The Tyranny of the Left Wing

[Catchme]

Many times on this forum I have put forth the idea that the left is the new Tyranny of Ideas, jamming their partisan viewpoints down our throats as "conventional wisdom".

A look at the lefts long record of democide can attest to the fact that tyrants never sleep

Nice try at a drive by smear, do people ever really read the links they are using to base the erroneous bias upon, I wonder, as apparently NOT in this case!

From the link provided, and contained right in Chapter 1:

I could uncover no relationship between culture and democide.

Plus, I am not sure you know what democide is.

[August1991]

Isn't it the right wing that wants control of your body? Abortion and stem cells come to mind here.

I have always found it vaguely strange that the Left defends abortion on the grounds that a woman should have complete control of her body yet the Left also defends compulsory State education and of course compulsory State taxes. IOW, a woman should be free to choose in some matters but not in others.

Of course, one could say the Social Right is just as contradictory when it argues against abortion yet favours the freedom to choose in other questions.

[jdobbin]

I have always found it vaguely strange that the Left defends abortion on the grounds that a woman should have complete control of her body yet the Left also defends compulsory State education and of course compulsory State taxes. IOW, a woman should be free to choose in some matters but not in others.

Of course, one could say the Social Right is just as contradictory when it argues against abortion yet favours the freedom to choose in other questions.

In what manner would you restrict women?

It isn't just the left that believes in compulsory education and taxes to support it.

[Fortunata]

Tyranny of the Left?? I thought some here were slightly delusional but now it's become more like paranoia.

[B. Max]

Nice try at a drive by smear, do people ever really read the links they are using to base the erroneous bias upon, I wonder, as apparently NOT in this case!

From the link provided, and contained right in Chapter 1:

I could uncover no relationship between culture and democide.

Plus, I am not sure you know what democide is.

I guess we can add history revisionist to the lefts long record of death by government.

[White Doors]

Excellent initial post August

[JerrySeinfeld]

If by "alternative viewpoints" you mean "bald face lies." Again, Jerry, since you ducke dout on the othe rthread you started with this same thrust: just becuase having an alternative viewpoint and challenge conventional thinking, doesn't obligate anyone to listen to you or take you seriously.

But I should take YOU seriously? Just today in the front page of the Vancouver Sun I saw a great headline about the impending "climate refugee" crisis. I don't even have to read the article to know how laugh-out-loud funny it's going to be.

Al Gore shows clips of glaciers tumbling into the ocean, as if to imply doom and gloom and that it isn't a common and long-known-about phenomenon with many glaciers on a seasonal basis - not to mention that glaciers thousands of years ago have receded far further back than they currently have.

Are you telling me, BD, that HUMAN CAUSED climate change is an indisputable fact? That the only solution to Iraq is withdrawal? That WITHOUT A DOUBT radical Islam is not a major threat to the west?

If you are, YOU are the one not to be taken seriously, because NONE of the above can be discernably proven with evidence. They are all a matter of opinion. Now stop trying to silence other opinions you lefty TYRANT

Try to avoid your ad hom personal thoughts about the author, and make your responses relevant to the points at hand.

Is it an "ad hom" to point out that the columnist in question is playing extremely fast and loose with the facts? Okay, I'm being charitable there. Truth is, Mark Steyn is a fucking liar.

OUCH

But, as with your predecessors throwing rocks on the streets of Seattle...me thinks thou doth protesteth too much

Oh snap. Hey: even the bat-shit insane FrontPage Mag called the "flying imams" story one of its Top 10 Overreported Stories of 2006.

HA! If you think EVERY muslim trouble story isn't IMMEDIATELY followed with the obligatory "but most muslims are moderate - no jihad to see here" routine the lefty media dreams up - you're living in a dreamworld, doggy.

Whoopsie doodle. Of course one has to wonder: does Steyn think that if it weren't for the MSM, Iraq would not be wracked with civil strife and daily incidents of violence and brutality? Answer: probably.

You're missing the point: The media has spun the situation so far to the left, that most everyone thinks the basic truism is that we have to leave Iraq soon.

Now tell me: wouldn't leaving Iraq now result in even MORE civil strife and violence than we are already experiencing? If things suck there now with the limited number of troops...how much worse will they suck when we LEAVE?

SEE? Alternative viewpoints. Try it.

So three swings. Three misses. That's not an unusual at-bat for Marky Mark: the question is never "how many times will he fuck up this week?" but rather "what kind of idiot takes this guy seriously?"

Your evidence is weak - in particular on the point about Chapters not stocking his book. To be frank, the Post articla edoesn't really adress that issue AT ALL.

But it's good to see you're consistent wih your ad hominem fallacies

[Figleaf]

Many times on this forum I have put forth the idea that the left is the new Tyranny of Ideas, jamming their partisan viewpoints down our throats as "conventional wisdom".

While lefties adore the idea that they're "fighting the power", that they are "on the outside" "alternative thinkers" (another Hollywood trait), in reality nowadays it appears it is truly right wing thinkers who provide new, alternative viewpoints and challenge convenational thinking.

What conventions are you attending?

Now, Mark Steyn has done a good job of articluating this concept in a column.

That seems doubtful, given Steyn's paucity of talent.

... And in most of the western world the default mode of the culture is well to the left.

Left of Steyn, at least!

... carelessly skimming the pics of charity galas and book launches, I couldn’t help noticing that all the politicians snapped alongside the celebs were Democrats: Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Terry McAuliffe… We take it for granted that large slabs of public real estate are reserved, broadly, for the soft-left,...

Hey Mark, maybe rightwing politicians just don't like hanging out with leftwing celebs.

If you go into your average bookstore and look at the display of books on, say, the environment, you would think there was nothing in the least bit contentious about Kyoto or global warming or “climate change”.

Is this true? Don't the skeptics publish?

[jdobbin]

Is this true? Don't the skeptics publish?

The climate change skeptics rarely publish anywhere except on websites and newspapers. The leading voice for for denial on climate change in Canada Tim Ball has not been a professor for many, many years and has no published peer review papers on the subject. Nor has he attended any climate change conferences to report his findings.

Most of the scientists the anti-climate change right wing point to are not published in the field of climate change.

At any rate, it looks like the Conservatives are going to adopt the NDP's environment program to stay in office so the right wing here should take up their concern and anger with them.

[JerrySeinfeld]

he climate change skeptics rarely publish anywhere except on websites and newspapers. The leading voice for for denial on climate change in Canada Tim Ball has not been a professor for many, many years and has no published peer review papers on the subject. Nor has he attended any climate change conferences to report his findings.

That's like poopooing blacks for avoiding KKK meetings.

[jdobbin]

That's like poopooing blacks for avoiding KKK meetings.

Your analogy is ridiculous.

[Black Dog]

The esteemable August1991:

It is true that Leftists tend to be "moral relativists". This has been true since the Cold War when some Leftists defended the Soviet Union or Red China by arguing that these regimes were no different (or even better) than the Capitalist West.

I've alway liked you, August, but your tendancy to play off a strawman "Left" always grates. I get the feeling your conception of the Left was formed in university by exposure to a few too many naive proto-Lefty do-gooder students and ossified '60s relics in faculty. Not to say moral relativism has not been a left-ish concept, but I would say it's hard to find any true believer outside of campus.

However one explains the Left's position, there's no doubt the Left defends Mullahs and suicide bombers against Danish cartoonists. When it comes to choosing American soldiers or insurgents, the Left chooses insurgents. For the Left, it's alright to make fun of white male lawyers but it's not acceptable to ridicule black female nurses.

See what I mean? Your view of the "Left" is cynical, simplistic and smacks of a, well, you know.

BD, Mark Steyn (like you) is a polemicist. He also (like you) makes funny allusions. I wouldn't call him (nor you) a liar. I happened to buy and read his latest book "America Alone" and he doesn't make stuff up. Steyn also has a point about Canada's reaction to his book. I think it's still in Amazon's top ten but I don't think the G & M has yet to review it.

There's being wrong (which Steyn more often than not is, but would never admit to: his record as a prognosticator is abysmal) and there's intentionally peddling false information (aka: lying). In the case of Jmail Hussein, Steyn was wrong, but certainly never allowed for the possibility that he might be. In the case of the "lack of coverage" of the "flying imams" from the local paper, google turned up a story in 0.18 seconds. So Steyn's claim that it was ignored is a lie, as his his bleating about censorship.

I expect a mea culpa is not forthcoming.

I also hope you're not picking up some of his tricks: G&M review of Steyn's screed.

JS (why I bother, I know not, but...):

But I should take YOU seriously? Just today in the front page of the Vancouver Sun I saw a great headline about the impending "climate refugee" crisis. I don't even have to read the article to know how laugh-out-loud funny it's going to be.

I didn't write the article. What's your point?

Al Gore shows clips of glaciers tumbling into the ocean, as if to imply doom and gloom and that it isn't a common and long-known-about phenomenon with many glaciers on a seasonal basis - not to mention that glaciers thousands of years ago have receded far further back than they currently have.

If it's a "common and long-known-about phenomenon", why shoudl he mention it? Anyway, I haven't seen the movie, so i can't comment save to say this: if Al Gore is a liar and a fantasist, them he and Steyn are peas in a pod.

Are you telling me, BD, that HUMAN CAUSED climate change is an indisputable fact?

Here's the thing: I've never stated what my personal beliefs on global warming/climate change are. All I've ever said is that the scientific consensus backs anthropomorphic global warming. Having weighed the opinions of scientists with thos eof bought-and-paid for pseudo experts like Steven Milloy and unqualified dilletentes like Lomborg or Chrcithon, I have to come down on the side of the scientists. What's to be done about the problem is outside my area of expertise, so I'm loathe to pontificate on the subject.

That the only solution to Iraq is withdrawal? That WITHOUT A DOUBT radical Islam is not a major threat to the west?

You're ranting.

If you are, YOU are the one not to be taken seriously, because NONE of the above can be discernably proven with evidence.

And nor can most of your pet theories. We stand at an impasse.

HA! If you think EVERY muslim trouble story isn't IMMEDIATELY followed with the obligatory "but most muslims are moderate - no jihad to see here" routine the lefty media dreams up - you're living in a dreamworld, doggy.

Clearly, this claim is impossible to substansiate. So why make it? It certainly doesn't cover the fact that Steyn claimed the local paper didn't cover the story when a simple google search showed they did. So either he's an idiot who can't do basic research, he's a liar bearing false witness or he's engaged in sopme goalpost-shifting whereby any coverage that fails to meet a unknown Steyndard is deemed isufficient and evidence of a global Jewish Islamic-leftist media conspiracy.

You're missing the point: The media has spun the situation so far to the left, that most everyone thinks the basic truism is that we have to leave Iraq soon.

So, you, like Steyn, think that if it weren't for the MSM, Iraq would not be wracked with civil strife and daily incidents of violence and brutality? Or perhaps you are labouring under a poor understanding of the media and think that faced with the choice of covering the orgy of bloodshed and some stage-managed feelgood photo-op, they would deign to choose the latter.

Now tell me: wouldn't leaving Iraq now result in even MORE civil strife and violence than we are already experiencing? If things suck there now with the limited number of troops...how much worse will they suck when we LEAVE?

For one claiming to be so enamoured of alternative viewpoints, you sure trot out some hoary cliches. Try this for an alternative: "we" can't do a damn thing either way.

Your evidence is weak - in particular on the point about Chapters not stocking his book. To be frank, the Post articla edoesn't really adress that issue AT ALL.

I think you neee to brush up on some basic media skills or at least reading comprehension. For one, it's not an editorial. It's a news piece. For two, it contains this info:

Sorya Gaulin, vice-president of public relation for Indigo, sought to quell the brouhaha yesterday, saying the company has in no way sought to boycott the book.

The company offered America Alone for sale as soon as it came out in September, but it quickly sold out, she said. Ms. Gaulin could not say how many books were originally ordered.

"Upon realizing we had grossly underestimated the demand for this title, Indigo immediately reordered several thousand more books, but Mr. Steyn's U.S. publisher was unable to fulfill our order because they, too, underestimated demand in the U.S. and Canada," Ms. Gaulin said.

Like other book stores in Canada, Indigo is now waiting for shipments that are expected to arrive this month, she said.

Mr. Steyn's U.S. publisher, Regnery, has said the book is in reprint and that all back orders will be filled.

Which makes sense if you knew anything about book publishing. Steyn's imprint, Regnery, is a small company. I don't know what it's distribution is like, but I don't imagine it's that great. It's telling that , faced with the choice between real world problems of supply, demand and logistics and a nebulous unverifiable conspiracy, MarkyMark and funky bunchers such as you opt for the latter.

But it's good to see you're consistent wih your ad hominem fallacies

I don't think you know what this means. I've attacked Steyn's accuracy and his work here. The ad hominems (have I mentioned he's a fat, lying, pompous high school drop out who's area of expertise is musical theatre?) are simply decoration. The icing on the cake.

[JerrySeinfeld]

(sigh)

I've addressed this before. Your arguments are one sided and incorrect, pure and simple.

The problem I have is that, unlike lefty bedwetters sitting in their pyjamas in their mother's basement, I don't have the time to sit, cut, paste all day long to squash your every pissy attempt at credibility.

Your last post was almost an entire page, and as I have said before, your argument style is very difficult to attack due to the immense amount of time it takes to cut and paste each little one-line rant and respond to it while still maintaining some degree of comprehensiveness for the other readers on this forum.

Suffice it to say the amount of time and energy you have spent in trying to kybosh every idea that someone else posits is evidence enough of my premise.

I look forward to seeing the fruits of your next cut--paste-and-contradict project sometime in the afternoon.

Sincerely,

The oppressed opinions on the right

[Black Dog]

I've addressed this before. Your arguments are one sided and incorrect, pure and simple.

Arguments of opinion generally are one-sided. Duh. As for incorrect: no, not really.

The problem I have is that, unlike lefty bedwetters sitting in their pyjamas in their mother's basement, I don't have the time to sit, cut, paste all day long to squash your every pissy attempt at credibility.

Ah yes. The old: "I uh...don't have time and, uh, the, uh, energy to spend on a stupid web forum. GET A LIFE HIPPY! LOL!"

Your last post was almost an entire page, and as I have said before, your argument style is very difficult to attack due to the immense amount of time it takes to cut and paste each little one-line rant and respond to it while still maintaining some degree of comprehensiveness for the other readers on this forum

What can I say? I am nothing if not succinct. I understand, however, that my combination of economy of words and richness of thought is difficult for rank amateurs to duplicate.

Suffice it to say the amount of time and energy you have spent in trying to kybosh every idea that someone else posits is evidence enough of my premise.

Ladies and gentleman: my rebuttal.

I look forward to seeing the fruits of your next cut--paste-and-contradict project sometime in the afternoon.

Sincerely,

The oppressed opinions on the right

There's an expression on the internets for people who exhibit this kind of mock outrage and hurt when their opinions are challenged. Such a person is known as a "Whiny-ass Titty Baby." I think that's much catchier and certainly more apt than the moniker above. Toodles. Come back when your testicles descend.

[jdobbin]

Ladies and gentleman: my rebuttal.

I think that Jerry had this happen to him: link

[GostHacked]

I want to throw something in here.

What the hell is a 'secular progressive' ?? Bill O'Reilly uses this often to describe the nutty left wingers.

http://www.billoreilly.com/quiz?action=vie...nity/cwtest.jsp

I have done the test, and I am a Secular Progressive. This right wing nutter is laughable. People take him seriously on everything. This is not the left here. This is the extreme right. Oh, and it prompts me to buy his book. These questions are so vague they don't really tell you anything. And the questions are loaded in a way that it really does not accomplish anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_Warrior

OH I see what he means now. Laughable.

[B. Max]

I want to throw something in here.

What the hell is a 'secular progressive' ?? Bill O'Reilly uses this often to describe the nutty left wingers.

A secular progressive is the same thing as a cultural Marxist. Cultural Marxism is economic Marxism translated into cultural terms.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I want to throw something in here.

What the hell is a 'secular progressive' ?? Bill O'Reilly uses this often to describe the nutty left wingers.

A secular progressive is the same thing as a cultural Marxist. Cultural Marxism is economic Marxism translated into cultural terms.

A secular progressive is someone with no religion (secular) who champions and accepts any lifestyle without regard for accountability or social traditions or norms. They love the gay community, the pot smoking community, the NAMBLA community, the porn community....basically any subvert wierdo group that chooses to call itself a community.

Secular progressive embrace change for the sake of change. In a strange and unintentional contradiction, secular progressives also love embrace other, non-western societies (ie. Muslims) which make western conservatism look like a gay pride parade.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Wow.

I know if I must be doing something right if this many hillarys start wetting their beds over my topic.

Not to mention the namecalling and temper tantrums are obvious irony that they're proving my point about the kyboshing of others' opinions.

[Black Dog]

Wow.

I know if I must be doing something right if this many hillarys start wetting their beds over my topic.

Uh...Jerry? This is a discussion forum. You know: for discussion? There's no logical correlation between the amount of discussion a topic generates and the veracity of the premises. (Shit, by that logic 9-11 was totally an inside job!!!)

Indeed, the durability of the topic stands at odds with your premise: if people were trying to silence you, then no one would have responded to your whining in the first place, instead of trying-futilely-to engage you in an discussion of ideas.

Again: disagreement with =/= "silencing". A child can tell the difference.

Which reminds me: what are you doing back here so soon? Is it recess time already?

Not to mention the namecalling and temper tantrums are obvious irony that they're proving my point about the kyboshing of others' opinions.

Again: discussion forum. Talking about, responding to and disagreeing with your opinions is not the same as "kyboshing," "oppressing," or whatever other term you want to use to describe your fantasy conspiracy that must be at the heart of your opinions' unpopularity. Indeed, the fact you've been posting as long as you have is a testament to the enduring power of free speech.

Let me put in this way: I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in the past and will say in the future, but I will vigorously defend you're right to be constantly wrong. After all, if you weren't here, I'd have to find some other chucklehead to wind up and PolyNewbie isn't nearly as entertaining.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Wow.

I know if I must be doing something right if this many hillarys start wetting their beds over my topic.

Uh...Jerry? This is a discussion forum. You know: for discussion? There's no logical correlation between the amount of discussion a topic generates and the veracity of the premises. (Shit, by that logic 9-11 was totally an inside job!!!)

Indeed, the durability of the topic stands at odds with your premise: if people were trying to silence you, then no one would have responded to your whining in the first place, instead of trying-futilely-to engage you in an discussion of ideas.

Again: disagreement with =/= "silencing". A child can tell the difference.

Which reminds me: what are you doing back here so soon? Is it recess time already?

Not to mention the namecalling and temper tantrums are obvious irony that they're proving my point about the kyboshing of others' opinions.

Again: discussion forum. Talking about, responding to and disagreeing with your opinions is not the same as "kyboshing," "oppressing," or whatever other term you want to use to describe your fantasy conspiracy that must be at the heart of your opinions' unpopularity. Indeed, the fact you've been posting as long as you have is a testament to the enduring power of free speech.

Let me put in this way: I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in the past and will say in the future, but I will vigorously defend you're right to be constantly wrong. After all, if you weren't here, I'd have to find some other chucklehead to wind up and PolyNewbie isn't nearly as entertaining.

I presume for you, "discussion forum" means "calling people names like idiot" or "showing funny pictures with your adversary's nickname pointing to the picture"?

I love the left

[jdobbin]

I presume for you, "discussion forum" means "calling people names like idiot" or "showing funny pictures with your adversary's nickname pointing to the picture"?

I love the left

I thought JerrySeinfeld was your actual name. You usually take credit for other people's work so I assumed it was some kind of running joke you had. I love the right wing. Always a card!

[Black Dog]

I presume for you, "discussion forum" means "calling people names like idiot" or "showing funny pictures with your adversary's nickname pointing to the picture"?

Well, that's part of it. The fun part.

Tell you what: I'll lay off the tomfoolery and jocularity if you can demonstrate an understanding of the difference between "I disagree with what you are saying" and "You are not allowed to say what you are saying."

In the interests of fairness, I went back and re-read Mark Steyn's piece (O the things I do for this place!). It's basically a re-statement of the hoary old trope that the Jews "left" controls the media (if by "media" we're talking about the society pages and "E Talk daily": curiously, little mention is made of the increasing degree of corporate ownership of virtually all major media outlets). That's fine as far as it goes (though Steyn loses the plot when he starts invoking shadowy conspiracies and starts just making shit up.) But so what? What is it you're after? Some kind of right-wing affirmative action program that ensures Michael Chricton's anti-environmentalist book gets turned into a TV movie starring Bruce Willis and Chuck Heston and soundtracked by Toby Keith?

Hey, I know: let's make another deal. The "Left" will concede some measure of control over the cultural output if the "Right" concedes an equal share of its control over actual policy. How's that grab you?

[GostHacked]

Black Dog.

Let me put in this way: I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in the past and will say in the future, but I will vigorously defend you're right to be constantly wrong. After all, if you weren't here, I'd have to find some other chucklehead to wind up and PolyNewbie isn't nearly as entertaining.

Does it all come down to that? What is entertaining? Or do you walk away from this board with something new to think about? That is how I look at it. Calling this all entertainment (I know that was not your intention) is outlandish to me.

Tell you what: I'll lay off the tomfoolery and jocularity if you can demonstrate an understanding of the difference between "I disagree with what you are saying" and "You are not allowed to say what you are saying."

I'd stop by NOT posting that YOU ARE AN IDIOT.swf. anymore. That rebuttle is about as worthy as the ones you complain about. I know you are better than that Blag Dog.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Hey, I know: let's make another deal. The "Left" will concede some measure of control over the cultural output if the "Right" concedes an equal share of its control over actual policy. How's that grab you?

ahh - so typical of the short-sighted lefty. Stay tuned - the war is only about 1/5 toward it's completion point and we're already talking "exit strategy". The true job woouldn't be complete for another 10-15 years.

As Bush once called it the "long war" - not a great name for ADD lefties without vision.

The problem with a democracy with a liberal bias in the media is that the war story gets old after about 2 years. Then we start talking "exit strategy". SO in terms of actualt "policy", you're getting your ADD lefty media wish:

"War while it's a good news story - exit strategy when the ratings drop"