Oh Canada not you to!

[Jac3510]

I think Jac has a point.

When you accuse someone of using Brownshirt tactics you're saying that they're acting like Nazis. Not authoritarians, not dictators, not even fascists, but Nazis - the purist incarnation of evil that the world has ever seen. That's cranking the dial straight up to 11 and making a hyperbolic appeal to emotion. You're eliminating any possibility of having a rational discussion. It's a ****ty tactic, and as I've already stated, it doesn't play well outside of the echo chamber.

Honestly, I'm accustomed to B.W. being B.W., but Rick, Paul, and Phil, I expected better.

The irony, as I see it, Ed, of conservatives complaining about liberal "brown shirt" tactics is that the Nazi comparison itself is designed to do the exact thing they are complaining about themselves. Conservatives want to argue, with as I've said elsewhere what I think is some validity, that liberals want to shut down free speech, that there is a serious intolerance of contrary ideas. But to take that argument and run it through the Hitler comparison has the same effect--you aren't now just arguing that it is wrong or self-contradictory for "tolerant" folks to be intolerant. Rather, now you are trying to shut down those same liberals, to paint them as genocidal (note ACB's comment in the other thread about liberals wanting to use Islamic extremists to carry out their genocide), to lump them in with Hitler. The net effect is to poison the well, to destroy liberals credibility as people. And thus, it's nothing but an emotional ad hominem. The intention of such a comparison is to prevent liberals from being able to state their ideas. That is, it is to censor them. That's "brown shirt" tactics, and it's the hypocrisy intrinsic to to the complaint. I really hope that Rick and Phil will be able to see that. To get biblical about it, I can't exactly imagine Jesus pointing a finger at the New York Times and saying, "They're using Nazi tactics!!!" That kind of rhetoric is rightly beneath Him, aside from being dishonest, and it ought to be beneath us.

[Kurieuo]

It seems to me that the vitriol that has unfolded in this thread was in reaction to BW's words here:

Brown shirt tactics involve the use of intimidation, threats, forcing business owners out of business, beat downs, violence, paid protesting, provocateuring, racism, bigotry, force limits upon free speech, political terror promoted as action, and such like.

From where I sit, what I've seen reported as happening, news and the like, that what B.W. describe's here is true. The only possible flaw, is that, he bundles "all the Left" in together, rather than identifying those more extreme types who some liberally-minded people now term as "the Regressive Left".

It would perhaps therefore be worthwhile to have a discussion on what "the Left" is. As I've seen, more and more "leftists" who value libertarian values hate also seeing what B.W. described. Such are questioning whether they're left, or the left has been hijacked by more intolerant often leftist views. So are they still liberals, or are they now more conservatives? Is "the Left" today truly liberal? Is the even a so-called "Left" or "Right" for that matter?

I do not think describing people in terms of "Right" and "Left" categories is a good one any more, if it ever were good. Such is I think at moment quite confused -- if it ever wasn't confused in the past.

Here's a good YouTube video I watched some time ago on the Rubin Report.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70

[edwardmurphy]

Ed,

Just curious...

Why would you take something that one person of a particular group says, and apply it to all in the group?

I didn't, Rick.

This thread exists because some lady in Canada made some stupid, racist, pseudo-scientific comments and B.W., who seems to spend a lot of time looking for that kind of thing, used it as an opportunity to disparage liberals in general and BLM in particular as racist crackpots.

My response was to point out that his comments were just as ridiculous and offensive and that it would be a simple matter for some liberal observer to use them to make precisely the same blanket condemnation against conservative Christians that B.W. made against liberals and BLM.

You're saying that B. W. is saying crazy stuff, and then you're saying he's making conservative Christians look like lunatics.

Rick, I have a Christian friend who spends a lot of weekends spreading the Word on college campuses. Her biggest complaint is that a lot of kids she meets are openly hostile to Christianity, not because of anything found in Scripture, but because of how they see a handful loudmouthed, crackpot "Christian conservatives" behave. As I said above, ranting about how liberals are like Brownshirts doesn't play well outside of the echo chamber.

B.W. presents himself as a representative of Christian conservativism. He speaks as if his beliefs were typical for a member of that community. Personally, having been a long-time member of these forums and a frequent volunteer at a local Christian charity, I know better. My experience has shown me that Christians' and conservatives' beliefs exist on a spectrum and vary, sometimes greatly, by individual. The same can be said of liberal beliefs. B.W., ACB, and maybe one or two others here don't seem to grasp that principle, so they're constantly battling this imaginary, monolithic entity called "the left" when they should be talking to real people about their actual views.

This may sound odd, but posting here has been a very valuable experience for me. I strongly advise all of you to find an atheist and freethinkers forum where you can experience having everything that you say challenged by everyone all the time. It makes you think.

[PaulSacramento]

I find it fascinating that people have NOT LEARNED A THING from Trump's victory.
I find it fascinating that the people that should be more moderate,more understanding to different viewpoints because they profess to be that way, are far less than the "closed minded right" they accuse of doing the very things THEY are doing !

You guys really need to take a very serious look at yourselves.
A very serious look at yourselves.

[edwardmurphy]

What were we supposed to learn, Paul? Who's failing to be moderate? What does that have to do with me? You're not the Oracle at Delphi. Spit it out.

[Philip]

Jac has been banned, per his words and actions above! Here's why:

OK, I have read through all of this stupid thread that could have been civil, but that got pressed to some easily avoidable, absurd extremes - mostly, because Jac can't seem to use self control and not respond emotionally, while using the terrible judgment to accuse people with disgusting inaccuracies: Beginning with charging into people he's known a LONG time on this site, with deliberately relationship-damaging verbiage, such as: “B.W. and his ilk; Everyone knows what "brown shirts" are, Rick. Please don't defend it; Comparing people that don't agree with you with mass serial killers is just wrong; You're demeaning the memory of murdered Jews. Shame on you. You are demeaning murdered Jews by your defense of Nazi comparisons.” This is unacceptable language on this site! It will not be tolerated – particularly because it is a gross distortion of what people actually said and explained, and yet he emphasized his accusations even after they responded and clarified what they actually meant - and as his posts were deliberately hostile and extremely mean-spirited.

MULTIPLE times, both Rick and B.W. tried to tell Jac they were using their terminology to compare various TACTICS that ARE very similar between Nazis and modern leftist groups. B.W. confirmed this as his intention, and he even detailed what he believes they are. Rick tried to distinguish as well, even saying, “In my mind, It's a perfectly valid comparison, as long as one isn't conflating all liberals, with leftists.” And Paul got it: “There is a difference between comparing and equating TACTICS with comparing and equating ideologies...” But Jac refused to listen or accept this important nuance, hearing only what he wanted to, nonetheless determined to dig in and intensely heat the discussion up with nasty and inaccurate accusations, increasing with every new response. Those being attacked tried multiple times to explain the difference between what they meant and what Jac was accusing them of, but HE STILL REFUSED TO LISTEN, and he refused to cool down, even though he was sternly warned by me he better do so. While he could have shown some grace to his brothers here – people who have been friendly with him for many years - he refused to, and instead, did his best to demonize them and further distort what they were actually saying and why. And, B.W. and Rick were reasonably polite, considering the savage nature of Jac's words.

And, let's not forget, Jac was attacking MODS on this site in a vicious manner. When warned by me, his response was to double down and begin lecturing ME about what I should do and about what I already could plainly read that he had written, including the posts of others. And then he tried to act as if Rick was at fault for responding to his nasty little way of exiting the conversation: “You're demeaning the memory of murdered Jews. Shame on you. I'm done with this.” Did he really think Rick wouldn't be expected to respond to such a slur and terrible accusation???!!! And then he tried to manipulate me with a Scripture, as if I should respond only to him privately? One, I am a moderator on this site. Second, this brouhaha was between Jac and multiple others – my job is to keep the peace, minimize disruptions, support our mission. So, as I want it to be clear that people are not going to be allowed to do what Jac has here, as it will not be tolerated - that's the reason for my public response. And I could care less that Jac thought he was right; I care about his totally unnecessary and highly inflammatory attacking, and needlessly accusational language, and enormous lack of respect.