2020 Election

A vauge, general commentary about history is not a rebuttal of my reply.

You keep repeating yourself. For what reason?

You made a bold declaration, which I questioned. I think because you can't defend that statement, you are resorting to disingenuous debate tactics, such as simply repeating yourself.

You can't defend the assertion that the "right wing are the dominant power in many countries including the US and UK" other than to substitute neoliberal capitalism for the term "right wing" (or to provide a nearly 20 year old personal anecdote), even though you say yourself "first we would have to define what is meant by left and right and I think billions of words have been written on that". If the term "right wing" is vague and undefinable, why use it when what you really meant was neoliberal capitalism?

 

No. Would you argue that a radiator is a car?

 

You're still only making declarations here, not providing evidence. And are you still using "right wing" as a synonym for neoliberal capitalism?

 

I've decided this site is no longer worth my time. Let the right wing or whomever take it over. Who the fuck cares?

 

I don't think "the right " want to take anything over. we just want to discuss matters without being bashed, belittled , and marginalized . just cause someone has a different viewpoint then others does not make those actions acceptable

 

Newbie

So you are basically saying you are totally opposed to idea of education

You seem to be implying that education ends and should end once you leave school, I’m 58 but realise I am ignorant of many things but I like leaning and finding out new ones - new facts - new ideas – new concepts - if that makes me childish, then I am happy to be called a child. To me that is how people grow and adapt their ideas and outlook.

So you have no counter argument – you just seem to agree that you reject the principles of education - of development - of growth - of change. You seem to be saying that if ideas run counter to what you want them to be although you have no counter argument you are just going to reject those ideas BUT demand the right to spread the ideas you cannot defend from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

You are basically saying you would never contemplate debating honestly you don’t care about gaining knowledge or insight you only wish to spread propaganda.

 

Newbie

Ok you seem rather confused and contradictory and more interested in trying to score cheap ‘points’ than in honest debate.

At one moment you seem to say that you are fine with getting rid of dishonest debaters then you snarl that its ‘censorship’ and ‘an abuse of power’.

You also don’t seem be putting up counter arguments just not accepting any opposing argument to your own, as you say – ‘I don't share your premise’ – but without putting up any counter premise

For example you seem to accept free market capitalism is a right wing ideology you seem to agree that the UK and US are in the main dominated by this ideology but you reject the promise that the UK and US are dominated by the right wing ideas. You seem to have no counter argument.

Your argument seems to be that you want people to be able to say whatever they want without any comeback – but that is not debate to which your reply seems to be that you don’t care, but this is a debating form to which your reply seems to be that you don’t care. Well my reply to that is then don’t post here.

And if you are unwilling to debate in an honest way we don’t want you here.

 

Once

Then why do you constantly refuse to discuss matters in any honest, rational or reasonable way

 

Now can we get back to talk of the election

 

Sorry claiming that you would debate honestly or could debate honestly but refuse to do so or show any indication of doing so is not debate.

 

To repeat

If people genuinely wish to debate they are welcome but if not and only post in Politics to spread lies and culture war propaganda they are not welcome and their posts may be deleted and if they persist in trying to be disruptive then other measures might need to be taken

 

Bilby

OK I’m happy to accept control if that will make you happy - but the point is that the newspapers are controlled by those that are unlikely to promote a left wing/socialist agenda and don’t. just as Fox News doesn’t.

Are you disputing that?

 

I hope you decide to stay. You're one of the more intelligent ones on this site.

 

Please don't quit. We Democrats need you here.

 

If this HF becomes an instrument of the right winggies then it is no longer a Hippy site.

 

That's always been one of the more curious assertions I have seen on this site; that hippy always has to mean left wing

How many people that went to Woodstock do you think, ended up finishing University to become lawyers, accountants, bank/hedge fund managers etc

 

I think it's useful to question everything, even hippies, who were never known for their intellectual prowess. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but whether or not hippies were for it seems pretty irrelevant. Open-mindedness is something I consider a good thing, but we need to distinguish it from being uncritical. You ask "shouldn't we question authority?". I think it's good to question authority and everything else up to a point--but when it comes to defying stop signs or showing up with AR-15s to sessions of the legislature, I draw the line. Our freedom of speech is protected from government by the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court tells us that some things considered speech are not protected: fighting words, for example; obscenity; incitement to riot. And the First Amendment protects us only from government interference, not from private internet platforms. Should we allow HF to be used like 8-chan to rally white supremacists, or disseminate propaganda from foreign agents? I'm all for employment for Macedonian teenagers, but if they want to mess with our politics I see no reason to help them out.

It's a fine line the mods must walk between excluding of viewpoints they don't like and taking measures to keep the site from being commandeered as a propaganda platform by partisan hacks. Last night there were a couple of posts on the thread Joe Biden score board that I thought skirted the edge of credibility. One was by OnceBurned, questioning, once again, whether or not the Sandy Hook massacre was real. That conspiracy theory is particularly cruel because it suggests that the bereaved parents and their dead kids were crisis actors faking it. As a result of the demented actions of Alex Jones and others in disseminating that lie, the parents were subjected to death threats and harassing phone calls. They sued Jones and he's tried to backpedal.
Alex Jones Can't Stop Losing Court Battles Against Sandy Hook Parents | HuffPost
Families of Sandy Hook shooting victims win legal victory in lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones
Sandy Hook families gain victory in lawsuit against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones
Alex Jones Loses Sandy Hook Court Appeal, Must Now Pay Nearly $150,000 In Legal Fees | HuffPost
Any reasonable observer would put this in the same category as the Pizzagate story cooked up on 4-chan that made the rounds on this site during the 2016 election campaign. But OnceBurned has resurrected it, and we must, yet again, present arguments and evidence as to why we think it's bogus, or let his groundless claim stand unchallenged. Note: he doesn't feel compelled to present arguments and evidence as to why he thinks it's real I take it you don't think that he should have to. To his credit, this time his post has at least a shred of substantive content, as opposed to the usual memes from right wing sites and epithets and taunts of the kind one hears at sporting events.

The other item, on the same thread, that I thought was outrageous was a cartoon posted by Six-eyed Shaman, depicting Obama as a snake and reviving, among other things, the "birtherism" charge against him. Does Six believe for a second that the charge has substance? I think not. I think he posted it because he thought it would short-circuit thought and further his political cause.

In the interest of promoting free exchange of ideas, I wouldn't do anything to "censor" even these extreme expressions, even though I don't think either of them were made in good faith. I do think we need to be wary of trolls, and not to be hesitant to take action when frequent flyers cross the line--like that Nazi we had awhile ago with all the ((( ))). I see no point in trying to play by Marquis of Qeensberry rules when the opposition feels free to bite, gouge and hit below the belt.

 

That was then. This is now.