Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Belinda]

The present differential in global distribution of wealth is such that there is going to be either a major blood bath or disjointed murderous regimes.

Where? Where is this "bloodbath" set to break out? There are already a ton of muderous regimes around.

But I think you've bought into old-style Marxism, and nobody...even the Neo-Marxists...believe in that, today. It turned out that Marx was wrong. That's why the Neo-Marxists had to drop "class" as the issue, and switch to things like "gender," "race" and "orientation." They couldn t save classical Marxism...it was dead. They needed a new group to allege as "oppressed," because class mobility is too much of a reality, and new dynamics to explain it, other than economics, for the same reason.

Well, that and the fact that classical Marxism had murdered millions in the most savage ways possible and had crippled every economy it had touched. After that, classical Marxism became just too much of a hard sell.

Where is this "bloodbath" set to break out? There are already a ton of muderous regimes around.

That is part of my point, and the other part is that as the numbers of the very poor increase and the very poor become desperate they, especially the young men, will rebel with violence as they have no other recourse but violence.

As you say there are murderous regimes. These aim to control the poor and the middle class by means of torture and genocide. There are also city gangs. Murderous regimes will stay in power and the numbers of murderous oppressive regimes will increase. Or
there will be a redistribution of wealth so that there are significantly fewer desperate people, and significantly more people doing useful work.

[Immanuel Can]

...as the numbers of the very poor increase...

Did you not know?

In recent years the level of absolute world poverty has been falling, not rising. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Again, Marx was wrong. He was pretty much wrong about everything, actually.

[Belinda]

...as the numbers of the very poor increase...

Did you not know?

In recent years the level of absolute world poverty has been falling, not rising. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Again, Marx was wrong. He was pretty much wrong about everything, actually.

Climate change, soil pollution, oceanic pollution, and diminishing water and food supplies are about to kick any present numbers into the long grass.

[Immanuel Can]

...as the numbers of the very poor increase...

Did you not know?

In recent years the level of absolute world poverty has been falling, not rising. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Again, Marx was wrong. He was pretty much wrong about everything, actually.

Climate change, soil pollution, oceanic pollution, and diminishing water and food supplies are about to kick any present numbers into the long grass.

It hasn't happened.

I remember back in the '70s and '80s, the same kind of alarmist talk was everywhere...worldwide starvation by the '90s, environmental disaster with the ozone layer, overpopulation...Hey, remember Y2K? The entire internet was going to crash, and take every computer in the word down with it...

None of it happened. But if anything is "kicking people into the long grass" right now, it's COVID shutdowns. Still, it's too early to be paranoid, even about that.

[Belinda]

Did you not know?

In recent years the level of absolute world poverty has been falling, not rising. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Again, Marx was wrong. He was pretty much wrong about everything, actually.

Climate change, soil pollution, oceanic pollution, and diminishing water and food supplies are about to kick any present numbers into the long grass.

It hasn't happened.

I remember back in the '70s and '80s, the same kind of alarmist talk was everywhere...worldwide starvation by the '90s, environmental disaster with the ozone layer, overpopulation...Hey, remember Y2K? The entire internet was going to crash, and take every computer in the word down with it...

None of it happened. But if anything is "kicking people into the long grass" right now, it's COVID shutdowns. Still, it's too early to be paranoid, even about that.

Do you think the "alarmist talk" is a conspiracy ?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think the "alarmist talk" is a conspiracy ?

No. I think it's just paranoia.

What's obvious, now, is that it was all rubbish. Such rumours go on. So we have to be judicious about what we allow to panic us today.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Do you think the "alarmist talk" is a conspiracy ?

No. I think it's just paranoia.

What's obvious, now, is that it was all rubbish. Such rumours go on. So we have to be judicious about what we allow to panic us today.

This from a man who believes, like christians for 2000 years have believed, that the return of Jesus is imminent. Mr Can is not unusual in this respect, because so too do 40% of Americans:
Among white, evangelical Christians in the United States, 58 percent believe that Jesus Christ will return to Earth by the year 2050, according to a 2010 Pew Research survey. If you think that's a fringe position, Pew says that 41 percent of all Americans (not just evangelicals) believe that the Second Coming is not only real, but that it's going to happen by 2050 — in other words, in their lifetime. https://people.howstuffworks.com/second-coming.htm
There is no better example of the narcissism of christianity than that most christians think their life is so special that Jesus will 'reappear' during it.

[Sculptor]

It's such a shame that we cannot return to the good old days, when women were not allowed to work.
In a time when domestic abuse was not even illegal until 1920 in the US.
As late as the 1970s wie beating was thought of an trivial.
That is the sort of golden age simplicity would have us return to?

[Scott Mayers]

I'm "Left" of center. And I am also highly at odds with the extremes. So you still impose upon me...

Not at all. I didn't say you were extreme. I was just saying what the far Left says about themselves. You don't have to take it personally; it wasn't meant that way.

All you have to do is look at what CRT theorists say themselves...what they're proud to declare, not what I have to say they believe, and you'll know I'm just telling you the truth.

Let me first point out that Critical Race Theory is not even noticable as any formal 'theory' by the Left OR I will demand that you provide the evidence of what anyone specifically FROM these people have defined their SPECIFIC theory to be and by someone who invented this.

I know that I had first learned of the term by Right-wingers and had to look it up! Then, when I did, I discovered that it described a proposal among University activist writers wanting to collect various sources of theories regarding race and sex. This will naturally attract the activist writers of the feminists and proponents wanting isolated recognition of social issues regarding minorities.

As to you, you have directly asserted the Left as having some intrinsic meaning that necessitates the extremes. I will add to this as from what I see what you oddly question below....

The reason for the women now taking a strong stance against the normal "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance, for instance...

If they do that, they're being very, very foolish. If somebody is prepared to stand on the "guilty until proven innocent" standard, then they can be accused of things they never did, and yet will be regarded as guilty until they can conclusively prove they didn't do them...often impossible to do.

What are you referencing when only partially quoting the parts that do not relate to your response? That is, you intentionally leave out WHAT I said the reason was yet are responding to it necessarily.

Here is the proper quote in full:

The reason for the women now taking a strong stance against the normal "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance, for instance, is due to how the stereotypical males ON THE RIGHT are predominating the POWER in exclusive ways regardless of any lipservice to compassion.

The argument I made expresses WHY women ANYWHERE are inverting the normal assumption of innocence: they are being falsely maligned by the stereotypes OF the Right-wing conservative thinkers who are EXCLUSIVELY dominating the power in ways that prevent even the complaints of abuse to be heard in the first place. Example PROOF: Roger Ailes, a powerful male Right-winger who sniffed a potential complaint by females asserting abusive behaviors uses preventive measures to SILENCE the complaints such that they cannot even get HEARD. Any actual successful accusations required these accusers go outside of his POWER range before being heard. This UNIQUE to the PRINCIPLES of Right-wing ideology that believes the 'owner' of businesses should have NO GOVERNING authority OTHER THAN THEMSELVES to control any justice within their perview.

It is not a NORMAL priniciple on the Left to assume one guilty prematurely but because of the POWER principles within the Rightwing belief in PRIVATE government ownership (such as a business ruling over their workers absolutely without regulators to assure abuses do not occur) AND that when in power politically, they permit these private rulers to rule absolutely, the women abused do not even get heard, would be harassed with real threats of harm, and gaslit where they do get heard.

As such, the POWER of the very Rightwing authoritarianists prevent even the ability of ones they are abusing to be able to CHARGE them. In real effect, this IS the Rightwingers way of presuming their 'slaves' to be presumed guilty before innocent. THIS is why the women are demanding a predisposed assumption of victimhood for women given the men by massive overrepresentation in power on the Right presuming the power of JUDGE AND JURY AND POLICING rights exclusively!

You will no doubt feign ignorance and shock. But I already know that you favor gaslighting behavior AND so prove to me that you are in sync with the principles that are RESPONSIBLE to have caused the social reversal of the Left to go against the SOCIAL principle that derives, "innocent-until-proven-guilty"!

You are falsely placing the Right on a pedestal

I didn't do that, at all. All I asked is that you show some evidence there's some "right wingers" who should worry us on a national scale. And you've not shown any. I have to wonder why, if they're really the "threat" that some people want us to believe they are. It should be easy to do.

The sufficient main PRINCIPLE of the Rightwing ideology is that no government should interfere in the POWER DOMAINS of the "OWNER" class. By demanding that a government should not have a means to POLICE or ADJUDICATE in the domains of 'PRIVATE' citizens (who OWN), this IN PRINCIPLE defines the Right wing as AUTHORITARIAN (who make laws FOR the people (a strict Re-public), with the assumption that these people are 'superior' leaders). They are labeled "Right" because of the Imperialist origins defining the power of the Royalty to be assumed defaulted superior beings by some 'god' (with the associated religious beliefs).

AND, since MEN are believed by the arrogant Christian-protestant Right as having men BE the only ones permitted dominance while the women remain subserviant, this prevents women from ever being able to have the EQUAL POWER to be heard.

The Left, by contrast is "Democratic", meaning that they believe a government should serve with priority of the people socially by first requiring the MAJORITY of the DEMOS to control what law are made, not the arrogant 'owner' class who conserves the power for their OWN. As such, the Left prioritizes the part of the ideal: a government BY the people, not FOR the people like the Republicans authoritatively prefer.

You have to initally look at the philosophy of the ideals which attracts why one is drawn to the Left or the Right. The Left is a bottom up democratic means of power which inevitably favors larger governments because it MEANS more people in POWER!

The Left DEFAULTS a principle of EQUALITY of each person without bias to whether they are rich 'owners' or the poorests, including extending compassion to 'guests' (initial immigrants wanting to apply for membership).

You appear not to be against 'collecting' powers of those who think like you do.

I'm not even sure what you mean, here. Where are these nameless "powers" being "collected'?

You are playing dumb again? I used the colloquial terms related to the root, "collection" because you are ignoring that the Right side PARTIES cannot exist without 'collecting' any more than the Left. You ignore that the predominant fact of the Left deals with the MAJORITY of the NUMBERS of PEOPLE as its main ideal for a government and thus by arrogantly insulting the Left as a general evil, you are implying a hatred of respect for DEMOCRATIC systems of governing IN PRINCIPLE. As such, I was asserting that you cannot ignore that the powers on the Right still require "collections". An example is the term, "company", that defines this concept as it relates to PRIVATE collectives. So, by context of the argument, when you pretend that the Right has some superior innocence but that the Left is absurdly criminal, you are arrogantly supporting an ANTI-democratic ideal and are an ENEMY TO THE MAJORITY of people everywhere.

The very FACT that any democracy in general permits the Right to rule via PARTIES, shows that the very Left that initiates 'democratic' governments in the West deserves respect....especially given that the extremes of the Right prefer dictatorial systems where the ONLY govenors are the 'owners' (rich people in power). The kind of destructive behavior by Rightwing ideals is the MOTIVE for the extreme Left ideal of "Communist Socialism" that prevents any party that doesn't represent ALL people. The abuses by the dictatarial 'companies' of owner classes are the ONLY reason why any extreme of the LEFT exists at all. Why would anyone complain if the 'owners' didn't treat the 'floating slaves' (the things that are on their properties) abusively.

And note that you cannot impose the historical flips of prior political parties that held slavery in the States. That actually shows how the 'flip' of behavior not normally assumed occurs in history by the extremes. The Southern States only permitted OWNERS to be the 'demos' back then. Thus, the 'Democrats' were opted as the party there because the LEGAL 'demos' were the majority. Also, "Republic" initially referred to the ideal of Plato that WAS 'by and for the public" but later got adopted by the Right AFTER slavery was abolished. That is, the very same people who would be "Republicans" and "Democrats" had FLIPPED. When the demos included ALL people, and not just some arrogant 'owner class' the self conserving owner classes altered their interest to be "republican" in the way that Socarates vocalized how 'democracy' as existed in his day, should not be run by all people. His society also ONLY had a select non-slave Right to 'own'.

The original ideal of modern "republics" relates to the idea of having non-religious intellectual people (college educated) to rule. Socrates proposed the ideal of having a ruler who was WISE and did not want to actually rule but was forced to by COLLEGIATE ELECTORS.

Society FLIPS the labeled original meanings back and forth just as we flip names labels, like "retard" to "handicap" and then to "disabled", each having some time being positive, then negative, then positive. The PRINCIPLES underlying the Right and Left remain though. And the Right extreme is towards ONE PERSON rule (at the best, a Totalitarian Dictatorship) and the Left extreme is towards ALL PERSONS rule (at the best, a Communist Majority Dicatatorship) [<-- the Communist extreme is 'dicated' by rules that diminish the ability to be unique, the Totalitarian extreme is 'dictated' literally by the whims OVER the whole by the unique individuals able to rule.]

So when discussing politics, you cannot defend presume ALL the people of any side as being uniquely 'good' AND both have their 'evils'. As such, we need to limit this to the EXTREMES and the underlying PRINCIPLES held at present, including what motivates them.

The "Right" thus, generally reflects anyone who believes OWNERSHIP is a "RIGHT to rule over others" and the "Left" generally reflects "all the rest, ....those LEFT behind", such as the non-owners, the poor, ...the slaves.

How is the American system almost divided evenly among the population where those on the Right are ABLE to act freely as independent 'rulers' over others yet those on the Left are REQUIRED to collect without a choice?

It's not the right who claim this: it's the Left. You've got the case backward. It's the CRT Leftists who absolutely insist that there is no such thing as an "individual," and that everybody is nothing other than a product of one or another racial, sex or sexuality "collective."

So if that's unfair, your argument is not with me: personally, I think they're being very foolish. Your argument is really with the Left itself, then.

No, what HAPPENS, in logical fact, is that as the rise of abuses occur by those IN POWER (Right), people are forced into associative camps of discrete classes of people based upon cultural classifications ....especially when ALL those in privileged power (regardless of CLAIMED political affiliation) demand conservation of ideals BASED on 'cultural' beliefs. The rise of the 'cultural' class on the 'Right' were the Fundamentalist classed religious. The Southern Christians in the U.S., the Muslim Fundamentalists that gave rise to all the Terrorist extremes and the Jewish Isreali Fundamentalists, ....all MONO_culturalist extremists who happen to OWN most of the 'majority' of economic power, FORCE their 'cultural' identity upon the masses to CONTROL what the rest (the Left non-owning poorer society) to behave. When the logic of the laws are ONLY about 'culture', then the Left recognizes that their only recourse is to collect BASED upon 'cultural' ideals to get representative ECONOMIC equality.

They are still 'democratic' but now get DISCRETELY ordered into PLURALITIES who then draw the extremes out of EACH subclass DISTINCTLY. They CHOOSE this way because they have NO OTHER CHOICE when those in power predominate is both an economic AND cultural identity with EXCLUSION of those not in their own race, sex, religion.

Critical Race Theory is only coincidental and is an example of MAKING them exist in significance because the hideous nature of the Right to be codefending some RELIGIOUS set of fundamentalist ideal laws against the majority in some way.

The 'Right' were the ones who set up the Churches to rule over education of the Natives with absolute authority that led to abuses. Note that the "Liberal Party of Canada" of which Trudeau's father was signficant IS 'Right-wing' with respect to CULTURAL superiority of SPECIFIC mixed French/English CATHOLICISM with ANGLICANISM! But given the general catholic worldwide has evolved to more 'liberalism' in some areas, the Liberal Party is Right-leaning Centrists, not 'extremists' of the Left. Even our present 'left' is more 'right' overall in Canada because our Constitution LOCKS in CONSERVATIVE protections.

The apparent "Leftwing" supports by our system are MULTI_RIGHTWING ideals. They are 'democratic' by coincidence of the fact that the MAJORITY recognized here are BASED upon 'cultural' definitions.

They don't have the money or the guns...

The Left?

They're in power, both in the US and in Canada. And they have exactly the same access to guns as everybody else. So that's just not so.

Canada, as just mentioned is Constitutionally Right-winged because it defines PRIORITY of rule by the Religious, and specifically of the Catholics (French mostly) with the Anglican catholics (England's Church based upon the Royal King or Queen as 'Pope') The means of pretentious accolades of all other 'cultures' are only a smokescreen used to conserve the majority of the wealth aligned to these belief systems. That is, under the auspices OF the particular French/Englich catholics who alone decide WHO the 'Left' over peoples are, we are 'democratic' only by proxy.

Canada doesn't need the degree of concern for guns BY government; The U.S. on the other hand, do. The wealth of both ARE the 'Right' gun owners regardless. The dig though was to the fact that the gun lobby is ALWAYS on the Right IN PRINCIPLE because in order for their ideal of control (enslavement) of the masses by the strict concept of 'ownership' requires GUNS or the equivalent of artificial weaponry when WITHOUT them, the DEMOCRATIC muscle of the population would TAKE over.

I believe that the Right is intensionally trying to malign those universally on the Left by forcing some of them into becoming more extreme.

That's pretty funny. So it's supposed to be the fault of "the right" -- the people you can't even find -- that the Left is so lunatic?

I've got to admit...that's not a line I've ever heard before. Well done.

And you MUST be the one smelling gases now, without me requiring to suggest further. You are either literally dumb (I do not believe) or you are feigning shock with deception.

I don't need to FIND what you would just deny is in front of your face. But two can play: There is no such thing as an 'evil' Leftist person....PROVE just one "Left-wing" person is evil! I'm still waiting.

Your extreme anti-Left interpretation...

Now I'm starting to think maybe you don't even know what the Left is writing these days. You should just read what the CRTers themselves are penning. Then I wouldn't need to say a thing in order to make the same case.

CAUGHT YOU: Provide the evidence! Who and what have you read first hand so that we can all look for ourselves!?

But you ARE blaming MORE others by denying the 'collective' voluntary association

Not at all. One can "voluntarily" associate with anybody one wants to. The conservatives are very much in favour of that. It's the Left that says you can't "voluntarily" associate -- that rather, you are compelled to be nothing but a tool of whatever group is associated with your skin colour, race, culture or sexual practice. The right doesn't say that.

The Left only target the ONE general subset based upon the actual stereotypical FAVORITISM from the Right: White people, Males, and Fundamentalist Christians.

This is a POLITICAL 'flip'. Because you guys through SHIT (lies) at the rest of us (society in general), you IMPOSE the counter revolutionary discrimination. Notice how targeted they are being? "Democratically", they are IN THE VAST VAST VAST majority of people here and in the world in general. As such, while I disagree of this, I cannot disagree with it when you guys intentionally FAVOR DECEPTION IN PRINCIPLE! [In principle, Capitalism is "Right" wing because if favors a 'right' to EXPLOIT when selling anything. Our system in general thinks it is alright to LIE in principle in advertising personally OR as 'companies'. That this 'norm' should exist at all is also why the retaliatory reflexive behavior against us exist. GREED is the norm of any animal (a fact). As such, where it is PROMOTED via permitting tactics that enable one to become Billionaires impossible to exist without exploitation, AND this ideal is EXTREME specific to the RIGHT, the contrasting appeal of the Left to adapt UNIFORMITY is due specifically to that UNBALANCED OVERPOWER existing today. Note that the Billionaires who have 'Leftwing' favor only exist after they've reached the absurd fiscal power to a point they can AFFORD to appear to concerned for the masses. But we never actually know whether those like the stereotyped opinions of those Billionaires on the supposed "Left" exist given we cannot actually see what they actually vote for AND more often DO NOT OVERTLY SAY which political party they side with. Many fiscally support BOTH (or ALL, where they coexist). But this is just saving face for the absurdly wealthy and just another smokescreen BY those IN PRINCIPLE 'Right' in extreme.

I challenged you before regarding the religious question: if one is most 'evil' when BEING athiest, wouldn't the most 'evil' thing be to PRETEND you are most absurdly supportive of the religious extremes of the Right? The same goes for those Billionaires. It is the best 'capitialist' policy to PRETEND you are for the poor when you are the absurdly richest!

KKK

Do you not know that the KKK was, in fact, the militant wing of the Democrat Party? The Democrats created it, in fact. I'm not making that up...look it up, because it's in the history books. I should add that all the slave owners, to a person, and every one of the governors who opposed Desegregation were also Democrats. But you can find that out for yourself, so you don't have to believe me.[/quote]
I answered this above. The Right wing believes in segregation by default: the right to choose who you will pass on your inheritance to will have a tendency to favor the degree of favor for the next generations to come and eventually become more and more concentrated in a common genetic-and-cultural monotheistic class of wealth.

The Confederate South did not permit universal DEMOCRATIC rights. Only when defeated did the term 'democrat' INCLUDE the slaves and other non-official peoples of the then developing nation. The actual nature of WEALTH who control ALL politics with more force in all parties also assures us that the general LEAD of control is assuredly Conservative and Right-winged in general in the West. The fact that OF the 'conservatives' the Left is PERMITTED to at least have stronger effectiveness for more poor VARIETIES of people still assure us that where 'evil' exists universally everywhere, the LEAST harmful side to select is the Democratic one today. [I already spoke about how politics 'flips' in the same way as accepted PC terms]

As to the rest, I've answered all of it in context above. While the general West favors the Right-wing concept of 'capitalism', we default the wealthy to BE both conservative and Right-winged IN PRINCIPLE. The OVERT deception exists on the Right as they are HYPOCRITICAL to ....


...PRETEND TO BE RELIGIOUSLY DEVOUT with some GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, but hideously being either Atheistic in Social Darwinian respects with a 'capitalist' (opportunistic-supporting) intrinsic belief in DECEPTION as a matter of 'fair' competetion. Thus while the majority of people are themselves IN PRINCIPLE, "LEFT", they are still CONTROLLED by those with the fiscal power to manage them. Nevertheless, those poor with VARING different cultural and genetic backgrounds (including classically minorities) are justified to adopt the LEFT with democratic odds better to help them than the RIGHT.

[Scott Mayers]

Yep. And since January 6th, looking like them.

Maybe Simplicity should fuck off to Afghanistan?

image_2021-12-09_111317.png

Look at the comments from the people on the left v. others. Your pathetic arguments aside, do you all have mental health issues? How can you people get so angry on a philosophy forum?

It's not 'anger', but frustration. We are all in essence animals to the core and thus 'greedy'. \

The principle of the "Right" is IMPOSSIBLE to be 'democratic' because even for one person to be better off of any three people requires that the one has more literal dominant RIGHTS over the others unequally.

Yet we still individually WANT the same power of the RIGHT even if one is on the LEFT and so even if the RIGHT is necessarily in the minority, they always have the POWER to deceive the vast majority that they are 'equal' in popular support.

Biology will favor the DEMOS when the suffering becomes extreme by those on the RIGHT who can only maintain their power where they have UNNATURAL means individually to hold off the crowd [weapons of mass destruction].

In contrast though, the RIGHT tends to literally BE the most ANGRY because they have MORE TO LOSE!

[Immanuel Can]

Let me first point out that Critical Race Theory is not even noticable as any formal 'theory' by the Left OR I will demand that you provide the evidence of what anyone specifically FROM these people have defined their SPECIFIC theory to be and by someone who invented this.

Very, very easy to do. Where do you want to start?

Let me point you to what must surely be the best single book on the subject. It has an exhaustive list of all the different theorists, in all the different "areas" of CRT, what they said, where they published, what they think...all of it.

It's Lindsay and Pluckrose's book, Cynical Theories, recently reviewed in PN. It will give you all the stuff you could ever want.

What are you referencing when only partially quoting the parts that do not relate to your response?

The parts I leave in.

Not everything anyone writes warrants a comment. Some of it is bound to be redundant, some just unobjectionable, some perhaps ill-considered, and other stuff just unnecessary to the point.

One has to select, or every subsequent message becomes twice the length of the previous one...a procedure that cannot continue beyond one or two messages without becoming totally burdensome to the reader and too long for the format.

Your own responses are very, very long and, if I may point out, largely rhetorical and repetitive. If I just clicked-and-copied, then even one response from me would fill most of a page.

Here is the proper quote in full:

The reason for the women now taking a strong stance against the normal "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance, for instance, is due to how the stereotypical males ON THE RIGHT are predominating the POWER in exclusive ways regardless of any lipservice to compassion.

The argument I made expresses WHY women ANYWHERE are inverting the normal assumption of innocence: they are being falsely maligned by the stereotypes OF the Right-wing conservative thinkers who are EXCLUSIVELY dominating the power in ways that prevent even the complaints of abuse to be heard in the first place.

No, I don't think that's true at all. But even if I granted it, subverting the "innocent until proven guilty" standard would only hurt everybody. It would mean, for example, that a woman accused of poisoning her husband would be presumed to have done it...unless she could find a way of showing that it was not even possible she had time, opportunity or motive to do it. So no, I thought that explanation was...well, let's just say, not perhaps best repeated.

...the women abused do not even get heard, would be harassed with real threats of harm, and gaslit where they do get heard.

You must be referring to the Clinton and Biden accusers. Yes, I agree. They have been threatened, harassed and gaslit, and nobody would hear them. But I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

Due process is not what we saw in the Epstein case, either. That was something else entirely. But due process is more what we saw in the Smollett case, and it worked rather well, in spite of presuming Jussie innocent until proven guilty. After all, he was found guilty.

So I would say, don't blame due process for the things done by people who avoid due process. The cure is to insist on due process, not to subvert it.

You are falsely placing the Right on a pedestal

I didn't do that, at all. All I asked is that you show some evidence there's some "right wingers" who should worry us on a national scale. And you've not shown any. I have to wonder why, if they're really the "threat" that some people want us to believe they are. It should be easy to do.

The sufficient main PRINCIPLE of the Rightwing ideology...

I'm afraid I don't recognize this as the beginning of offering an example. Rather, it looks like an avoiding of that challenge. Are there no examples of this massive "right wing" threat to which you could actually point?

You appear not to be against 'collecting' powers of those who think like you do.

I'm not even sure what you mean, here. Where are these nameless "powers" being "collected'?

You are playing dumb again?

No. I just don't see what you're referring to.

I think you're trying to say, "Well, everybody 'collects' in some form," but I can't at all see how that helps your case. The issue is not whether or not people get together in groups, which of course, they do: it's whether the group should be determinative or the individual should. It's whether "follow the crowd" is the right rule, or "follow your conscience" is.

And note that you cannot impose the historical flips of prior political parties that held slavery in the States.

I didn't.

Check your history books. Remember the Civil War? Who wore blue, and who wore grey? Which political party did each represent? And who was the president who freed the slaves? Which party was he representing? And the KKK...to which party did they serve as the militant wing? Or the governors who turned the fire hoses and dogs on the freedom marchers; which political party were they all members of?

Go look. Don't believe me. Go see the truth for yourself.

Canada, as just mentioned is Constitutionally Right-winged...

I promise you, there are mighty few people who would regard Trudeau, or Canada itself, as "right wing." In fact, conservative minded folks seem dislike Trudeau rather intensely.

I believe that the Right is intensionally trying to malign those universally on the Left by forcing some of them into becoming more extreme.

That's pretty funny. So it's supposed to be the fault of "the right" -- the people you can't even find -- that the Left is so lunatic?

I've got to admit...that's not a line I've ever heard before. Well done.

...you are feigning shock ...

Nope, it's genuine, I assure you. I've never seen anyone blame the right for Leftist extremism.

But let's see if that dog will hunt.

If that's right, there should be an overwhelming right-wing threat that's doing that. Can you provide any evidence of that?

There is no such thing as an 'evil' Leftist person....PROVE just one "Left-wing" person is evil! I'm still waiting.

Karl Marx. Adolph Hitler. Joseph Stalin. Chairman Mao. Fidel Castro. Maduro, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Mugabe...how many do you want, because there are a ton.

Your extreme anti-Left interpretation...

Now I'm starting to think maybe you don't even know what the Left is writing these days. You should just read what the CRTers themselves are penning. Then I wouldn't need to say a thing in order to make the same case.

Provide the evidence! Who and what have you read first hand so that we can all look for ourselves!?

Lindsay and Pluckrose, Cynical Theories. Start there. But I've got a ton more if you get done with that.

The Left only target the ONE general subset based upon the actual stereotypical FAVORITISM from the Right: White people, Males, and Fundamentalist Christians.

Well, that's three groups, actually.

But they also target other groups, like heterosexuals, able-bodied persons, fit persons, wealthy people (but only those who they think aren't Leftists), Capitalists, Libertarians, objective moralists, normal women, traditionalists of any kind, and anyone who seems to be happy or doing well -- because their assumption is that anybody who does well must be an oppressor.

I challenged you before regarding the religious question: if one is most 'evil' when BEING athiest, wouldn't the most 'evil' thing be to PRETEND you are most absurdly supportive of the religious extremes of the Right?

I'm sorry...I do not understand this question. It looks like it's asking...I'm not sure what. I did not say the first clause, and I don't understand the logic that is intended to connect it to the second...

KKK

Do you not know that the KKK was, in fact, the militant wing of the Democrat Party? The Democrats created it, in fact. I'm not making that up...look it up, because it's in the history books. I should add that all the slave owners, to a person, and every one of the governors who opposed Desegregation were also Democrats. But you can find that out for yourself, so you don't have to believe me.

I answered this above. The Right wing believes in segregation by default:

Wow.

You're just plain wrong. I don't know what to tell you, except that you need to look at a history book. And then, you'll find I was right all along.

Okay, I'll pause there. I've not repeated several of your paragraphs because they were simply too long, too repetitive, too rhetorical, and, if I'm honest, too fraught with statements I could not even quite understand or decode. It's not easy to respond to something one cannot even be sure one has read aright. But if there's something I've missed that you consider essential, and if you can put more plainly, I'll happily address it in the next response.

[Scott Mayers]

...the best single book on the [Critical Race Theory]...[is]....
... Lindsay and Pluckrose's book, Cynical Theories, recently reviewed in PN. It will give you all the stuff you could ever want.

So you personally are reporting second-hand author's efforts without an example of a particular Critical Race theorist of note?

What are you referencing when only partially quoting the parts that do not relate to your response?

The parts ....

Not .... anyone ....warrants ... . ...

One has to select... ...a procedure that cannot continue beyond .... messages ... becoming totally burdensome to the ...largely rhetorical ... one response from me ... .[/quote]
So it is alright to alter a quote that might alter the actual meaning of another's point of view?

I get what you mean about the "explosion", as I call it, that our posts do upon responses though. I'll keep this shorter then.....(relatively speaking of course )

Here is the proper quote in full:

The reason for the women now taking a strong stance against the normal "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance, for instance, is due to how the stereotypical males ON THE RIGHT are predominating the POWER in exclusive ways regardless of any lipservice to compassion.

The argument I made expresses WHY women ANYWHERE are inverting the normal assumption of innocence: they are being falsely maligned by the stereotypes OF the Right-wing conservative thinkers who are EXCLUSIVELY dominating the power in ways that prevent even the complaints of abuse to be heard in the first place.

No, I don't think that's true at all. But even if I granted it, subverting the "innocent until proven guilty" standard would only hurt everybody. It would mean, for example, that a woman accused of poisoning her husband would be presumed to have done it...unless she could find a way of showing that it was not even possible she had time, opportunity or motive to do it. So no, I thought that explanation was...well, let's just say, not perhaps best repeated.

I'm not FOR this type of behavior.

I'm explaining that due to HOW this kind of behavior is being used as a normal acceptable behavior on the Right, the Leftside advocates are REFLECTING what those on the Left perceive is being used as an effective weapon to prevent justice for the majority of instances of abuse concerns that get trivialized unfairly. They are practicing the weaponized rhetoric that places like Fox News uses unapologetically to speak FOR the Right. Because such rhetoric being USED in practice by the Right is empowering best when they don't EVER admit they are using it (with a 'wink' to those of us who KNOW otherwise), those activists feel compelled to comply in kind. It is like the the common reference to one who brings a knife to a gun fight as being the idiot. The activists on the Left cannot be fair with their light 'hand-combat' rhetoric when their opponents use 'nuclearized-combat' rhetoric against them BY DEFAULT.

[It is 'default' because the conservative ideal places the burden upon the Demand-side consumers to require deciding who is telling the truth with the firm belief that Supply-side sellers should not be regulated in conduct by governments upon whether they are being deceptive or not to the public.]

...the women abused do not even get heard, would be harassed with real threats of harm, and gaslit where they do get heard.

You must be referring to the Clinton and Biden accusers. Yes, I agree. They have been threatened, harassed and gaslit, and nobody would hear them. But I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

Ha ha...Fox News was INVENTED specifically and intentionally to VOICE any asserted claims against Democratic or non-Conservative proponents REGARDLESS of any actual formal charge let alone actual evidence. Monica Lewinski was propped up NOT for violating any legal crime beyond the PRIVATE concerns of the Clinton's PERSONAL PRIVATE ethics. Hilliary, does not DISBELIEVE the truth either.

Yet, your political favor of the Right doesn't even respect HER regardless of what she has to say about whether she was hurt or not. And, given the intentional ragmag style of MAKING UP stories of her as being some head of some child pornography Satanic ring later on, HOW do such 'accusations' even get past the 'vetting' stage unless those reporting are not concerned about the truth but for the effectiveness of overt accusations that HARM others prior to any possible legal route of justice?

The Right-wing idealogy DEFAULTS to the actual hate rhetoric and has no qualms about tossing out lies with their weaponized rhetoric just to see if things stick. The Left-wing advocates are forced to either CENSOR false accusations OR play the same game.

So...

Due process is not what we saw in the Epstein case, either. That was something else entirely. But due process is more what we saw in the Smollett case, and it worked rather well, in spite of presuming Jussie innocent until proven guilty. After all, he was found guilty.

So I would say, don't blame due process for the things done by people who avoid due process. The cure is to insist on due process, not to subvert it.

...
then, why is it alright to used ANY tactic of deception when selling any idea, product, or political point of view that is intrinsic DEFAULT position of Right-wing political opinion? You hypocritically support the side that uses deception as a 'right' against the vulnerable recipients or listeners in order to 'capitalize' or 'profit' upon them in favor OF those 'selling' the ideas.....yet.....explosively condone those minorities on the Left who ADVOCATE for whole classes for DARING to EXAGERATE the general concerns? The advocates are also NOT in ignorance of the 'due process' for all people but ONLY for the particular subclass they are particularly advocating. So women's advocates will act as 'lawyers for all women', for instance, in their rhetoric and ONLY because of the particular KINDS of discrimination being held against generalized majorities or pluralities.

The extreme option of the Left-wing advocacy of groups is ONLY due to the Right-wing advocacy of deception as a 'right' of passage. The general media is 'conservative' in fact due to its need to advertise. And yet with the addition of the extremes like Fox that make the average media SEEM 'Left', it is just as suspect of intention of those formulating Right-wing extremism to "advocate" for the victims represented by the normal conservative favoritism, such as the 'white' and 'male'. This actually PAINTS those innocent white males who are NOT Rightwing extremists by how they FORCE the LEFT to advocate for women and non-white classes with counter-extremes.

The "Left" are NOT just those groups being overtly advocated for but ALL such individuals. The 'groups' they align with would not be so adversarial if it weren't for the Right's own belief in freedom to advertise without restrictions in deception, regardless of what they are 'selling'.

[Immanuel Can]

...the best single book on the [Critical Race Theory]...[is]....
... Lindsay and Pluckrose's book, Cynical Theories, recently reviewed in PN. It will give you all the stuff you could ever want.

So you personally are reporting second-hand author's efforts without an example of a particular Critical Race theorist of note?

Crenshaw. Bell. Marcuse. Marx...

But knowing their names doesn't help you, does it? Cynical Theories will give you everything you need, and far more than you can probably digest. It's all there. Nobody can do better for you.

So it is alright to alter a quote

I do not alter any quotations. I only take literal exerpts. And yes, that's "alright." In fact, it's unavoidable.

I get what you mean about the "explosion", as I call it, that our posts do upon responses though. I'll keep this shorter then.....(relatively speaking of course )

It's a good idea for us both. I share your tendency to speak longer than necessary. So it will be good discipline for us both. Fair enough?

I'm not FOR this type of behavior.

I'm explaining that due to HOW this kind of behavior is being used as a normal acceptable behavior on the Right,

It's not, actually.

Nobody is being treated as "guilty until proven innocent" -- thank God. But there is some push for that, which you rightly identify with the "believe all women" idea. And that's coming from the Feminist Left, not at all from the Right or the centrists.

I recognize the problem: that, for example, most sexual assaults are committed in private. So sexual assault becomes a he-said-she-said situation, and the perpetrator, whether male or female (and yes, there are those) gets off every time. That's not fair, I recognize. But it's also not possible to remedy one kind of injustice by perpetrating another. And the side-effects of such a policy are truly monstrous. What they would mean is that if a woman ever accused you of improper conduct (say, because she wanted to intimidate you or get your job) you would have no defense. The prosecutor would say, "Well, unless you, Scott, can show that you never had any opportunity to do what the accuser says you did, you did it." And none of us can defend such a standard, except in instances in which there were cameras on us every minute of every day.

So there's no cure in changing the standard of evidence. All we can do is prosecute the perpetrators vigourously in all those cases when sufficient evidence is available, and not let the opposition bury the evidence, as they have done for the Clintons or Biden, for example.

...the women abused do not even get heard, would be harassed with real threats of harm, and gaslit where they do get heard.

You must be referring to the Clinton and Biden accusers. Yes, I agree. They have been threatened, harassed and gaslit, and nobody would hear them. But I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.

Ha ha...

No, it's actually true. And it isn't Fox news that's saying so: it's the victims of Bill Clinton et al. If you were really to say, "Believe all women," then why would you doubt the Clinton accusers...of which there are at least 12 on record. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... ccusations.

So...

Due process is not what we saw in the Epstein case, either. That was something else entirely. But due process is more what we saw in the Smollett case, and it worked rather well, in spite of presuming Jussie innocent until proven guilty. After all, he was found guilty.

So I would say, don't blame due process for the things done by people who avoid due process. The cure is to insist on due process, not to subvert it.

...
then, why is it alright to used ANY tactic of deception when selling any idea, product, or political point of view that is intrinsic DEFAULT position of Right-wing political opinion?

It isn't. It's wrong if either side does it. People should be honest, instead.

However, at present, the Right doesn't have the means the Left possesses to do that. Most media outlets are strongly Leftist. There's no way for the Right to get a monopoly on information, but the Left darn near has it....at least on major networks. Take a look at the Canadian media, for example, which are all on Trudeau's payroll now, with hardly an exception. His "funding" plan has meant that no media outlet dares to call him out anymore, for fear of losing their money. This is a violation of the freedom of the press; and I'm surprised that no classical-liberal Canadians have called him out on that, except that they can't get a voice in the media today either.

[Immanuel Can]

KKK

Do you not know that the KKK was, in fact, the militant wing of the Democrat Party? The Democrats created it, in fact. I'm not making that up...look it up, because it's in the history books. I should add that all the slave owners, to a person, and every one of the governors who opposed Desegregation were also Democrats. But you can find that out for yourself, so you don't have to believe me.

I answered this above. The Right wing believes in segregation by default...

Here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vGbdM-gFvo

Notice that even the Democrats are not able to contradict him. He's just plain right, and they know it. It's history. It's in the books, even the ones the Democrats wrote.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Nobody is being treated as "guilty until proven innocent" -- thank God.

...I think that even Bill Clinton deserves due process, and a truly due process would have found him guilty, too.