What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Revoltingest]

It depends on the comparison. I am not saying they are both right. I am saying the root cause is the same. I think the rioters are going about it wrong, and that is on them. But the reason they are out there is the actions of Trump. In that respect it is no different than revolutionaries.

Actually, even hypothetically, Trump is not nearly as much of a problem as the people who voted in him are.

Yeah.....I get that accusation a lot.

Trump is just one person - and not a very bright one at that. It is his enablers that I fear.

How generous to share your low opinion of us so freely.

In a wider sense? By all indications, almost 63 million people, including you.

I've been found out!
Yes....I'm personally grooming Trump to become the next Hitler.

It becomes harder & harder to take the looney left seriously.
Brains addled by fear & loathing....reality replaced by dystopian fantasy..

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah.....I get that accusation a lot.

Is that even an accusation? Politicians are only significant when people lend them support, after all. That is just the plain fact.

How generous to share your low opinion of us so freely.

Would you prefer that I bottled it instead? Or that those who happen to agree with me on that matter choose to riot instead of talk?

Honestly, I am at a loss trying to guess what you would prefer people to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It becomes harder & harder to take the looney left seriously.
Brains addled by fear & loathing....reality replaced by dystopian fantasy..

Consider it this way: I, and many more, were giving warnings of a Trump victory, while you were going on a false equivalency about how bad both of our options would be. Had Hillary won, foriegn born permanent residents, visa holders, and students wouldn't have their lives disrupted, and we wouldn't be looking at a potential nationwide RFRA. And this is just the beginning, and though we warned of authoritarian and fascist tendencies, you said oh well and allowed for this travesty to happen.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Rioters break windows, set fire to force cancellation of Breitbart editor's UC-Berkeley talk

We do all agree that we cannot allow political speech to be threatened in such a manner, correct? No one wants to see similar actions towards leftists, or, the grace of god forefend, blood in the streets. Yet, it seems those are the only places this can go, if allowed to continue.

I'm not saying stop people from protesting, be we can't let "protest" turn into this kind of wild anti-speech activity.

Where are we missing out on injecting respect for the political process and the sanctity of political speech into the ideologies of these young leftists?

I assume this post isn't in defense of the man who was coming to talk? But rather that 1500 students getting together and broke some windows was wrong. To that I can agree. But as of late I haven't agreed as much. We saw the largest protest ever in American history a very short time ago but it has been drowned out by the extremely small amounts of violent protest that happened across the whole thing. Statistically from the amount of people there it is expected that someone somewhere was going to do something stupid and illegal. The facdt that so little was done really speaks to the movement. However isn't it strange that if even one out of a hundred people break a window we try to disavow the whole protest?

I'm not saying we should have more violent protests but I also won't say that they are less effective than peaceful ones. There is a reason behind their protests and it isn't simply whining that they didn't get their way. It isn't that they are just stupid and ignornat milenials that obviously don't even know the struggle of the pre--interenet age. You know back when you couldn't look up facts and information within seconds with a divice always in your pocket? You know back when the economy was good, college was cheap and we hadn't wrecked the market?

People are more informed now than they have ever been and historically that means that people are more pissed off than they have ever been. The protest are happening because there are some very wrong things happening in our government and in our society. This is the reaction to it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that even an accusation? Politicians are only significant when people lend them support, after all. That is just the plain fact.

But reasoning from facts is where so many go wrong.
Crazy opinions can result....like mis-identifying the problem.

Would you prefer that I bottled it instead? Or that those who happen to agree with me on that matter choose to riot instead of talk?

I'm sure many agree with you that I'm a bigger problem than Trump.
But you're really losing touch with reality by expanding your hatred for & fear of
Trump to everyone who thought him less dangerous than blood'n guts Hillary.

 

[LuisDantas]

But reasoning from facts is where so many go wrong.
Crazy opinions can result....like mis-identifying the problem.

Hey, that is my line.

I'm sure many agree with you that I'm a bigger problem than Trump.

You, definitely not.

But the fact that so many people, including you, choose to lend Trump significance despite what he is and promises?

Yeah, that is very much a bigger problem than Trump himself could even conceivably be. And to this day it is quite the puzzle to me how that is even possible. I don't mind telling you outright, I am scared.

But you're really losing touch with reality by expanding your hatred for & fear of Trump to everyone who thought him less dangerous than blood'n guts Hillary.

If you hoped that to even make any sense to me, you will be disappointed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We need hate speech laws like much of Europe has. That would be a great start. Fascism itself explicitly calls for violence and discrimination in the first place, anyway!

While that is true about fascism, it is better in the long run for the well being of society if some lunacy is tolerated. While you don't have to give such people what they want, and nor should they ever get it, the last thing you want is for them to feel too oppressed by the system, and allowing them to peacefully rally and protest is one of the best ways to safe guard against this.
Unfortunately, we are in a dire situation today where the handful of violent protestors are stealing the attention from the legions of peaceful protests (a more true complaint with "the media" than calling them fake), which is likely to change the social dynamics of rioting and protesting. So, who's to say what effects it will have today? Other than we can predict things have not been going well as of late with the media letting obnoxious and vocal minorities have the attention instead of those actually trying to make a difference rather than acting like rabies infested dogs and lashing out at everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

Consider it this way: I, and many more, were giving warnings of a Trump victory, while you were going on a false equivalency about how bad both of our options would be.

It seems the entire left wing utterly fails to understand that Hillary too posed dangers.
Some rank her as less dangerous...some of us as more so. Reasonable people can differ.

The "false equivalency" charge bespeaks hubris, ie, that because you think
Hillary is far better, that that is fact...not mere opinion. And that for me to
judge her ask worse is the infamous & over-used informal logical fallacy.
Such a disagreement is about the premise...not about logic.

I wonder...
Just who is training the left to erroneously claim "false equivalency" at every disagreement?

Had Hillary won, foriegn born permanent residents, visa holders, and students wouldn't have their lives disrupted, and we wouldn't be looking at a potential nationwide RFRA. And this is just the beginning, and though we warned of authoritarian and fascist tendencies, you said oh well and allowed for this travesty to happen.

You imagine the best case scenario for the one who lost.
You predict the worst for Trump.
It's a false comparison

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems the entire left wing utterly fails to understand that Hillary too posed dangers.

I don't know whether I qualify as "left", but of course she posed dangers. Why that would be so significant as to make Trump preferable is the mystery.

Some rank her as less dangerous...some of us as more so. Reasonable people can differ.

And then again, there are situations as the current one.

The "false equivalency" charge bespeaks hubris, ie, that because you think

Hillary is far better, that that is fact...not mere opinion. And that for me to
judge her ask worse is the infamous & over-used informal logical fallacy.
Such a disagreement is about the premise...not about logic.

There is only so much room to ignore blantant facts, including the open promises of the candidates. That is why the false equivalency must be denounced and won't be dismissed.

I wonder...

Just who is training the left to erroneously claim "false equivalency" at every disagreement?

You, apparently. Some others as well. Except for the "erroneous" qualifier, of course.

You imagine the best case scenario for the one who lost.
You predict the worst for Trump.
It's a false comparison

Except for not being the case at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

You, definitely not.

You already identified us a such.

But the fact that so many people, including you, choose to lend Trump significance despite what he is and promises?

When you vote, do you look at a single candidate, decide they're unworthy, & then unquestioningly vote for the other?
Or do you look at both, & evaluate them together before picking the best....or the least worst?

Yeah, that is very much a bigger problem than Trump himself could even conceivably be. And to this day it is quite the puzzle to me how that is even possible. I don't mind telling you outright, I am scared.

I keep having to advise lefties that fear is the mind killer.

If you hoped that to even make any sense to me, you will be disappointed.

I have low expectations.
It helps avoid disappointment.

 

[LuisDantas]

I keep having to advise lefties that fear is the mind killer.

That goes halfway through explaining Trump's victory, but that is still not nearly enough.

I have low expectations.
It helps avoid disappointment.

I almost envy you.

Almost.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know whether I qualify as "left", but of course she posed dangers. Why that would be so significant as to make Trump preferable is the mystery.

Easy.....
The election had only 2 candidates with any chance of winning.
Voting was close, so each individual vote counted more than usual.
We each judged which candidate was worse.
I picked the one I thought the least worst.
To have picked Hillary would've been to pick the most worst.

In such an election, would you vote for the one you thought
the worst, just because you disliked the other?

There is only so much room to ignore blantant facts, including the open promises of the candidates. That is why the false equivalency must be denounced and won't be dismissed.

I don't think you know just what an informal logical fallacy is.
(It's not about disagreeing on the premises.)
So it's best to avoid picking a popular one to wield for general purpose.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The "false equivalency" charge bespeaks hubris, ie, that because you think
Hillary is far better, that that is fact...not mere opinion.

According to your positions, Hillary was a threat to Middle Easterners, which we both agreed on but I was adamant that Trump would be no different rendering the point moot, and you went on about her posing a threat gun rights even though that is a baseless assumption. Trump, on the other hand, made campaign promises to violate international law, build an extremely expensive wall that cost more than fighting a small war, and to attack the rights of immigrants with a VP who has an established record of attacking the rights of LBGT as well as being staunchly anti-science. It's not hubris but reality, because while Trump's sexual misconducts were being dismissed by his supporters they were eager to put Hillary on trial for the sexual misconduct of her husband. It's insisting Hillary face charges over her email while not even caring Trump shredded his own files in time to bypass an inevitable court subpoena that would mandate he, and his father, surrender those documents.

You imagine the best case scenario for the one who lost.
You predict the worst for Trump.
It's a false comparison

No, actually, Trump is proving worse than my predictions, as my predictions did not include him jumping straight to executive orders. I'd have to dig around to find it, but my exact prediction was that Trump would not get his "honeymoon phase" like other presidents, and there would be increasing tensions in Congress over it. I was one of them who wasn't thinking Trump would actually be acting like a king and I failed to predict his use of executive orders.

Just who is training the left to erroneously claim "false equivalency" at every disagreement?

The Right, as well as a good number of Moderates, and even Liberals, and their myriad of false equivalencies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have low expectations.
It helps avoid disappointment.

I have low expectations to. But I do expect that American citizens not have their rights eroded and lost, especially when it is over nothing more than religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

That goes halfway through explaining Trump's victory, but that is still not nearly enough.

It will never be enuf to convert Hillary fans.
But that's not my intent.

I almost envy you.
Almost.

Unmet expectations are the cause of most woe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Easy.....
The election had only 2 candidates with any chance of winning.
Voting was close, so each individual vote counted more than usual.
We each judged which candidate was worse.

Obviously.

I picked the one I thought the least worst.
To have picked Hillary would've been to pick the most worst.

I don't think I will ever understand how you can say such a thing without being satyrical.

You are probably sincere... but it does not make any sense whatsoever.

Sorry, but that is just how it is.

In such an election, would you vote for the one you thought the worst, just because you disliked the other?

Of course not.

I don't think you know just what an informal logical fallacy is.
(It's not about disagreeing on the premises.)

So it's best to avoid picking a popular one to wield for general purpose.

If this is another attempt at convincing me not to point out the false equivalencies, it failed. Again. As one would expect.

Did you expect it to have a chance?

 

[Laika]

It seems the entire left wing utterly fails to understand that Hillary too posed dangers.
Some rank her as less dangerous...some of us as more so. Reasonable people can differ.

The "false equivalency" charge bespeaks hubris, ie, that because you think
Hillary is far better, that that is fact...not mere opinion. And that for me to
judge her ask worse is the infamous & over-used informal logical fallacy.
Such a disagreement is about the premise...not about logic.

I wonder...
Just who is training the left to erroneously claim "false equivalency" at every disagreement?

You imagine the best case scenario for the one who lost.
You predict the worst for Trump.
It's a false comparison

The only reason I felt the need to support Clinton on RF was climate change as a global problem. I mean I couldn't even vote as because I live in the UK. In a less hideous election year, I probably would have been telling people to vote Green as a long-term investment in alternative politics to the status quo.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to your positions, Hillary was a threat to Middle Easterners, which we both agreed on but I was adamant that Trump would be no different rendering the point moot, and you went on about her posing a threat gun rights even though that is a baseless assumption.

Baseless, eh?
We can't just disagree....I've no reason behind my views?
Again, I say....
Hubris!

Trump, on the other hand, made campaign promises to violate international law, build an extremely expensive wall that cost more than fighting a small war, and to attack the rights of immigrants with a VP who has an established record of attacking the rights of LBGT as well as being staunchly anti-science. It's not hubris but reality, because while Trump's sexual misconducts were being dismissed by his supporters they were eager to put Hillary on trial for the sexual misconduct of her husband. It's insisting Hillary face charges over her email while not even caring Trump shredded his own files in time to bypass an inevitable court subpoena that would mandate he, and his father, surrender those documents.

No, actually, Trump is proving worse than my predictions, as my predictions did not include him jumping straight to executive orders. I'd have to dig around to find it, but my exact prediction was that Trump would not get his "honeymoon phase" like other presidents, and there would be increasing tensions in Congress over it. I was one of them who wasn't thinking Trump would actually be acting like a king and I failed to predict his use of executive orders.

The Right, as well as a good number of Moderates, and even Liberals, and their myriad of false equivalencies.

Note that you list all the reasons you dislike Trump.
But you don't recognize any shortcomings of Hillary.
This isn't analysis....it's determined bias confirmation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have low expectations to. But I do expect that American citizens not have their rights eroded and lost, especially when it is over nothing more than religion.

You're young.
I've seen threats come & go.
We will survive....with some effort.

 

[LuisDantas]

It will never be enuf to convert Hillary fans.

Nor a much larger group, either.

As one should expect.

But that's not my intent.

Good for you.

Unmet expectations are the cause of most woe.

If you say so. Odds are that you will have a lot of authority to speak on the matter soon enough.