Slimebeast said: Lawlight said: Great blog about how SJWs helped Trump: http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr Brilliant article. Especially this line: "smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society." The extreme hypocrisy of the left, people are tired of that. Just like the Church in medieval Europe, "you are a sinner!". But the left will entirely deny this trait, the fanatics on the left are totally unable to cope with this, they have 0 self-criticism and really 0 understanding of the psychology of human beings.

Can't really say you've given the impression of possessing those traits either. I'd say the leftist problem in this regard is that they feel their cause is so just that they can just sell it, and you have to be a bad person to not buy it. I don't necessarily disagree with that view, but it probably ignores a lot of factors that might affect an individual's judgement. So yeah, I agree with your point, but you're not really helping either. Every time I see you talk about politics, you praise your message just like the leftists you seem to hate so much. Understanding is the key to all human interaction, and exaggeration and dismissing opposing views only fuels the conflict.

Lawlight said: Great blog about how SJWs helped Trump: http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr

View on YouTube

White-lash! The same white-lash that voted for Obama twice! :D

Zkuq said: Slimebeast said: Brilliant article. Especially this line: "smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society." The extreme hypocrisy of the left, people are tired of that. Just like the Church in medieval Europe, "you are a sinner!". But the left will entirely deny this trait, the fanatics on the left are totally unable to cope with this, they have 0 self-criticism and really 0 understanding of the psychology of human beings. Can't really say you've given the impression of possessing those traits either. I'd say the leftist problem in this regard is that they feel their cause is so just that they can just sell it, and you have to be a bad person to not buy it. I don't necessarily disagree with that view, but it probably ignores a lot of factors that might affect an individual's judgement. So yeah, I agree with your point, but you're not really helping either. Every time I see you talk about politics, you praise your message just like the leftists you seem to hate so much. Understanding is the key to all human interaction, and exaggeration and dismissing opposing views only fuels the conflict.

I like that you're calling me out!

But I have never claimed to represent an ideology that represents all people, like the modern progressive left claims. I don't agitate for a universal model that fits all of mankind.

I talk as a European nationalist (or as a "white guy" in a multicultural context) and as a theist and I only represent these groups of people. I do not represent humanity as a whole or the other special interests. I very well realize that my group can't rule over everything and decide everything! My faction is more than willing to compromise. On what? On taxrates, on immigration levels, on foreign policy, on state ideology, on education principle, on the freedoms of the church, just to name a few areas off the top of my head.

This is why you can't ask for the same amount of self-criticism from me as you can from the "modern left". Because the claims we make are radically different. Our ambitions our different. I don't make the claim to offer an ideology for all of humanity, but the left does. I don't require my ideology to be forced upon all of humanity! This is an extremely important difference.

But there's no denying that Cultural marxism (the modern left, this is essentially the ideology of SJWs and the "modern progessive")* aims to conquer the whole of humanity and the whole of the human being. It doesn't hide this fact. Social Democracy on the other hand, historically, does not have this ambition because it is more pragmatic, but the underlying ideology, Marxism, does have this claim. And the left of the last decade or "the modern left" or "the modern progressive", with the rise of political correctness as a political movement, aims for so damn much more, it's far far more ambitious than traditional social democracy. Social democracy has historically and traditionally acted like a special interest for the working class, although from time to time it has shown strong "universal tendencies".

In other words, my faction (nationalism) could much easier compromize with traditional Social Democracy, but we have increasingly found that the modern left (Cultural Marxism, political correctness, SJW) doesn't allow compromize.

So this is my mission: it's more to warn about this new movement, this movement that seeks to conquer humanity as a whole*, rather than it's about evangelizing for my special interest (European nationalism, tribalism, theism). So in this "warning" rhetoric, I imagine that I do represent more people than my special interest, in other words: in my main mission of criticizing and warning about the dangers of the modern left, I do imagine that I talk for more people than just nationalists, white guys and theists.

* I know that I use terms that describe largely the same thing in a somewhat chaotic sense. "Progressive left", "SJW", "Cultural Marxism", "political correctness", "the modern left", "identity politics".  This is because in current political discourse about this topic, people haven't yet agreed on a universal term to describe this movement ("the modern left"). So I try to use as many terms as possible so that the reader can hopefully identify at least one of these terms and catch the essense of my point.

** this is my claim. That the modern progresive left seeks to conquer all of humanity. People may disagree with it, but that makes for an interesting discussion itself.

Does this make any sense for you?

Slimebeast said: Zkuq said: Can't really say you've given the impression of possessing those traits either. I'd say the leftist problem in this regard is that they feel their cause is so just that they can just sell it, and you have to be a bad person to not buy it. I don't necessarily disagree with that view, but it probably ignores a lot of factors that might affect an individual's judgement. So yeah, I agree with your point, but you're not really helping either. Every time I see you talk about politics, you praise your message just like the leftists you seem to hate so much. Understanding is the key to all human interaction, and exaggeration and dismissing opposing views only fuels the conflict. I like that you're calling me out! 1. But I have never claimed to represent an ideology that represents all people, like the modern progressive left claims. I don't agitate for a universal model that fits all of mankind. 2. I talk as a European nationalist (or as a "white guy" in a multicultural context) and as a theist and I only represent these groups of people. I do not represent humanity as a whole or the other special interests. I very well realize that my group can't rule over everything and decide everything! My faction is more than willing to compromise. On what? On taxrates, on immigration levels, on foreign policy, on state ideology, on education principle, on the freedoms of the church, just to name a few areas off the top of my head. 3. This is why you can't ask for the same amount of self-criticism from me as you can from the "modern left". Because the claims we make are radically different. Our ambitions our different. I don't make the claim to offer an ideology for all of humanity, but the left does. I don't require my ideology to be forced upon all of humanity! This is an extremely important difference. 4. But there's no denying that Cultural marxism (the modern left, this is essentially the ideology of SJWs and the "modern progessive")* aims to conquer the whole of humanity and the whole of the human being. It doesn't hide this fact. Social Democracy on the other hand, historically, does not have this ambition because it is more pragmatic, but the underlying ideology, Marxism, does have this claim. And the left of the last decade or "the modern left" or "the modern progressive", with the rise of political correctness as a political movement, aims for so damn much more, it's far far more ambitious than traditional social democracy. Social democracy has historically and traditionally acted like a special interest for the working class, although from time to time it has shown strong "universal tendencies". 5. In other words, my faction (nationalism) could much easier compromize with traditional Social Democracy, but we have increasingly found that the modern left (Cultural Marxism, political correctness, SJW) doesn't allow compromize. 6. So this is my mission: it's more to warn about this new movement, this movement that seeks to conquer humanity as a whole*, rather than it's about evangelizing for my special interest (European nationalism, tribalism, theism). So in this "warning" rhetoric, I imagine that I do represent more people than my special interest, in other words: in my main mission of criticizing and warning about the dangers of the modern left, I do imagine that I talk for more people than just nationalists, white guys and theists. * I know that I use terms that describe largely the same thing in a somewhat chaotic sense. "Progressive left", "SJW", "Cultural Marxism", "political correctness", "the modern left", "identity politics".  This is because in current political discourse about this topic, people haven't yet agreed on a universal term to describe this movement ("the modern left"). So I try to use as many terms as possible so that the reader can hopefully identify at least one of these terms and catch the essense of my point. ** this is my claim. That the modern progresive left seeks to conquer all of humanity. People may disagree with it, but that makes for an interesting discussion itself. 7. Does this make any sense for you?

I really wish these forums made it easy to quote individual parts of posts, like almost all other forums. Sadly that is not the case, so it's harder to make sense of this. Let's try anyway.

1. A bold claim, which I can somewhat agree with. This here is probably the single most important point of your post, because it shows where you stand and why your views are what they are.

2. This is a good clarification.

3. I ask everyone for self-criticism, and I don't see any reason to exclude you or anyone else. Usually I ask for it explicitly only when there's obvious disagreements though, but every single person on this planet would do well to criticize themself as well. I guess that ideally every single publicly expressed thought should go through self-criticism. Obviously it's not always practical, but the more important the issue, the more important it is for it to go through self-criticism first. If a thought can't even stand self-criticism, it's probably not a strong enough to express to others either. This would also stand a chance of eliminating a lot of sources of disagreement. Anyway, this is getting way ahead of my point... Both your and the left's ideas are big enough to warrant a lot of self-criticism, I feel. You're both talking about very important and big things, and one should not go without self-criticism just because its scale isn't as big as the other's.

4. I see you've done your research quite well. I don't agree though. What you describe as 'the modern left' still feels like a pretty fractured movement to me, and its power not quite what you seem to think. It's getting stronger though, and I understand your worry. The majority of the political left doesn't even seem to fit properly your description of 'the modern left' as far as I've noticed. I've noticed a vocal minority going quite far though, and that's what seems to fit your description of 'the modern left' better in my opinion. Personally I'd say that group is going too far, and especially too much political correctness and sensitivity can really hurt the atmosphere. I understand why they demand it, but I think right now it's more harmful than beneficial. Returning to the political left, I think it has elements from this vocal minority, but overall, it's doesn't seem to be the same as your 'modern left'. In case my opinion matters, I too dislike the far left (we might be using the terms somewhat differently, but I'm not entirely sure), and especially radical feminists have a special place (not a good one) in my heart.

5. If you can force a compromise, there's always room for it. Everyone acts like a compromise won't do, but if there's no other choice, it'll almost always do. Not a lot of people choose to go entirely against their beliefs if they can get a compromise that's at least somewhat beneficial to their agenda.

6. And you've chosen demonizing as your weapon in spreading your agenda. Maybe it's a poweful weapon, but if that's what you need to appeal to people, it doesn't like a good agenda to me. If it's a reasonable agenda, people should sooner or later understand it even if it was spread using nicer methods. Demonizing just clouds people's judgement when it should in fact be made as clear as possible.

** You're right, it certainly makes an interesting discussion. I imagine it could easily take several long posts to even get on the same page before even getting to the actual discussion.

7. Yes, a lot actually. That's a very well explained point of view.

Goodnightmoon said:

Funny how the percentages are not that different from normal but only now is this a "massive blow to democracy" and "the beginning of the death of democracy".    Voter turnout has fluctuated between low 50s and low 60s for over a century now.  This is not new, this guy is just using an a statistic to push his own agenda, like 99% of all tweets about politics.

Lawlight said: binary solo said: Clinton wins, but Trump is president. Seems this only happens to the Democratic party. They don't know how to spread their votes in the right places to make every vote matter. Clinton accepts the result, but if the tables were turned Trump would be calling for armed revolution and abolition of the electoral college. Hell he called for revolution in 2012 when Obama ended up actually winning the NPV. I bet you wouldn't have been saying that if that warmonger won.

 

Well obviously not, because if Clinton had won the ECV she still would have won the NPV and therefore there would be nothing to say on that count and the will of the plurality of voters would have carried the day. I have always advocated for the presidential result to properly reflect the NPV regardless of who gets the most votes. I would personally advocate for an Aussie style preferential voting system which would avoid a run-off election and which would ensure the winner earns >50% of the vote share after 2nd or 3rd preferences are tallied. It's possible Trump would have won under a PV system, but we will never know.

Zkuq said: Slimebeast said: I like that you're calling me out! 1. But I have never claimed to represent an ideology that represents all people, like the modern progressive left claims. I don't agitate for a universal model that fits all of mankind. 2. I talk as a European nationalist (or as a "white guy" in a multicultural context) and as a theist and I only represent these groups of people. I do not represent humanity as a whole or the other special interests. I very well realize that my group can't rule over everything and decide everything! My faction is more than willing to compromise. On what? On taxrates, on immigration levels, on foreign policy, on state ideology, on education principle, on the freedoms of the church, just to name a few areas off the top of my head. 3. This is why you can't ask for the same amount of self-criticism from me as you can from the "modern left". Because the claims we make are radically different. Our ambitions our different. I don't make the claim to offer an ideology for all of humanity, but the left does. I don't require my ideology to be forced upon all of humanity! This is an extremely important difference. 4. But there's no denying that Cultural marxism (the modern left, this is essentially the ideology of SJWs and the "modern progessive")* aims to conquer the whole of humanity and the whole of the human being. It doesn't hide this fact. Social Democracy on the other hand, historically, does not have this ambition because it is more pragmatic, but the underlying ideology, Marxism, does have this claim. And the left of the last decade or "the modern left" or "the modern progressive", with the rise of political correctness as a political movement, aims for so damn much more, it's far far more ambitious than traditional social democracy. Social democracy has historically and traditionally acted like a special interest for the working class, although from time to time it has shown strong "universal tendencies". 5. In other words, my faction (nationalism) could much easier compromize with traditional Social Democracy, but we have increasingly found that the modern left (Cultural Marxism, political correctness, SJW) doesn't allow compromize. 6. So this is my mission: it's more to warn about this new movement, this movement that seeks to conquer humanity as a whole*, rather than it's about evangelizing for my special interest (European nationalism, tribalism, theism). So in this "warning" rhetoric, I imagine that I do represent more people than my special interest, in other words: in my main mission of criticizing and warning about the dangers of the modern left, I do imagine that I talk for more people than just nationalists, white guys and theists. * I know that I use terms that describe largely the same thing in a somewhat chaotic sense. "Progressive left", "SJW", "Cultural Marxism", "political correctness", "the modern left", "identity politics".  This is because in current political discourse about this topic, people haven't yet agreed on a universal term to describe this movement ("the modern left"). So I try to use as many terms as possible so that the reader can hopefully identify at least one of these terms and catch the essense of my point. ** this is my claim. That the modern progresive left seeks to conquer all of humanity. People may disagree with it, but that makes for an interesting discussion itself. 7. Does this make any sense for you? I really wish these forums made it easy to quote individual parts of posts, like almost all other forums. Sadly that is not the case, so it's harder to make sense of this. Let's try anyway. 1. A bold claim, which I can somewhat agree with. This here is probably the single most important point of your post, because it shows where you stand and why your views are what they are. 2. This is a good clarification. 3. I ask everyone for self-criticism, and I don't see any reason to exclude you or anyone else. Usually I ask for it explicitly only when there's obvious disagreements though, but every single person on this planet would do well to criticize themself as well. I guess that ideally every single publicly expressed thought should go through self-criticism. Obviously it's not always practical, but the more important the issue, the more important it is for it to go through self-criticism first. If a thought can't even stand self-criticism, it's probably not a strong enough to express to others either. This would also stand a chance of eliminating a lot of sources of disagreement. Anyway, this is getting way ahead of my point... Both your and the left's ideas are big enough to warrant a lot of self-criticism, I feel. You're both talking about very important and big things, and one should not go without self-criticism just because its scale isn't as big as the other's. 4. I see you've done your research quite well. I don't agree though. What you describe as 'the modern left' still feels like a pretty fractured movement to me, and its power not quite what you seem to think. It's getting stronger though, and I understand your worry. The majority of the political left doesn't even seem to fit properly your description of 'the modern left' as far as I've noticed. I've noticed a vocal minority going quite far though, and that's what seems to fit your description of 'the modern left' better in my opinion. Personally I'd say that group is going too far, and especially too much political correctness and sensitivity can really hurt the atmosphere. I understand why they demand it, but I think right now it's more harmful than beneficial. Returning to the political left, I think it has elements from this vocal minority, but overall, it's doesn't seem to be the same as your 'modern left'. In case my opinion matters, I too dislike the far left (we might be using the terms somewhat differently, but I'm not entirely sure), and especially radical feminists have a special place (not a good one) in my heart. 5. If you can force a compromise, there's always room for it. Everyone acts like a compromise won't do, but if there's no other choice, it'll almost always do. Not a lot of people choose to go entirely against their beliefs if they can get a compromise that's at least somewhat beneficial to their agenda. 6. And you've chosen demonizing as your weapon in spreading your agenda. Maybe it's a poweful weapon, but if that's what you need to appeal to people, it doesn't like a good agenda to me. If it's a reasonable agenda, people should sooner or later understand it even if it was spread using nicer methods. Demonizing just clouds people's judgement when it should in fact be made as clear as possible. ** You're right, it certainly makes an interesting discussion. I imagine it could easily take several long posts to even get on the same page before even getting to the actual discussion. 7. Yes, a lot actually. That's a very well explained point of view.

The forum format can be frustrating sometimes, can't it? Good idea to put numbers on the paragraphs.

1 -2. Cool

3. This point I knew was going to be hard to explain, and I feel like I didn't come across as well as I could. Freaking language barrier and limited brain capacity gets in the way. I know I have a valid point here, it's just hard to explain. There is principal difference between just representing your special interest group or faction, versus if you set out to speak for everybody. And it ties into the self-criticim part somehow. I just can't explain the connection. Accountability. Let's leave it for now.

4. It's interesting enough that you deny it, it just makes me even more determined in my mission. I am aware of the fact that my claim is bold, that it's almost in line with the biggest conspiracy theories out there. I'm claiming a lot of things but I'm not claiming that this is a huge conspiracy. I do recognize that the "modern left" is fractured, and I also claim that many working in this movement don't even realize that they're part of it.

A strong objection to what you wrote about vocal minorities. No, this is not about a few crazy loudmouths. One example of how all-encompassing the new left is, is in state policies. In Sweden you will be hard pressed to find a government institution or public office who hasn't yet implemented a "plan for multicultural awareness" or a "plan for feminism" (public offices such as hospitals, the police force, the military, the education system, social agency offices etc). These plans are directed at the employees to make them use the right terminology, to become aware of these issues, and make them accept these values as their own. You can lose your job as a teacher if you're active in the Sweden Democrats (our nationalist party if somebody doesn't know) with reference to "wrong values".
"With his membership in X party, person Y has shown he doesn't share the values of the Swedish education system, and must therefore be released". This is part of Cultural Marxism. You can debate how it arrived here and which curvy roads it took, but it's Cultural Marxism in full action. The same mindset is behind it. A mindset that tries to force itself upon everybody, a mindset that sets aside freedom of speech and freedom of thought in the name of social justice.

Another example. Also about 15 years ago, our right wing parties in Sweden had a meeting where they pretty much decided to leave the ideology debate entirely to focus only on money (tax) issues. And I've read that in a similar fashion, many right wing parties in the West have abandoned the ideology field to the left, in sort of desperation, just so it would at least have a chance to affect the money policies. And naturally many ideology focused voters on the right are disappointed and bitter about this.

So this is vastly bigger than some outrageous SJW loudmouths on Youtube.

Swedish authorities talk extremely much about values. And this is a brand new phenomenon that was totally unheard of  15 years ago. Now it's implemented everywhere. I think it's part of Cultural marxism and mind control. No matter who or what is behind it, that's a separatequestion, but this ideology seeks to conquer our minds, the whole of humanity.

5. In time, if you would follow and study this topic for a while, I'm certain you would discover this element/property of Cultural marxism, namely their unwillingness to compromise. That it's intrinsic and very principal to the ideology. It ties into the goal to conquer all of humanity. I just wish I coulkd explain it. I wish I could demonstrate the basis for this claim, but I guess I haven't reached so far in my studies yet.

I'd like to note that I'm always trying to advance the discussion in a larger sense, but so far I haven't got much help from the VGC community in my task to define Cultural Marxism.

6. Interesting point. I have thought quite a bit on rhetorics, how I come across and what type of expression has the highest chance to take root etc. So it's nice to get some feedback. Do you think I use the method of demonizing? If possible, could you elaborate in what way I demonize?

7. Cool. Thanks.

** Yep, it would require several long posts haha.

Slimebeast said: 3. This point I knew was going to be hard to explain, and I feel like I didn't come across as well as I could. Freaking language barrier and limited brain capacity gets in the way. I know I have a valid point here, it's just hard to explain. There is principal difference between just representing your special interest group or faction, versus if you set out to speak for everybody. And it ties into the self-criticim part somehow. I just can't explain the connection. Accountability. Let's leave it for now. 4. *wall of text* 5. In time, if you would follow and study this topic for a while, I'm certain you would discover this element/property of Cultural marxism, namely their unwillingness to compromise. That it's intrinsic and very principal to the ideology. It ties into the goal to conquer all of humanity. I just wish I coulkd explain it. I wish I could demonstrate the basis for this claim, but I guess I haven't reached so far in my studies yet. I'd like to note that I'm always trying to advance the discussion in a larger sense, but so far I haven't got much help from the VGC community in my task to define Cultural Marxism. 6. Interesting point. I have thought quite a bit on rhetorics, how I come across and what type of expression has the highest chance to take root etc. So it's nice to get some feedback. Do you think I use the method of demonizing? If possible, could you elaborate in what way I demonize? 7. Cool. Thanks. ** Yep, it would require several long posts haha.

3. I agree.

4. Looks like a lot of this boils down to us having different views about what's too far left and what's not. It could probably be discussed further, but I reckon the difference is at a pretty fundamental level and that agreement can't be found. Either way, I'm not very eager to get into that discussion. :D

5. I don't particularly object to your claim about the unwillingness to compromise, but I still think people will at least occassionally take the chance to compromise if they'd otherwise lose an argument completely. It's just bound to happen more or less often if it's the only way to get even a portion of your agenda through. I haven't studied this rigorously though, so there's always room for error, but this seems like common sense to me. It's just very difficult to avoid having to make compromises unless you're in a really powerful position.

6. Ah, demonize is probably not the best word, but it's definitely in your arsenal. Judging by this post, wouldn't you agree? Demonization there isn't as strong as it could be, but you associate a lot of very bad things with the left. Demonization itself isn't my point though, I guess. It's more about the extremely aggressive style, of which demonization is just a part of. Who do you think is going to listen to you if you're being aggressive and demonize them? (I think this conversation even started from criticizing the left from doing so.) You're mostly going to get ones that already agree with you to listen to you if you talk aggressively, which seems quite counterproductive to me if your objective is to have others agree with you. This isn't backed up by any scientific research though, it's mostly based on my own experiences and common sense, so there's some room for error.

Personally I try to stay calm and understand the other party, because it seems to generally yield the best results in conversations. My logic behind that is that I believe respect towards the other party to help in finding common ground. A heated conversation usually leads nowhere, as the parties end up getting annoyed by each other and easily resorting to logically unsound arguments, which further escalate the situation. I don't know if that's an effective method if you're trying to preach and push your agenda, but it certainly seems to work well in conversations.

I think I covered all important points in my answer?

Question:

Why would Americans register for Obamacare now that they know it's gonna be repealed?

"Even the powerful health care industry, which invested hundreds of millions of dollars in preparing for business under the Affordable Care Act, is disoriented about what to do next — and scrambling for ways to avoid a big financial shock. A repeal of the act would mean the loss of millions of customers for insurance companies and an onslaught of uninsured people to hospital emergency rooms for basic care."

This whole repealing thing is a mess.