn't override every single other factor for everybody. This is something I think the Democrats have a hard time grasping. They say (rightfully in most all cases) that they treat Group X better but then got shocked and taken by surprise when they don't sweep Group X in the elections like they think they should because they don't understand that being part of Group X isn't the most important thing in everyone in Group X's life. Democrats have never been 100% on understanding that demographics and .... identities I guess (not 100% the word I'm shooting for but close...) are not the same thing. Even pushing aside the truism that all of these groups aren't monolithic Borg entities that are all going to vote the same way just because of basic human variation The Democrats could never grasp that there were things like ... a transgender teen living in a dying factory town in the midwest that cared about how his demographic was going to be treated... but worried about their being a job for him to live on when he moved out of his parent's house in a few years more. There are anti-abortion women. There are evangelical African Americans. There are... etc, etc, etc. Too Long; Didn't Read: "Vote for me because I'll be nicer to your demographic" doesn't get you a vote from everyone in the demographic.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. Last edited by JoeMorgue; 27th April 2018 at 07:58 AM.

27th April 2018, 07:50 AM	#88
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by kellyb Would you be comfortable rolling around in the waste from a nuclear power plant? About as comfortable as rolling in a fire, or pouring boiling water on my head, or jumping off my roof or drinking the drain cleaner under my sink. Do you have a point here?
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

27th April 2018, 07:57 AM	#89
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I think she's saying that this extreme care exists because it really is dangerous, and wouldn't exist if it were not. Which is true, to a degree. But it's also that same extreme care which makes the risk to the general population very low. Exposure to high levels of radiation is indeed very dangerous and bad for you. Exposure to low levels presents low risk. Since radiation is unfamiliar and cannot ordinarily be detected by our own senses, it combines both actual danger with fear of the unknown. As a result, our risk tolerance for radiation is very low, lower than for more familiar dangers (such as car accidents). Well that's it, it's the misrepresentation of a risk to an almost hysterical degree. You get people who won't even drive past a nuclear power plant but are happy to absorb thousands of times more radiation by taking a walk in the sun, or flying off on holiday. And whilst nuclear waste is of course dangerous, the vast majority of it is not half as dangerous as people think. Originally Posted by Ziggurat There is definitely an irrational aspect to that fear, but in general it's not really a left/right thing, but simply a human propensity to be bad at risk assessment. Things can get a partisan tilt if they have specific associations, though. So depleted uranium is associated with the military, and the iraq war specifically. Even though there is no radiological risk from depleted uranium, distrust of the military and the Bush administration help boost fear of that specific danger among the left more than the right. For some reason mistrust of nuclear tends to be a domain of the left. It's difficult to say why as you'd imagine they'd be in favour of an energy source that is several million times safer than, say, coal, but there you go.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

27th April 2018, 07:58 AM	#90
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by kellyb Would you be comfortable rolling around in the waste from a nuclear power plant? If you swim in the ocean, that is what.you are doing. Nuke subs discharge waste directly to the ocean.
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

27th April 2018, 07:58 AM	#91
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 21,039	Originally Posted by Upchurch But "mockery and berating of Democrats/Hillary Fans/Liberals" does not seem to have been an impediment, has it? Philosophically, I absolutely agree with taking the high road. That does not mean that slinging mud and insults is not an effective way of making things happen. Hell, through "Republicans, veterans, women, minorities, and the physically disabled" into that list, too. Trump mocked and berated them all. Remember, Trump supporters like him because "He isn't politically correct and says what he thinks." But whatever you do, don't call Trump supporters "deplorable" because that would be mean. It's all ******. BTW, back to the "anti-science" discussion. Someone above asserted that, among the liberal anti-science positions is anti-vax. This just goes to show how much the ****** campaign works. There were at least two candidates in this election who were anti-vax. Green candidate, yes. The other was the republican candidate who got elected. Clinton was forcefully (not passively at all) advocating vaccination. So fringe left candidate is anti-vax and the mainstream right candidate is anti-vax. But it's the left who get accused of being anti-vax? This doesn't mean, of course, that Trump voters are anti-vax. More likely, they just don't care.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

27th April 2018, 08:02 AM	#92
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,606	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Trump's voter base n 2016 was 42% female. [...] It does not change that Trump berated them and it did not matter. You're supporting my point. Originally Posted by JoeMorgue The Democrats could never grasp that there were things like ... a transgender teen living in a dying factory town in the midwest that cared about how his demographic was going to be treated... but worried about their being a job for him to live on when he moved out of his parent's house in a few years more. We could talk about the bald-faced reality-bending lies Trump told to that jobless transgender teen about clean coal or tariffs or whatever, too. Taking the low road gets results.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th April 2018, 08:06 AM	#93
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	There is a dumb aspect to this. Obviously, nearly any subject has a set of beliefs that range from rational to irrational. Obviously, when someone mentions a belief it is implicitly focused on the irrational side of the line. The debate should focus on what percent believe the irrational side.
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

27th April 2018, 08:09 AM	#94
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by baron For some reason mistrust of nuclear tends to be a domain of the left. Well, nuclear power is big business. So there's your association which biases perception.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th April 2018, 08:09 AM	#95
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by baron About as comfortable as rolling in a fire, or pouring boiling water on my head, or jumping off my roof or drinking the drain cleaner under my sink. Do you have a point here? You're the one who said: "Radioactive waste is thousands of times less threatening to us than sunshine, a transatlantic flight, going to the dentist or the very rocks under our feet." So...
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

27th April 2018, 08:13 AM	#96
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by kellyb You're the one who said: "Radioactive waste is thousands of times less threatening to us than sunshine, a transatlantic flight, going to the dentist or the very rocks under our feet." So... I have used radioactive waste as a pillow.
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

27th April 2018, 08:17 AM	#97
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by kellyb I inferred (it seemed like you were implying, but that might have been a misconception on my end) a claim of equivalency, because you were responding to this, which came before the "rational" comment: Quote: but the ones that populate the comments sections on places like Breitbart are very frightened people. Like I said, their list of "enemies" is nearly endless. Their embrace of Alex Jones and their pet conspiracy theories IS cartoonish. That's the part I didn't quote. And I didn't quote it for a reason. I quoted a very limited part of Fudbucker's post, because the point I was making was specifically about that limited part. I'm not making any claims of equivalency or inequivalency, but I will note again that such questions are subjective and cannot be settled by debate.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th April 2018, 08:18 AM	#99
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 6,744	To answer the question in the OP, here's an article about Trump supporters whining about not being coddled.
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 6,744

27th April 2018, 08:19 AM	#100
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by kellyb You're the one who said: "Radioactive waste is thousands of times less threatening to us than sunshine, a transatlantic flight, going to the dentist or the very rocks under our feet." So... There are conditions to that statement which make it true (ie, when it's properly handled). So he's right, if you accept certain reasonable assumptions, but it's bad communication style to not make those assumptions explicit. There, I split the baby.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th April 2018, 08:20 AM	#101
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward If you swim in the ocean, that is what.you are doing. Nuke subs discharge waste directly to the ocean. Wiki says that's been banned for a quarter of a century now.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

27th April 2018, 08:22 AM	#102
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Ziggurat There are conditions to that statement which make it true (ie, when it's properly handled). So he's right, if you accept certain reasonable assumptions, but it's bad communication style to not make those assumptions explicit. There, I split the baby. I was just saying it's not a threat to the population because of how it's carefully handled, which he seems to get one some level, but he's being obtuse.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

27th April 2018, 08:24 AM	#103
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by Ziggurat There are conditions to that statement which make it true (ie, when it's properly handled). So he's right, if you accept certain reasonable assumptions, but it's bad communication style to not make those assumptions explicit. There, I split the baby. But that's the same for most things. Natural gas, oil, electricity will all kill you stone dead if handled incorrectly (and indeed are responsible for tens of thousands of times more deaths worldwide than nuclear fuel).
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

27th April 2018, 08:25 AM	#104
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by kellyb I was just saying it's not a threat to the population because of how it's carefully handled, which he seems to get one some level, but he's being obtuse. I'm left wondering which forms of energy are improperly handled?
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

27th April 2018, 08:28 AM	#105
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by kellyb I was just saying it's not a threat to the population because of how it's carefully handled, which he seems to get one some level, but he's being obtuse. Originally Posted by baron But that's the same for most things. Natural gas, oil, electricity will all kill you stone dead if handled incorrectly (and indeed are responsible for tens of thousands of times more deaths worldwide than nuclear fuel). Seems like nobody likes half a baby.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th April 2018, 08:36 AM	#106
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer... Posts: 9,521	Originally Posted by Jerrymander ... Why doesn't the average Trump voter expand their hand to understand the other side? Groupthink.
	__________________ Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated.These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out. If the horse reasons the Kentucky Derby is over

27th April 2018, 08:40 AM	#107
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Seems like nobody likes half a baby. I'm fine with my half-a-baby. Baron's just getting on my nerves. lol
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

27th April 2018, 08:42 AM	#108
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer... Posts: 9,521	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Fine whatever. If anyone, from either side, believes that a full 40% of the population has gotten so cartoonishly evil that's there's no going back then start acting like it. Just start shooting them on sight as the inhuman monsters you think they are. Just straight go full Civil War if things really and truly are this far past the point of no return. Exactly! I want somebody to explain me which is the difference between considering any conservative a fascist nutjob and considering any colour person driving a car a security risk. Do people in the States say "He's conservative but he's a good person", "I'm not discriminating anyone, I have a friend who is conservative", "I'm open-minded as conservatives, there are good ones, there are bad ones" etc.?
	__________________ Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated.These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out. If the horse reasons the Kentucky Derby is over

27th April 2018, 08:54 AM	#109
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer... Posts: 9,521	Originally Posted by Fudbucker Do we agree that Trump is unfit for the office? (I stopped reading as commanded) A majority of people plus states decided he's fit. There's a very simplistic litmus test to perform: "Trump is unfit for the office but Cruz is pretty fine" "Trump is unfit for the office but Rubio is pretty fine" "Trump is unfit for the office but Carson is pretty fine" If you don't find any of the previous statements to be true, the problem is not in Trump and fitness.
	__________________ Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated.These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out. If the horse reasons the Kentucky Derby is over

27th April 2018, 08:57 AM	#110
kellyb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by aleCcowaN A majority of people plus states decided he's fit. There's a very simplistic litmus test to perform: "Trump is unfit for the office but Cruz is pretty fine" "Trump is unfit for the office but Rubio is pretty fine" "Trump is unfit for the office but Carson is pretty fine" If you don't find any of the previous statements to be true, the problem is not in Trump and fitness. Fitness is a spectrum. Trump is unusually, uniquely unfit. I don't think anyone was arguing that McCain and Romney were "unfit" - they were just undesirable compared to the alternative.
	__________________ "We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

27th April 2018, 08:59 AM	#111
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by kellyb Wiki says that's been banned for a quarter of a century now. I would have to see a link. We did it regularly and that was the aughts.
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

27th April 2018, 09:05 AM	#112
Fudbucker Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 8,537	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Sure, because it's got the word "uranium" in it, and people don't know what "depleted" means in this context. I'm reminded of the simultaneous claims from Chris Cuomo that nobody wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and from former Justice Stevens that we should repeal the 2nd amendment. I'm sure some fears about gun control are irrational, but not all of them. I'm not sure you do. For my part, I never tried to establish any equivalency. Such a judgment is always subjective, and conditions and people change over time, so it's sort of a fool's errand. The only point I was trying to establish is that, contrary to Fudbucker's claim, there are irrational fears on the left. You haven't tried to refute that point, but haven't actually conceded it either. Instead, you basically moved the goalpost for Fudbucker to the question of equivalency. And I have no interest in chasing that rabbit down a hole. Of course, this is not what I claimed. The fear of an unfit President occupying the presidency is a rational fear.
Fudbucker Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 8,537

27th April 2018, 09:08 AM	#113
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer... Posts: 9,521	Originally Posted by kellyb Fitness is a spectrum. Trump is unusually, uniquely unfit. I don't think anyone was arguing that McCain and Romney were "unfit" - they were just undesirable compared to the alternative. Then, you passed the test. I'm sure a one or two here wouldn't. Groupthink is not the monopoly of the right, nor all the right.
	__________________ Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated.These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out. If the horse reasons the Kentucky Derby is over

27th April 2018, 09:15 AM	#114
Fudbucker Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 8,537	Originally Posted by Ziggurat First, in regard to Peterson, he's a university professor. In the environment he works in, the extreme left is absolutely far more of a problem than the extreme right. It's only natural that he attacks the problem he is most directly confronted with. And it's not like he's in favor of the extreme right either, he's quite willing to denounce them to, and he does. That he doesn't do so with sufficient frequency to satisfy you seems pretty immaterial. Second, in regards to politics, you're not going to be able to establish numbers on that kind of extreme belief. All your metrics are going to be subjective. And the best you can do is anecdotes, which are obviously subject to extreme sampling error. For example, there was the city councilman who recently said Jews control the weather and use that power to flood cities. What does that mean for the broader question of left-wing extremism? I could try to claim he's representative, or just the tip of the iceberg, but I don't actually know that. "Survey results released by YouGov Friday show that 51 percent of Republicans said they think former President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, compared to just 14 percent of Democrats. Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election were especially convinced of Obama's African origins: Fully 57 percent said it was "definitely true" or "probably true" that the 44th president came from Kenya." http://www.newsweek.com/trump-birthe...s-kenya-744195 "Just 35 percent of Republicans believed global warming was caused by humans, compared with 40 percent at about this time in 2017 when Trump had barely taken office. A full 89 percent of Democrats, meanwhile, believed humans caused global warming. Just 42 percent said most scientists believe global warming is occurring, down from 53 percent last year." http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-ameri...l-shows-864550 PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats. http://news.gallup.com/poll/108226/r...eationism.aspx About half of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 election so the country can address claims of voter fraud, according to a new poll by the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...elections-poll It is obvious Republicans are divorced from reality, and the problem is getting worse.
Fudbucker Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 8,537

27th April 2018, 09:24 AM	#115
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer... Posts: 9,521	Originally Posted by Fudbucker PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats. http://news.gallup.com/poll/108226/r...eationism.aspx Originally Posted by Fudbucker It is obvious Republicans are divorced from reality, and the problem is getting worse. It is obvious both paragraphs are divorced from each other.
	__________________ Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated.These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out. If the horse reasons the Kentucky Derby is over

27th April 2018, 09:24 AM	#116
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,389	Originally Posted by Fudbucker Of course, this is not what I claimed. The fear of an unfit President occupying the presidency is a rational fear. No. You didn't simply state that this one fear was rational, you said "There are frightened people on the Left, of course, but their fears are rationally grounded". There are more fears on the left than simply Trump being unfit for office. According to your previous claim, those fears are all rational. If you want to change your position now, go ahead, but that's what you said.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th April 2018, 09:28 AM	#117
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,726	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Jesus Christ. Fine whatever. If anyone, from either side, believes that a full 40% of the population has gotten so cartoonishly evil that's there's no going back then start acting like it. Just start shooting them on sight as the inhuman monsters you think they are. Just straight go full Civil War if things really and truly are this far past the point of no return. But here's the problem. The GOP has openly cultivated and taught outright racism for decades. Dolt 45 was hardly the first person to state something brazenly racist about Obama - think of Rush Limbaugh's claim that the Obama's economic plan was "forced reparations" - sure you can go to a doctor and get a job, white guy, but black people can, too, and you should be angry about it (Obama himself was outright against racial reparations - while Alan Keyes, of all people, supported them!). Or, think of Dinesh D'Souza's absurd fantasy of Obama trying to avenge his father by embracing "Kenyan anti-colonialism", as opposed to American anti-colonialism I guess. Think of Reagan's "welfare queen" and her "young bucks" buying steak for dinner, for that matter. I called Dolt 45's supposed "voting commission" the voter suppression all-stars specifically because the republican members have spent decades openly trying to keep as many nonwhite people from voting as possible. I can't go to the voting booth and then vote in a way to calm the anger of people that are angry specifically because I got to the voting booth. I can't avoid a fight with someone who is hellbent on us having a fight, particularly when this person just shows up looking for a fight with me, and I've effected him in no negative way. I can't really avoid noting the racism of any person who is politically astute that supported Toupee Fiasco, since open white supremacism was the central tenet of his campaign and presidency. It's not that he didn't promise to help people based on their skin color - it's that he promised to harm people based on their skin color. Frankly, it wouldn't shock me if even Dolt 45's complete unfitness for office was seen as a way to show that he'd somehow still be a better president than that Obama, simply because he's white. And before anyone objects, this sentence is the only time I'm using the word "conservative" in this post. This is a look at Republicans as a political party.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,726	Last edited by Mumbles; 27th April 2018 at 09:34 AM.