Conservatives, libertarians and political identiifcation

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by TheWesDude, Sep 29, 2014.

  1. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen

    Jun 21, 2007
    I believe you implied I thought sexism wasn't a problem. If I understood you wrong then that's it.

    Good, now why did you quote me? Because you missed the point I was trying to make.

    It doesn't matter what her political affiliation is. It matters if you can provide evidence for what you're saying.

    Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I think socialized health care is a good thing. In fact it has no bearing at all as to the content of my argument.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  2. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    So why are you upset that we judge her advocacy to be conservative, based on the content of her statements?
  3. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen

    Jun 21, 2007
    More or less because it's pointless gossip that renders the argument( or frustrations) of her article meaningless without attention to it's merits.

    I suppose, I commented anything because this thread has hit a pet peeve of mine.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  4. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    i did provide evidence she is not a conservative.

    based on her own statements, you are judging her wrong.

    i proved via her own words she is not a conservative.
    i looked up her stance on abortion, and it was not a conservative view.

    you guys keep saying "within what i have read...." and my point is that you have an incorrect view of her. i prove that with her own statements. i did not know her views, so i looked them up. why are you guys in such opposition of her that you would rather hold your incorrect views on/of her than look up to see what her actual views are? are you so opposed to informed decision making that that has become anathema to you?

    and to everyone sending me PMs saying to give up on this argument because some people just are not willing to change their opinions based on facts, yes i am aware some people are like that. however, i am ever hopeful that maybe logic and reason will win over even minor arguments like this. we should be better than this. this discussion should have ended once i started providing proof. or maybe i just have too high of an opinion of the people who participate in this forum.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  5. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008

    *I am out of arguments and to tired of the discussion so I will just throw out offensive stuff*

  6. Irrational?


    It was a calm summer morning on the Danish hills outside Copenhagen, and the bustling of the docks and city-life crept in between the dew musking at the bedroom windows. In this small hovel of neglect and pessimism lay an emaciated man, spread eagle and grasping an import whiskey of unknown origin.

    A loud knock shook the wood of the shoddy structure.

    The man growned loudly in disappointment, his dream-fantasy ruined by inevitable reality. A compulsion to scream loudly and throw the bottle that laid clutched in his hands overwhelmed him, but was soon subsided by guilt of his worthless existence. The man exuded a wimpish sign.

    Stumbling down the littered and rotting hallway toward his small foyer, the man ineptly attempted to robe himself while maintaining momentum, which caused him to trip himself into the doorframe. The result of the crash caused an impish screech to come from the other side of the door and vibrate the windows.

    The man smiled, he was now playing a game with the trespasser. A game he was most fond of. A pariahs game.

    The man opened the door and happened upon a small boy, pale in complexion with blonde hair.

    "What's your name little one?" bellowed the man, trying to keep his genitalia inside the confines of his bathrobe.

    "My name.... my name is Sander."

    "And what is it that brings you to my door at this hour in the morning?"

    "Why sir it is not morning, it is actually afternoon".

    "Well it is morning for me you little smart-ass!"

    "I'm signing petitions to save our town pony, Prachtige Worst! Animal rights activist claim we are abusing him! We are not! He is a wonderful pony and we all love him very very much!"

    The man in the doorway took a spittle-watered swig of his whiskey, and scratched his pubic area while listening to his story.

    "So what town is it then? When may I find myself some of this Prachtige Worst?"

    "Why, Eindhoven sir."

    "Eindhoven! That's, why, what! Are you fucking with me boy? I don't like to be fucked with. Now you tell me, since it seems keen you have a mind such as I, where I can get some of this Prachtige Worst for myself! And tell me or I will have your ass hung in my dining room and throttled with Spruce!".

    "But sir, you cannot throttle someone with spruce! Spruces are large trees, from 20–60 metres (66–197 ft) tall when mature, and can be distinguished by their whorled branches and conical form. The needles, or leaves, of spruce trees are attached singly to the branches in a spiral fashion. The needles are shed when 4–10 years old, leaving the branches rough with the retained pulvinus. They are quite unsuited for spanking!"

    The man grabbed Sander by the turf of his scalp and dragged him into the musky-ridden darkness of his house.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2014
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  7. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    But that wasn't the point. It's that her positions in this debate and in her advocacy are conservative. Not that she is or isn't conservative personally, but that for the within the context of her advocacy, she is conservative. Her positions outside of that context are not the subject of judgment.
  8. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    And it wasn't anyone else's point what her political stance was. Just the points she was making. Yet you turned it around into a big debate on what political side she is on. Because that's what you and the whole far leftist clique does, to spin the debate in your favor.

    Oh . . sorry. Wasn't supposed to be here. . .


  9. And you completely ruined a valid argument with this pile-of-shit.

    Good job you.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  10. Akratus

    Akratus Bleep bloop.

    May 14, 2011
    If you don't think Sander has been driving both of these threads towards either sexism, misogyny or another political bit of nonsense, I've got news for you. . .

    Need I remind you that he works for the company that owns polygon?

    Also, nice job handwaving my argument for my political stance.

    Oh god I'm getting sucked back in!
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  11. All political stances are inherently flawed because they deny that human made systems are dynamic in nature.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  12. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Yes it was. That was TheWesDude's point all along. It's why this discussion started. He was upset that people called her conservative. I was continually trying to explain that within the context of this debate, she is conservative. Which you'd know if you didn't just barge into discussions to troll me.
  13. Sander is a giant fact-troll, smashing anything that it comes across,

    However everyone in the country-side wants to have a go.

    Sander has a high ratio of correctness, and he follows a methodology of third-person logical deduction, which some people just don't pick up on.

    He is wrong at times, but he admits it.

    The reason we have problems is that only retards get emotionally attached to an argument when the goal of that entire argument is the truth, not the elevation of a person's status. This process, ironically, elevates the practitioners of this philosophy's status in debate.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2014
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  14. Byzantine

    Byzantine Sink me in the ocean.

    Sep 4, 2014
    By the Eye of Thundera! Is this still an actual thread, or has it turned into an "accuse people of being Nazis for not agreeing with you and post a generic Tumblr .gif in place of actual substance" convention all of a sudden? Why the hell does this woman and her political commentary need to be labelled conservative or liberal so strenuously? Aren't the merits of her arguments more important than what colour tie she's wearing? For fudge's sake.

    Bert: I don't like it when Christina Sommers is called a conservative.

    Ernie: But, her target audiences are mostly conservative.

    Bert: You're a facist! You're a facist! Google, gobble! Google, gobble!​

    Still, quite a handful of Sommers' views are fairly refreshing to me. I need to find time to listen to one of her lectures in its entirety, once my exam's come and gone.

    Oh, and what the hell does @Sander's working for Polygon have to do with anything that's been said, here? We can't all work at a vegan café for a living!
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  15. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    I don't work for Polygon, even. I work for SB Nation, which is owned by Vox Media, which owns Polygon.
  16. Yamu

    Yamu Le Fromage Vieux oTO Moderator Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Jul 26, 2003
    Oh, wow. Oh, Jebus. I step out for a day and this is what I come back to? Where to begin? Business first-- cool your jets, people. Personal attacks are a no-no, be they overt and colorful or insidious and constant. No one gets testy, no one gets a mod-boot to the testes. (As a catch-phrase, it's lacking, I know. I'll work on it.)

    And now, for something completely tedious:

    Whoa. Pardon? I entreat you to read my posts again, paying special attention to WesDude's only post between them.

    • He expresses bafflement at why people are labelling her as a conservative.
    • I answer, acknowledging nearly every point of nuance that he (and yourself, to a lesser extent) keeps insisting those disagreeing with him are intellectual untermenschen for ignoring and being unaware of.
    • He posts something that, quite literally, boils down to "I'm sorry you guys are worse debaters and researchers than me, here's a handwave at a bunch of things I said or posted that have already been addressed."
    • I realize we may be having a difference in terms and try to re-answer the question point-by-point rather than in broad strokes.

    Then you accuse me of gross intellectual dishonesty.

    Dabitch =/= Christina Sommers. Easy mistake, given the context. Sommers has articles up in quite a few places, most of which have been sited by WesDude and Sander or alluded to by yours truly, but if you're interested and don't want to do the legwork the bulk of her online output is crossposted to her page at the American Enterprise Institute, the famously conservative thinktank where she is employed.

    I don't want to belabor a point, but the posts tend to have a moderate-conservative bent to them (which, apparently, a moderate-Democrat-with-Libertarian-leanings' views are capable of doing).

    Chip on the shoulder much? Look out, big messageboard gub'mint comin' ta getcha!

    Naw, I kid, you're good people. The Roshambo era is long over, though, and we don't make a habit of letting personalities trump rules in the modding process around here. Bad calls aren't left to stand, by and large. Trust me, I know. (Though if accusing all authority sight-unseen of corruption and incompetence is how you generally tend to open your interactions with them, I can see how you might have had a few negative experiences with them in your day.)

    Yeah. As Sander has already pointed out, this is a completely different thread now. Literally. As with so much other critical context in this discussion, a lot of people seem to be largely overlooking that.


    I'd like to afford you the respectfulness of a point-by-point reply, but there's just too much to respond to at this point, and I do honestly apologize. But jumping Jesus Christ on a crutch, man, where to begin? I'm not sure we're even in the same debate. You keep posting the same "proofs" over and over. I'm not even being reductive. The exact. Same. Proofs. We've read the interview. I read the interview before I knew this benighted thread existed. And a few of her articles. And her twitter, which conveniently contains nothing but Gamergate links and her own socially conservative brand of feminism right up to the point where public opinion started tinting her as a conservative scholar and risked pigeonholing her in the eyes of the huge number of potential new readers only recently hearing of her.

    All of those things were largely conservative-moderate in content. Not stridently conservative (by and large), not overwhelming, in-your-face conservative. Political dictionary conservative. Even that's a pretty nebulous label. It's not an insult by any means. Most people are a little conservative. The things she puts forward make her look a little more conservative than most on the whole. Her beliefs on abortion don't change that, nor can any non-specific "Democratic leanings" magic it away.

    That tweet you keep pushing doesn't actually deny her conservatism, or even say anything about her beliefs aside from the fact that she's not a "right-winger"-- a very staunch dyed-in-the-wool stripe of conservative. She's a "former sixties flower child/socialist" (an entire generation of which have grown into suburban conservative baby boomers) and a "registered Democrat"-- like, again, Zell Miller and Orson Scott Card. It's not illegal for registered Democrats to have conservative views-- we know this, because she is and she does. And that interview she gave-- again, where's the beef? She talked about her parents' liberal political leanings-- and we KNOW no one has ever grown up to be politically at odds with their parents, yes? She called Adlai Stevenson a great man, just as I've done in the past for Dwight Eisenhower even though I'm an avowed (if grey moderate) liberal. There's nothing of substance there.

    You're railing at Sander and I for the arrogance of claiming to know her beliefs better than she does when nothing you're citing has ever actually told us anything concrete about her beliefs. You're giving incredibly broad reading to every point you can use in your favor while accusing us of not questioning the things said about her enough. Her beliefs are in her statements, as you say-- the statements in her articles, and the ones she makes through her online conduct and associations every day, which I am broadly familiar with. I was as unfamiliar with her as you were, as most of the internet was, before Gamergate erupted, but I've done my homework, just as you have. Except, for some reason, not having read her entire oeuvre is a repeated point you use against Sander and I when, what, you're supposed to get brownie points for admitting that you're better-read now than you were when you knew nothing about her at all?

    You are not the only one in this thread that knows how to read. You are not the only one who has done your reading. You are one of the only people in this thread who refuses to give even an inch of ground in debate, even when not doing so means that you have to willfully ignore what the other person is saying and focus entirely on the fact that they're not agreeing with you, so they must not understand the issue. You know there are members of the enemy tribe on the other side of the hill, so you throw your rocks up in the air trying to land them where you think the other guy is standing, and when they come down on empty ground you throw more at the exact same trajectory.

    If you choose to take that as an unwarranted attack, report it, and I will personally issue the strike against myself. I actually quite like you, and your perspective and presence on this board add a lot in general. You're typically a man of good taste, and I agree with you on a lot where politics isn't concerned. For the love of God, though, I don't think I can debate someone whose answer to every point raised is "nope, I'm still right."

    (And for the record, I'm a registered Democrat with some Libertarian leanings myself, coincidentally enough, so I might know a thing or two about what that says about a person-- and precisely how much itdoesn't.)
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2014
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  17. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    and as i have said, within the context of this discussion, your position and advocacy are comparable to Neo-Nazi with a KKK membership card. and i am not speaking about your positions outside this discussion.

    Nazi = socialist party
    KKK = liberal founded organization


    i express bafflement when people ascribe a few or position that is not accurate to someone who cannot defend themselves, in this case because they are not even here.

    now i could just say, fuck it, she doesnt really matter within the context of this discussion, but i felt egged on by sander continuously doing the same thing to me in calling me a MRA/MRM when i am not, and i had no idea who she actually was. in fact, i am willing to state i still do not really know who she is other than she is a feminist democrat with libertarian leanings that participates in the MRA/MRM group/movement, and does not like what is colloquially called 3rd wave feminism.

    i am pretty sure that it would not be too hard to find out her actual political stances on issues. you could probably send her emails for direct questions. not sure she would respond though. but to label her a conservative would be an error, especially as when people called her that she made that tweet specifically to counter their statements.

    my argument is not "im right", my argument is:
    people call her conservative
    i link to a picture of a tweet she made countering those statements because people are calling her a conservative

    obviously she disagrees with being labeled a conservative. as i do not fully know her political stances or affiliations, i take her at her word. if you think her publicly stated views contradict her publicly stated works, then you guys should be having this discussion with her, not me. the mistake you guys keep making is you think i am arguing in favor or for her. i am not. i am not a feminist, MRA, MRM, and probably not either a democrat or libertarian although my political views may be such. i dont care enough about politics enough to get too involved.

    so, a good question is why do you guys feel the need to ascribe a viewpoint to her that she does not share and has even publicly denied? do you think she is too stupid/ignorant to know what her views are? why do you guys feel the need to continue to call her a conservative?

    and why would i report you? i would only report you if you started spamming the site with ads or into a very invective filled post filled with personal attacks that adds zero to the discussion and had no intent to contribute.

    everyone gets attacked on the internet, everyone gets harassed. i am not some special snowflake that needs people to protect/guard them. hell, im not even sure where this personal attack is in your post. all i see is you making a post with your thoughts and opinions.

    and you have to admit, considering how slow these forums have been lately, these 2 threads in general discussion sure has livened up the place.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  18. Ban the wesdude for livening up the place.
  19. Yamu

    Yamu Le Fromage Vieux oTO Moderator Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Jul 26, 2003
    Naw, I'm gonna wait til everyone can get in a few more ad hominems first. Maybe a strawman or two as well. I've almost perfected my "ad strawminem" hybrid and I need more field research.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  20. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Well, no. The Nazis were literally the National Socialists, but they weren't actually socialist -- they were fascist. Socialism involves worker-owned production (or striving toward that) and a lack of capitalism. Fascism and national socialism involve capitalist, but state-sponsored, nationalist businesses, run by individual businessmen, with no worker-owned production anywhere. While there were some pro-labor voices within the Nazi party, they were largely rooted out in the early 1930s. Socialism is also explicitly anti-hierarchical, while fascism and Nazism make the establishment of a strict hierarchy their ultimate goal. Hierarchy is utopia for Nazis, and anathema for socialists.

    As for the KKK, it was not remotely liberal. Unless you're either referring to classic liberalism, which is not the same thing as liberalism as it's used in the USA today and still had very little to do with the KKK, or unless you think the Democratic party is the same thing as liberalism -- which it also isn't, as it was the conservative of the two parties at the time. The KKK is more accurately not aligned with either stream of politics, but simply an organization hell-bent on maintaining a racist societal order.

    Aside from that bit of historical falsification, it should be noted that there's a bit of a difference between calling me a Neo-Nazi KKK member, and calling me a socialist liberal (or liberal socialist). Just a tiny smidgen of a difference. Just as there's a difference between calling Sommers' views conservative, and calling her a Republican.

    In this discussion and every other discussion that even remotely touches on women or feminism on this forum, you consistently repeat men's rights talking points to the exclusion of any other talking points. Everything you say on these subjects fits the men's rights movement perfectly. This is not slander, it's an accurate representation of your expressions on this forum.

    That goes for Sommers, too: every argument she makes regarding feminism is conservative. Every one. Conservative is hence a useful label for her views in that context.