Why the Right and Left hate each other

I didn't ask for a label .. I asked for a description .. how one would describe Blue Authoritarianism --

But as usual you wish to deflect and divert .. building a strawman .. saying "you asked for a label" when the reverse is true ..

You gave some nonsense discription which ended up describing the reverse of what Blue represents - troping out platitudes that are opposite of such as " \defending civil rights" Orwellian doublespeak is what you present as a description of Blue.

You did nowever stuble on to one of the more authoritarian of Blue policies .. which is trampling on civil liberties .. in the most eggregious ways .. like the Mao's and Adolfs .and El Saud's of the world .. Whats a label for that ya figure ?

 

No. You asked for a descriptor.

Look... changing your mind or correcting yourself is fine. But denying that you said something that anybody can look up by just going back a few posts, will NEVER make you look good.

Oh... and please don't try to justify yourself by attempting to excuse yourself using semantics. What you meant it's clear: you requested a "label".

 

What is the difference -- I asked for a descriptor - you gave a description - now is you playing semantics game - turning around and blaming me - in desperate attempt to avoid addressing the question at hand ..

describing Blue Authoritarianism -which is currently trampling on civil liberties .. in the most eggregious ways .. like the Mao's and Adolfs .and El Saud's of the world ... something you referred to as "Defending Civil Rights" in a most Orwellian doublespeak

 

My favorite parts were the beginning where the narrator declares “evil” is an irrational construct and then later in the video declares practices undeniably “evil”.

 

All very true. I'd like to come up with a different label. Marxism is good (or at least not bad) because it satisfies the main criteria for a label and that is one word that is well known and fairly well understood. The next primary criteria is it has to describe fairly closely though not perfectly. Fallacious Unitarianism doesn't satisfy the main criteria because it's two words and not commonly known although half-way understood. Totalitarianism might be good because it is accurately descriptive although it's not catchy and has the same amorphous problem marxism has. Actually, I don't have a major problem with marxist because it describes the core values and actions of the Democrats even though it is inaccurate in some aspects, and it is a nice catchy well-known single word. It does allow an escape because of its inaccuracies, ya know like a Marxist-like Democrat rebutting the Marxism label because Marx was German and he is not.

 

I understand all of that and don't have any strong theoretical argument against. My argument against it is that it is meaningless and therefor of no help because of its literal physical impossibility. What is described is very much similar to a football team that supports democratic principles and so gets rid of the coach, all assistant coaches, the general manager, and the owner to give each player an equitable share of the enterprise. Their games might be fun to watch, but it would look nothing like football and they would never win any game. Have you ever seen or heard of a successful working enterprise that did not have a boss/manager, or whose ownership was precisely equitably distributed among everyone associated with the enterprise, let alone everyone in the city or state? It will never ever fly.

 

This was addressed to another -- but, No .. Marxism is not good as the word is terribly understood .. no two people having the same take .. and most just wrong. This is not true of a term they don't know .. which .. those that care .. will go out and learn .. and teach to others ... a term you need to learn better .. because there is nothing amorphous about the term "Fallacious Utilitarianism"

I will now prove this to you. Describe to me how Blue fits "your" Marxist definition I will then describe 1) how it fits my marxist definition .. and 2) how it fits the FU definition (funny how that worked out)

 

You have a point regarding Marxism. But a label like Fallacious Utilitarianism that usually gets a response of 'HUH?" is generally not a good label, not even if it is shortened to FU.

 

This post is a good example of leftist hate.

Leftists can't handle people having freedom.

 

The video is complete garbage.

People who can't realized Hitler and Stalin were both leftists can't intelligibly discuss this.

The democrats were only temporarily and nominally liberal. The party is now run by leftists. The neocons like W are also leftists. What is leftism? Imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever.
The elimination of the individual.

If you're wanting to talk Liberal vs. Conservative, there is very little conflict. I'm a liberal. A liberal believes in individual freedom and self-governance. The leftists here are the opposite of that. Their first post in this thread complained about other people being able to speak their mind. A leftist thinks exercising 2nd Amendment rights is violence. A leftist goes nuts when the opposition protests and doesn't kill anyone yet praises "protestors" who do kill people. Liberals don't think this way.

Basically, a conservative is someone who wants to die in the exact time he was born in. They want no changes and resist changes. It's really quite possible to be both liberal and conservative. It's also possible to be a conservative leftist - think China's Winnie the Pooh.

So, liberal vs. conservative makes no sense. The real fight is leftists vs. humanity.

 

Fair enough .. for the raging masses the term is not known .. but it is a term they should know .. and much easier to learn..

Fallacious = False
Utilitarianism - Justification for law on the basis of "What will increase happiness for the collective" - aka "Harm Reduction"

No need to read some long manual .. not ambiguous .. everyone can immediately recognize examples .. such as the vax mandate .. such as labeling the capitol protestors "Terrorists" ... "If it saves one life" as justification for law.

The war on free speech - information - press .. Fallatious utilitarianism combined with Orwellian doublespeak . Information released to the public about the dirty deeds of one of the candidates prior to the election "HARMED" our electoral process don't ya know....

It is the primary weapon of Blue insurrection -- of the constitution - and founding principles from federal down to state down to municiple.
.. as this justification for law allows for an end run around the safeguards which protect essential liberty. That silliness is not considered in this justification for law .. .. only what is good "supposedly" for the collective .. thereby removing the limits to Gov't power .. if you can come up with "If it saves one life" .. the law is justified .. skiing should be banned .. would that not save one life ? .. boating too . thats really dangerous .. just a nasty slippery slope.

"Fallacious" is when it is not even a good utilitarian argument .. such as the Vax Mandate has become .. and example of when false arguments - bad science - used to make the case for reduced harm...

This is how it works mate .. how these nasty people are sodomizing the citizens .. from both ends .. Red got in on parade .. -- don't kid yourself .. "The War on Drugs/Pot" and all the assortment of nasty things come about cause of that.. was really a war on Pot - yet .. who thinks the swat team is justified for someone with a bag of weed ? .. all kinds of nasty laws .. asset forfieture .. arbitrary search and seizure .. I separate Pot from METH - Fentanyl .. for a reason.. as that is not so false.. That they did this to us on the basis of Pot ? .. and don't forget banking .. based on the money laundering Trope .. now surveillance through the money .. and other disgusting invasions of privacy ..

ALL - based on fallacious utilitarianism .. Pot is the Same as Heroin don't ya know ??? .. so lets throw some fellow who got caught smoking pot 3 times into jail for 10 years. Yes .. can you see the "Harm Reduction" going on .. another evil Pot smoker off the streets..

This is the bill you were sold .. and happily paid for did you not ? .. Real "Law and Order" supporter .. aye mate .. No problem with that .. just not on the basis of fallacious Utilitarianism .. as an excuse to give Gov't/Police - more power..

 

I can't speak for "leftists", whoever they are. But free thinking progressive AmeriCANs, want nothing more that freedom for ALL AmeriCANs; me included.

 

No. You'd specifically attacked the fee speech of others in your post. You consider anyone who disagrees with you to be evil.

 

No, I didn't not attack the free speech of anyone. The OP asks "why the Right and Left hate each other", IMHO the root of that hate can be traced back to the original pustule of hate Rush Limbaugh, who, for over 30 years sowed hate and divisiveness amongst Americans using manufactured and biased facts. He started the movement away from AmeriCANs, no matter what our differences, being U.S. to Lefty and Righty. Which was piled onto by FAUX and all the rest of the copy cats since he started in 1988. I didn't question anyone's right of speech or call anyone evil; just offered my opinion on how we've come so far from the brotherhood of AmeriCANs to the tribal hate we have today.

 

You don't have any evidence of this. All you have is emotion. He disagreed with you so his speech must be evil. This is how a leftist thinks.

More emotion. No reality. There is no right. Only the left.

Yep, everyone who disagrees with you must be evil.

You simply described the speech and the people as "the root of all hate" which is the same. You did this because they disagreed with you.

Have you looked at your own posts.

 

Noone said: ↑

No, I didn't not attack the free speech of anyone. The OP asks "why the Right and Left hate each other", IMHO the root of that hate can be traced back to the original pustule of hate Rush Limbaugh, who, for over 30 years sowed hate and divisiveness amongst Americans using manufactured and biased facts.

Noone said: ↑

He started the movement away from AmeriCANs, no matter what our differences, being U.S. to Lefty and Righty.

Noone said: ↑

Which was piled onto by FAUX and all the rest of the copy cats since he started in 1988.

Noone said: ↑

I didn't question anyone's right of speech or call anyone evil

Noone said: ↑

just offered my opinion on how we've come so far from the brotherhood of AmeriCANs to the tribal hate we have today.

1. I don't need any evidence of this because the OP asks "Whatever your political position is, are these reasons why you hold it:" And then offers a video that explains how the Right and Left came about and some of their differences. SO, I answered his question "are these reasons why you hold it". He was asking for my position, AKA, opinion; I can't get that wrong, even if I replied "green cheese", and green cheese IS my political position. So two things, you didn't read the OP, and, you didn't watch the video; it's apparent.
2. You prove my last two points by saying "There is no right. Only the left."; the thread IS about the difference and differences between "Right and Left" and how to heal them; cheese and rice!
3. Your repeated accusation that "everyone who disagrees with you must be evil.", when I've said no such thing is further proof of your obvious RIGHT leaning bias.
4. Again, the OP asks: "Why the Right and Left hate each other", it would be easier on you if you would take time to read and learn what the discussion IS, before you start grinding your ax.
5. Have you looked at your posts? Obviously you didn't like mine, at ... face ... value, so rather than take time to see why I posted it, you just started attacking.
   

 

Saying green cheese would not be calling someone else evil just for saying something you don't like. Green cheese would actually have been a better answer than the one you gave.

As I already stated in a previous post, the op has it wrong.

Your post is suffering from short term memory loss. It can't remember what it just posted.

And if you critically read your own posts you might learn something.

Your first post on this thread was an attack and I simply pointed out that truth.

 

No, you accused me of "leftist hate".

You can't you possibly know from my original thread reply ...

... that I hate anything or anybody. I just gave my opinion on when the real divide between Left and Right began. I will add that the differences Right and Left stood for became a commercial enterprise with Rush Limbaugh. He took those differences from "front porch discussions while listening to sports" to divisive hate were differences were no longer discussed at all, and each side retreated into tribal camps of hate. Which is evidenced by your refusal to even accept that your side is a side.

 

There is no difference. That's my point.

 

I would say there are differences between Biden Blue authoritarianism and Mao's China - Adolf's Germany - El Saud's Saudi Arabia - which was my point. The first and most obvious being that Joe does not have near as much power to Trample on Liberty .. for the moment .. and lets hope it stays that way through the mid terms - when Red takes away more of that power .. and 2024 - when Joe will be repleced with a Red Monarch.

 

There is no difference between a "label" and a "descriptor".

But I'm happy that you do see "differences" between a democratically elected government and Hitler... We could stretch the meaning of the expression "one small step in the right direction" and at least give you that.

 

Plenty of differences .. but what does that have to do how we describe the demonic totalitarian path that Blue has chosen .. trampling on liberty, the Constitution in its quest for power and control.

"Democratically elected" -- thats a funny one .. no such thing as a functional democratic process without a fair and free media - and the electorate educated in the founding principles .. further .... the choice is between purple or purple .. a rigged game.

 

Point of clarification: Hitler was democratically elected....... as were Putin, Sadam Hussein, et al.

 

Hitler wasn't democratically elected. He was appointed Chancellor after he LOST the elections.

 

As the spin goes.......