Where is the National Guard?

[Morlock]

Unfortunately, the right, or at least its prominent representatives, also seem to try to deny people their civil rights more than the left. And that's a rather ironic turn of events given that southern democrats were historically the ones opposed to integration of schools and the civil rights movement.

Right. It's the Republicans who constantly trot out "gun control" (to infringe on and curtail 2nd Amendment Right), support "hate speech" laws, are currently locking down universities with PC, have shackled academia with PC speech and thought codes, tasked the IRS with harassing conservative organizations, etc.

ETA: what I find most ironic on the topic of segregation is that for all their high-minded talk and blue voting, it's the Yankee northeast that's the most segregated.

 

[Ovinomancer]

1. The Bundy led militia isn't from Oregon. They are from other states. So regardless if people living in eastern Oregon say "y'all" (which some do. I know. I grew up in Wallowa), the militia aren't even from the state.

I said 'in Oregon' not 'from Oregon.'

2. You said people wanted them exterminated. Who? I know of one person. Who were the others?

But if you want objective data, FOX news constantly rates as the "news" organization with the highest level of misrepresentation and falsehoods. Way more than any other organization, let alone "leftist" ones like MSNBC. So objectively, it does seem the right lies more than the left.

By who? Politifact? Yeah, they directly caution against using their numbers for any kind of objective comparison, as they don't rate everything on the networks. They've also shown a good bit of a bias towards the left in some of their supposed 'fact checking'. On the balance, their a decent source, but not an authoritative one.

But you're quoting Fox News, which many on the right dislike (like I do) as much as the left does for their overly sensationalized content. MSNBC is worse, in that regard, and is often voted as the most politically slanted organization in many, many polls.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence.

And that's hypocrisy in not saying the same thing to Lord Twig.

This is a fun game!

I am not assigning a belief. I am making an observation.

No, you're stating an opinion that the Right is more likely to misbehavior out of ideological bias than the left. You've assigned bias based on nothing more than your opinion and limited exposure.

I saw the Yee Hawists and Y'all Queda as jokes, and nothing more.

Cognitive bias. They were insults you thought were funny because they were aimed at people you don't like very much.

I can see the argument that the Left portrays the Right as racist some times, and I will agree that that is not right. But it is not always that way. Many times it is just "Doing that would be racist" or "What you said is racist". That is not saying they are racist, but the action or statement (or whatever) would be racist or at least could be construed that way.

Goodness, the Right doesn't always mischaracterize the left, yeah? It's funny that you fall back to absolute statements when it's your tribe that's challenged, but are more than happy to condemn the right on the same level of evidence.

I mean, what are we supposed to do? Not say that something is racist when we believe it is?

Nice defense. "It's okay to say that the right is racist, if we think that it is. It's never okay for the Right to say mean things about the left, though, even if they think it's true." Do you NOT see the double standard you're peddling?

Stepping back a bit I can see that this is something that has been bugging me for a bit and Morlock's over the top leftist claims pushed me over the edge. So I will back off a bit. It is something both sides should try to avoid if we are going to have any meaningful discussions.

I'd also suggest taking your blinders off and giving the behavior of your tribe a hard a look as you give the other side. Morlock is also one person, not the Right, so, again, you're generalizing when it's convenient to your worldview while you personalize to yourself and your own sainted behavior when your tribe is similarly challenged.

Both sides misbehave about the same amount. If you don't think so, it's because you're blinded to the behavior of your own tribe. It's called cognitive bias, and you shouldn't worry much, it puts you in the same category as most of the rest of the world. I know I dread political discussions when my hyperactive conservative family is in town -- I find them even more obnoxious in their tribalism than I usually do even the rabid left. The left at least is the opposition, and it's easy to accept bad behavior in the opposition. It's more annoying facing the bad behavior on your own side.

 

[MechaPilot]

Right. It's the Republicans who constantly trot out "gun control" (to infringe on and curtail 2nd Amendment Right), support "hate speech" laws, are currently locking down universities with PC, have shackled academia with PC speech and thought codes, tasked the IRS with harassing conservative organizations, etc.

ETA: what I find most ironic on the topic of segregation is that for all their high-minded talk and blue voting, it's the Yankee northeast that's the most segregated.

Regarding the IRS:

The IRS was NOT tasked with harassing conservative organizations. The IRS is a massive organization headed by a person who's appointment requires the "advice and consent" of the senate and is divided into different departments that deal with different taxpayers: Large Business & International, Wage & Investment, Small Business & Self-Employed, Criminal Investigations, etc.

Government entities and exempt organizations have their own department. If there was malfeasance, which has yet to be proven, then we are talking about an extremely small number of the people in the IRS who all work in the same department. But sure, let's punitively cut the funding for the whole shabang by 20% (which is just what happened) because that can't hamper the IRS from doing the job the government wants and frankly NEEDS them to do. It's not like the IRS isn't already so understaffed that they can't keep the regulations up to date with statutory changes, or so understaffed that you don't get an answer when you call their help hotline. . . wait, it's exactly like that.

Everybody hates the IRS because no one wants to pay taxes, but the IRS does FAR more than just act as a leg-breaker for the government. In several cases, the government assigns the ability to make statutory tax law to the IRS because the subjects require technical knowledge that lawmakers just don't have.


Re civil rights:
Gun control is a broad term that popularly gets applied to any regulation of firearms, including common-sense measures like background checks and age restrictions. Some of the proposed regulations are good ideas, some are not. And, as mentioned previously, the right to own a firearm is a right that is potentially physically harmful to others. You can shout insults at the top of your lungs, but your free speech is never going to be the direct cause of a person's death.

Furthermore, the right to free speech is intended to promote the debate of ideas. It is not intended to encourage the dehumanization of people, which is the point of racial slurs and hate speech.

Also, republicans stand in the way of preventing housing, employment, wage, and marriage discrimination. People can be legally fired or denied housing for being transgender, and republicans have been the ones to block the statutory acknowledgement of their civil rights, typically painting transgender persons as immoral perverts who want to use ladies' restrooms and women's showers for nefarious reasons.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Unfortunately, the right, or at least its prominent representatives, also seem to try to deny people their civil rights more than the left. And that's a rather ironic turn of events given that southern democrats were historically the ones opposed to integration of schools and the civil rights movement.

I know that's a common perception on the left, but it's an equally common perception on the right.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

And that's hypocrisy in not saying the same thing to Lord Twig.

This is a fun game!

Not really. I haven't read his posts. If you'd like, you can quote it, and I'll respond to it.

 

[MechaPilot]

I know that's a common perception on the left, but it's an equally common perception on the right.

Speaking as a centrist, the denial of rights that I see comes predominantly from the right. Not entirely from the right (I do see some people on the left who want guns entirely banned instead of responsibly regulated), but predominantly from the right.

There's also the fact that the denial of rights that the right espouses often is more invasive and ruinous to people's personal lives by resulting in people being able to be denied housing, denied employment, denied the right to marry, transgender men being forced to risk harassment or physical assault for using a men's restroom while dressed as a woman, etc.

And then there's topics like equal pay for women. Now, I've seen plenty of people say the wage gap isn't real. Let's just assume that's true (in part because that's a whole other discussion). If it is true, what harm is there in requiring equal pay for equal work regardless of gender under the law? If the wage gap isn't real, then the private sector must already be giving equal pay for equal work, and there should be no opposition to making that a law. Yet the right consistently opposes a gender and wages non-discrimination statute.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Regarding the IRS:

The IRS was NOT tasked with harassing conservative organizations. The IRS is a massive organization headed by a person who's appointment requires the "advice and consent" of the senate and is divided into different departments that deal with different taxpayers: Large Business & International, Wage & Investment, Small Business & Self-Employed, Criminal Investigations, etc.

That's a distinction without a difference. The fact is that the IRS did harass conservative organizations. Whether or not they were tasked to is hot air, they did. Their organizational culture encouraged such a thing to happen. What I don't get is the lack of outrage from everyone for what is essentially an misbehavior police organization (the IRS has an armed enforcement wing, after all). We get mad when the police misbehave by engaging in clearly discriminatory practices (and rightly so), but the entire IRS thing is brushed off by the left mostly because it only targeted the opposition, and all's fair in politics.

Government entities and exempt organizations have their own department. If there was malfeasance, which has yet to be proven, then we are talking about an extremely small number of the people in the IRS who all work in the same department. But sure, let's punitively cut the funding for the whole shabang by 20% (which is just what happened) because that can't hamper the IRS from doing the job the government wants and frankly NEEDS them to do. It's not like the IRS isn't already so understaffed that they can't keep the regulations up to date with statutory changes, or so understaffed that you don't get an answer when you call their help hotline. . . wait, it's exactly like that.

The IRS IG said it was malfeasance. The AG declined to pursue charges. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Congress reacted with the only stick they have: money. Was it a good stick? Nope, but sometimes that happens.

Everybody hates the IRS because no one wants to pay taxes, but the IRS does FAR more than just act as a leg-breaker for the government. In several cases, the government assigns the ability to make statutory tax law to the IRS because the subjects require technical knowledge that lawmakers just don't have.

Yeah, that may be changing. There's a lot of movement about administrative law right now, and how what we're doing with it may actually be unconstitutional. And that's not coming from right wing sources, that's coming out of mainstream law professors (which are mostly left of center). Kinda turns out that the Constitution clearly says that it's Congress' job to create laws, and there's no Constitutional authority to delegate it. Should be interesting to watch that and see where it ends up. I reckon it'll end up with some restrictions on admin law, but not killing it. After all, Congress isn't really interested in passing those kinds of laws, and the bureaucracy is too large to dismantle.

Re civil rights:
Gun control is a broad term that popularly gets applied to any regulation of firearms, including common-sense measures like background checks and age restrictions. Some of the proposed regulations are good ideas, some are not. And, as mentioned previously, the right to own a firearm is a right that is potentially physically harmful to others. You can shout insults at the top of your lungs, but your free speech is never going to be the direct cause of a person's death.

You use of the words 'common sense' are a clear indicator that you're presenting your opinion as fact. Restrictions on guns are a restriction of civil liberties. You can argue that they're necessary or wise, but you can't argue that it's not restricting a civil liberty.

Furthermore, the right to free speech is intended to promote the debate of ideas. It is not intended to encourage the dehumanization of people, which is the point of racial slurs and hate speech.

BINGO! You just hit most of the tropes on Popehat's "How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media's Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies" list!

Free speech is not about the promotion or debate of ideas. It's necessary to it, yes, but not about it. It's about people not going to jail or facing government sanctions for what they say. It doesn't have any proscriptions against hate speech or the dehumanization of people. If you wish to add it, you're restricting civil liberties in general, and free speech in specifics.

Man, I really don't think you could have made Morlock's point any more correct there.

Also, republicans stand in the way of preventing housing, employment, wage, and marriage discrimination. People can be legally fired or denied housing for being transgender, and republicans have been the ones to block the statutory acknowledgement of their civil rights, typically painting transgender persons as immoral perverts who want to use ladies' restrooms and women's showers for nefarious reasons.

Sorry, is this all about trans discrimination, or are there more types of discrimination you're including there. If it's trans, please explain the violent rejection of trans rights from the feminist movement as something of the right? It seems that anti-trans sentiment is pretty strong on both sides, so you really shouldn't throw stones.

But I always ask people rabidly in favor of trans rights how they feel about body integrity identity disorder (BIID)? I often find responses illustrative.

 

[MechaPilot]

But you're quoting Fox News, which many on the right dislike (like I do) as much as the left does for their overly sensationalized content. MSNBC is worse, in that regard, and is often voted as the most politically slanted organization in many, many polls.

I can't say how people on the right view Fox, but it would be refreshing to hear that what you said about that subject is true. Also, MSNBC is pretty bad. It's sad that CNN is the best of the big three news outlets.

Question for news viewers: Has anyone tried Al Jazeera America?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really. I haven't read his posts. If you'd like, you can quote it, and I'll respond to it.

That sounds like a you and him problem, not a me and you problem.

Speaking as a centrist, the denial of rights that I see comes predominantly from the right. Not entirely from the right (I do see some people on the left who want guns entirely banned instead of responsibly regulated), but predominantly from the right.

I'll take your word that your a centrist. Which republicans did you vote for last election?

There's also the fact that the denial of rights that the right espouses often is more invasive and ruinous to people's personal lives by resulting in people being able to be denied housing, denied employment, denied the right to marry, transgender men being forced to risk harassment or physical assault for using a men's restroom while dressed as a woman, etc.

Yes, you said this before with the same lack of detail.
[/quote]
And then there's topics like equal pay for women. Now, I've seen plenty of people say the wage gap isn't real. Let's just assume that's true (in part because that's a whole other discussion). If it is true, what harm is there in requiring equal pay for equal work regardless of gender under the law? If the wage gap isn't real, then the private sector must already be giving equal pay for equal work, and there should be no opposition to making that a law. Yet the right consistently opposes a gender and wages non-discrimination statute.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but your argument is that if legislation is unnecessary to correct a non-existent problem, why shouldn't we pass the legislation to not-fix the non-problem? Hopefully, a little reflection might make that clear.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

That sounds like a you and him problem, not a me and you problem.

He isn't the one crying about it. You are.