bleeding heart

OK, I get that. But like I said, I'm crazy about horror movies. And I'm not a snob about it...it's hard to be a snob about horror movies if you love them, because you can forgive a certain amount of dreck. (Hell, I even like a couple of the Friday the 13th movies.) But I don't find PA tense in any way. But...like I also said, I will continue to grudgingly admit that it's not the movie, but me. (I hate Forrest Gump, too. )

Zing.

It's true it's not perfectly clear...I guess I shouldn't be taking my clues from the contradictory and unsatisfactory "progressive" label which spawned this entire discussion? I am contending that the overwhelming majority of Western political leaders are, and have been, "conservative" and "liberal"...and the "progressive" label applies only fitfully and occasionally. Therefore, the long list of horrors we could drum up, with ease, are the fault of "conservatives" and "liberals," and only rarely "progressives." Yes, and I'm the most "conservative" among myself, the Canadian Communist Party, and Jane Fonda circa 1969. The comparison means little. Labour is a centre-left party, a party of mainstream, Establishment liberals. It was the "progressives" and the further Left that were most vocal in opposing Labour's deceptive war of choice against Iraq...while more centre-aligned liberals and cosnervatives more often supported it. Well, hold on a second. What part of "progressive ideology" has as its mandate a so-called "appeasement of Islam" and a hatred of free speech? Remember, I was responding to the idea that Progressives have caused all sorts of damage; to which I responded (while agreeing that this has doubtless occurred in certain ways) that it is actually liberals and conservatives who have doen so...and much worse. Sure, with their military and diplomatic aid to the genocidal Indonesian Generals, for probably the most explicit example. Because the preferred foreign policy methods have increased terrorism, as was predictable (in fact, predicted as soon as 9/11). The Iraq War alone precipitated an increase in magnitude of terrorist attacks...not considered too horrific, since most victims were Iraqis themselves. The current Drone program is making anger boil up quite intensely, and likely intensifying recruitment efforts--people get upset when civilians are slaughtered. And it's not as if terrorists aren't responsible themselves for terrorism...that's a no-brainer. But those whose policies increase terrorist recruitment directly share culpability. Now, the idea that some percentage of the political Left who are too politically correct to ever criticize Islam's barbaric strands, and who wants everyone else to shut up about it...well, the idea that these people are having a greater, negative effect than a catastrophic war, and on the killing of untold innocent civilians in several countries...the very idea beggars belief. It's preposterous. I don't know...but what's clear is that IF this is the problem, then your very remarks here are an open concession that liberal and conservative politicians (as well as media forces, intellectuals, etc) are at least co-responsible with the (less powerful) "progressives." Which again begs the question of preferred rhetorical targets. To a degree, though I'm willing to believe that more of a blunder in long-term thinking that of direct culpability in outright terrorism, which is morally more depraved. So no, I was thinking more along the lines of the Nicaraguan Contras, the El Salvadoran Death Squads (for "sub-national" terrorism); and the Indonesians, Haiti's Duvalier dynasty etc for the variety of State terrorism. That is, Western governments have been routinely colluding in outright terrorism...I mean terrorism as it's currently defined in "official" language (speaking of "Orwellian." ) I hasten to add that I don't believe a truly "progressive" coalition of Western governments would behave necessarily any differently; that is, I don't consider it a matter of ideological distinction, but rather the institutionalized lunacy of great power. Again, you have yet to show how bad progressive behavior is somehow distinct from bad conservative or liberal behavior. Are you suggesting that we give the more powerful and influential political forces a pass, while concentrating on the less powerful and influential one...even when the former has caused so much havoc? As for your second point, see directly above: I agree. I agree completely, so far as this goes, but I don't accept the analogy. Reagan, Ford, Trudeau, Thatcher, Blair, and Harper etc etc did not (variously) conduct wars of aggression, or materially aid genocidal killers, or support and defend the toppling of democratically-elected leaders because the subject peoples were stealing...anything. With all due respect, I detect a hint of a priori justification in these behaviours....whereas some lefties wishing to censor speech deserve the harshest disapprobation.

No. He doesn't. I watched it twice, which took the summoning of some genuine will. The subject doesn't come up. Why do you think it does? But not including the single example you chose to link?

Why not? It's a belief in something, based on the "evidence" that they speak to me, the "small still voice in heart" as some Christians would have it. What is the fundamental difference is the two (identical) claims of "evidence"?

Ok....but the faery analogy WAS precisely relevant...and you somehow misread it as my saying that Christians believe in faeries. ???

Sorry, Tim, I don't quite get your response here. I was speaking to PIK about the possibility of his being banned...but said that if he doesn't mind being banned, then there's no problem.

Yes, and I agree. My point is that this isn't peculiarly a Lefty phenomenon...but simply places the Left in the rather sordid company of conservatives, liberals, and the self-described "apolitical." If that sounds like a weak defense, it's because it's meant to be. Those are not the "other groups which you've identified" to which I was referring. I was referring to liberals and conservatives. They are in MOST positions of power. Yes, the HRCs (as I've pointed out twice) range from useless, down to worse than useless, right down to chilling and oppressive. It's nice that I can agree with Ann Coult....er, Mark Steyn on at least one subject. And I do. I'm also gratified that the most egregious section is potentially on the chopping block. We'll see. However, there are a lot more "liberals" and "conservatives" in positions of power than "progressives," particularly of the kind that you claim Condell is narrowly speaking of. It is primarily liberals and conservatives who are responsible for catastrophes like the Iraq War, for the toppling of democracies and the undermining of democratic movements...and for the collusion in attempted genocide to which I alluded elsewhere. The progressives have been largely opposed to these things. How "significant (is their influence) in media" on these matters does not speak to self-evidently profound effects. Sure, progressives have had some effects on other matters....so long as violent foreign policies aren't n display (their opposition to these things is more often than not ineffectual, though there might be some beneficial long-term effects): on gay rights, women's rights, and several other issues, as I've said. And yes, doubtless they've had some pernicious influence as well. But, given the liberal/conservative "influences" and policy matters I've spoken of above, it's blatantly self-evident that the progressives have not been more damaging than have their liberal and conservative counterparts. Less so, in fact. For an example really salient to your argument: I would argue that politically-correct appeasement of extremist Islam is eclipsed by liberal and conservative policies that have directly contributed to, and increased, terrorism and potential terrorism. Not to mention the more direct matter: intentional culpability, collusion...with terrorism itself. Which by definition is a more serious problem than PC-ing about Islam while condemning Mormons. I'd be interested if such a thing also raises Condell's ire. I doubt it, but would not be displeased to be proven wrong. Yes, I would very much appreciate you linking me to such videos. Well, gee. Welcome to the near-universal club, Mr. Condell! Not yet. We'll see after you've linked the videos (two would suffice, I think)...and if the videos are actual acknowledgements that align at least roughly with the points I've made, which is after all your claim. Yes, but we've already plainly established that we're talking about some percentage, who knows what size, of progressives. Once again, there is a certain percentage of liberals, and of conservatives, who are guilty of similar things...and frankly of much worse. I think the case can be made that their influence is broader and deeper, both policy-wise and in the media (laughably deemed "progressive," or "leftist." Speaking of which, have you noticed how there is only cherry-picked examples, scattershot, rather than a fully-fledged institutional analysis? The latter is by definition the only rational and educational way to discuss bias (progressive or otherwise) in....an institutional structure! Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent remains, to my knowledge, the Gold standard on this (and to clarify a misperception, they neither hypothesize nor conclude that the mainstream media is "conservative," either.) And if it's effectiveness is only by default, because of a dearth of other institutional studies...that's entirely, 100% the fault of those clamouring about the "leftwing media," but who refuse to tackle the subject in a serious way. At any rate, I would indeed be interested in seeing Condell's videos on the positive historical influences of the Left (indeed, influences that he's taken to heart, and which constitute part of his very belief system.) I won't go so far as to ask for his denunciations of libertarianism, as libertarians are profoundly allergic to self-criticism. ​

Yes, this has been my point. And it begs the question of why AW would dispute....anything.

PIK, I don't want to see you get banned. And that's where this could well be headed. Now, if you really don't care...then of course it's up to you anyway.

But if (and yes, I recognize you're not making the claim either way)...IF the evidence for God is good evidence, then wouldn't the same standards apply in other cases? For example, if I claim that "Faeries speak to me"--which is precisely the claim made by (and probably believed by) many Christians--it is in fact part of the "evidence" of which you speak--would you seriously defer judgement on whether or not that was good evidence...or not? Or how about something closer to home: if I say God tells me that the US and its junior partner Canada are so morally corrupt that its people should all die (as in Biblical precedence, mind)....you wouldn't think it within your purview to argue the point? Or do you think the fact of my summoning "God spoke to me" might well constitute "good" evidence?

And what of the revelations that the spy agency could be spying on Canadian citizens--which is not only explicitly outside their mandate, but is flatly illegal? the overseer himself feels the possibility very large...and the only reason he can't be sure is because the agency has kept poor records...ALSO illegal, probably an intentional deception precisely to keep the overseer in the dark (which, too, is completely illegal). Is this also our principled government trying to protect potential jobs for Canadians?

Oh, I don't know, eyeball....it seems about par for the course. Soon, we'll no doubt see the evil Nigel Wright excoriated by the Harper admirers...a man whose public esteem is directly commensurate with the PM's words about him.

Where do you find this?

I thought both characters were quite unlikeable, but I had no problem with this...it was almost refreshing. My single problem is that I didn't find it scary. And I mean, not even "Scream" scary, or "Final Destination" Scary. And those have a postmodern sensibility, and are scarcely even designed to be scary in the conventional "horror" sense. I did think the last ten minutes pretty decent, I'll give it that.

First of all, I should clarify that I agree there exist racist progressives. I'd be surprised if anyone really argued otherwise. However, I don't think this delineates any sort of special case; it simply places progressives in the same boat as liberals, conservatives, and anything in between. Now, a person might argue that the chief difference is that progressives often have anti-racism as part of their self-declared make-up, as one of their core beliefs, so it's the sanctimonious hypocrisy that rankles. And I can sympathize with this view. But ultimately that doesn't matter so very much; none of the political groupings are free from hypocrisy--I daresay we'd all have quite a time trying to avoid hypocrisy. More to the point, hypocrisy isn't what's at issue: racism is what's at issue. And so the bottom line--that progressives are no more racist than the other groups you've identified here--suggests to me that Condell is engaging in a type of Special Pleading. At bottom, I get a whiff of the cherished tradition, a century old, give or take, of Left-Obsession, in which this entity called "The Left" (ever-shifting, depending on how rightward leans the accuser) is so iniquitous...but based more or less on mainstream, even universal, weaknesses, errors, and omissions. The political Left (I mean as opposed to mainstream "liberals") has also, ironically, long been the champion of some of the notions that folks like Condell profess to hold dear; a point which he avoids...indeed, he must, so as not to muddy his pat denunciations with the greyness of historical truth. For example, if, as you say, he believes in equal rights for homosexuals, he must surely be aware that it the Left and the Left alone who long ago took up the cause in solidarity with gay people. (And, as with Muslims victimized by Western militarism, these progressives cared not a whit whether homosexuals were left, liberal, or conservative. A principled critic must NOT care.) While my impression is that liberals like to take credit for the vast improvement over the way homosexuality is now perceived, they were in fact pretty homophobic, then tolerantly uninterested, and finally supportive...a support that occurred only in recent memory. Same with the Libertarians, hamstrung as they've long been by their contradictory relationship with conservatism. That is, the liberals finally learned a little something from "the left" which they so often despise. And not for the first time. Hell, Canadian liberals came on board a little over a decade ago...pretty late to the game, I should say. And in America, during the 2008 Democratic primaries, (five short years ago) there was ONE supporter of same sex marriage....out of eight contenders! (Predictably, it was Kucinich, the lefty-est, progressivy-est of them all, by far.)Hillary and Obama, in solidarity with their more reactionary brethren, were explicitly opposed. The successes of the leftist politics--and I'm talking about notions with broad, mainstream acceptance, nothing that is (any longer) deemed "radical"--are many. Usually liberals have been dragged kicking and screaming into the more humane world, their essential...well, conservatism...a bulwark against what they later recognize as good (and on which they subsequently congratulate themselves for their forward-thinking.) None of this undermines an argument against progressive racism...or ANY leftwing stupidity. But it does suggest to me that the common left-hatred and its familiar refrains are always conveniently selective, or even troubled by a gaping memory hole.

Except Harper has explicitly and openly denied the claims made by Duffy's lawyer. And I'm not saying Harper's lying, either. Hopefully we shall know the truth. But at least one of these men (and maybe both) plainly do not agree with your take on it.

Yes, certainly; but I was alluding to discussions I've had on this forum, with both liberals and conservatives, in which they've evinced support for actual culpability in actual attempted genocide (as well as numerous other atrocities...and I'm talking about matters that are uncontroversially crimes, just so that's clear; I even generously leave out Iraq, for example, though of course it could easily be included). I'm talking Indonesia/East Timor, the Nicaraguan Contras, and too many other depraved incidents to summon without carpet-bombing the thread. As well as more general discussions of what is and what is not acceptable for liberal and conservative leaderships in the powerful democracies to indulge in. (Answer: most thing are ultimately acceptable, though some debaters balk more quickly at rape as a valid weapon of war, or the torture and intentional slaughter of innocent civilians. Others shrug, or defend it outright. Evidently this is insufficiently barbaric to raise Condell's hackles as well.) And since the crimes are real, were in fact committed by self-described liberals and conservatives, and then here supported by liberals and conservatives, I put it to you that matters of "implementing policies" makes affirmative action and the grotesque HRC laughably trivial by comparison. I already covered this, and explicitly, in the now-locked thread. I'm not sure why you'd summon an implied question that has already been answered. As for "progressive racism"; no, honestly, I'm not sure it is perfectly clear. If Condell (and yourself) allude only to progressives who actually engage in the race-baiting ad hominems, then fine. I get the feeling it's slightly more expansive than that, though I could be wrong. I also don't quite buy the "Orwellian" descriptor you use. I do understand it; as you say, who is opposed to "progress"? And personally, I don't self-label as a "progressive," even though I'm so often aligned with self-described "progressives'" views. I don't much care for the word. But your use of "Orwellian" doesn't quite work, in my opinion, because the formulation is too broadly applicable to so many matters: "Pro-life"; "Pro-choice"; "Anti-American"; "Family values"; "Patriot." All these terms are politicized footballs, particularly 1., 2., and 4....and no one is opposed to choice, life, or family values; and few are opposed to patriotism or to America. ("Opposition" meaning as often as not "criticism," I add, anticipating a response from some folks on this contentious matter, and my wishing to avoid a thread hijack for as long as possible.) So, no, I don't think "progressive" can be accurately described as "Orwellian," or at least no more so than many other terms that rarely or never get saddled with the adjective. It may well not be a very good word to use for what was once simply described as "the Left." (Another problematic term, but I won't get into that one just now.)

Personally, I didn't much care for the first one, either, though I love horror movies. But I bow to popular sentiment on this one; it's so well-liked, that it's probably me, not the movie.

During my third cup of coffee in a masochistic attempt to stay awake, a question occurred to me: why make a ghost story, placed squarely and intentionally in the "horror" genre, and then try to ensure that no one finds ghosts scary? There might be some postmodern mischievousness at play here, but that seems a real stretch. The evidence leans towards "incompetence," your Honour.

Ah, good ol' Jules! He knew how to perform overkill on a smackdown.

To be fair, cybercoma told me the reason for his suspension, and didn't (at least to me) contest the reasoning.

Nope.

??? I said, and you quoted, That's a perfectly lucid sentence. If you cannot comprehend it, then I suggest you take your own advice about "learn[ing] reading comprehension." Just so. The logic escapes him. Then it's your explanation that is remiss, as you mischaracterize the Great Man. You said, That's all progressives. Irritating as it may be, words have meanings which can be sussed out. Well, I certainly agree that the "racism" card is thrown around too promiscuously (as Pat Condell does, inhabiting the same unreasonable realm as his ideological enemies). So, I agree with that trite truism that has been summoned a million times by lots of people...including myself. Whether or not he is a racist or an Islamaphobe, I couldn't personally say. I think the first point has some real truth to it (though far better said elsewhere, like I've noted); while the second is a type of cheap pop psychology, similar to that practiced by those with whom he disagrees. Why he disagrees, when he indulges in the same spirited method of indiscriminate hyperbole, is anyone's guess. I won't use his method of speculating wildly. Is that a genuine question? If so, the answer is: nope. Well then hell, that's simple and meaningless. I could talk about the political Right's support for genocide and their propensity for all sorts of psychological ills...and when called on it, point out that I'm using my OWN definition of "conservative," so they need not get their panties in such a bunch over my rank generalizations and pretence to the nuances of the discipline of psychology. I could point out that mainstream liberals often as not support outright mass murder, so long as the "correct" team is on the murderous side...and then protest that I'm only speaking of MY specific definition of "liberals." But I prefer not to do so...because it's one part dishonest argument, and the other part a colossal waste of time. And, as you are underscoring, it brings out the debate pedants. Again, didn't you earlier berate me for "reading comprehension" problems? I made no assertion remotely related to what you're saying here. What I said, by way of suggestion, was that if you want somewhat similar arguments made by people with actual intellects (and far stronger arguments) you'd be better summoning someone like the late Christopher Hitchens than the knuckledragger on display in that particular video. I have a lot of disagreements with Hitchens, but at least he was intelligent, and skilled at argument. You misunderstand, which I see is your habit. You are plainly invoking a moral high ground over me...because you view your own argument as morally superior. I hasten to add that I don't mind, as that's not abnormal in heated debates; and I'm not nearly so delicately sensitive about such matters as is dear Mr. Condell. But the point is, you are therefore implying that I'm a racist. Not by my logic; but by your own formulation. Do you really think you want to go there? What purpose do you suppose it will serve?

Uh...yeah. No one ever suggested that he wasn't "allowed his opinion."