The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

I think it's the Socialists that are...they may be as hardcore as Communists, but I don't see that they're giving evidence of that. Certainly the candidates they've been fielding are more and more wacky, more and more further Left. And it strikes me as an odd strategy: the US electorate rejected their radicalism, so they go more radical?

But maybe loonies do what loonies do. There's no strategic explanation for it that I can see.

What is an example of Democrats going "further and further Left"? How are they going any further "left" than the right is going "right"?

This question reminds me of an old joke about poker. It goes, "If you look around the table, and you can't see who the sucker is...it's you."

I'm not saying you're a sucker, Gary. But if you look around the Dems like Newsome or AOC and her pack, and can't see radicalism....well, what's the conclusion?

A university graduate is trained to be impartial in their judgements. It's impossible for a human being to be 100% impartial however I think Gary understands and tries with the best of us to be impartial in his judgement.

[Immanuel Can]

What is an example of Democrats going "further and further Left"? How are they going any further "left" than the right is going "right"?

This question reminds me of an old joke about poker. It goes, "If you look around the table, and you can't see who the sucker is...it's you."

I'm not saying you're a sucker, Gary. But if you look around the Dems like Newsome or AOC and her pack, and can't see radicalism....well, what's the conclusion?

A university graduate is trained to be impartial in their judgements.

Oh, you ARE funny!

Have you ever been to a university...especially in the last 20 years or so? One thing they're NOT taught to be anymore is "impartial." Instead, they're told that partisanship is inevitable, and they should be on the politically correct side every time. Critical thinking has been replaced with an ideology called "Critical Theory," that has zero to do with actual independent thinking.

[Belinda]

This question reminds me of an old joke about poker. It goes, "If you look around the table, and you can't see who the sucker is...it's you."

I'm not saying you're a sucker, Gary. But if you look around the Dems like Newsome or AOC and her pack, and can't see radicalism....well, what's the conclusion?

A university graduate is trained to be impartial in their judgements.

Oh, you ARE funny!

Have you ever been to a university...especially in the last 20 years or so? One thing they're NOT taught to be anymore is "impartial." Instead, they're told that partisanship is inevitable, and they should be on the politically correct side every time. Critical thinking has been replaced with an ideology called "Critical Theory," that has zero to do with actual independent thinking.

Impartiality isn’t an on/off switch — it’s a spectrum.
No one steps outside their own perspective; we all see from somewhere. What matters is how far we’re willing to move along that spectrum — how open we are to other views and how ready we are to revise our own. The idea that you’re either impartial or biased is childish. Real impartiality is aware of its partiality and works through it, not against it.

[FlashDangerpants]

The communists are now officially calling the Democrat shots.

I think it's the Socialists that are...they may be as hardcore as Communists, but I don't see that they're giving evidence of that. Certainly the candidates they've been fielding are more and more wacky, more and more further Left. And it strikes me as an odd strategy: the US electorate rejected their radicalism, so they go more radical?

But maybe loonies do what loonies do. There's no strategic explanation for it that I can see.

What is an example of Democrats going "further and further Left"? How are they going any further "left" than the right is going "right"?

What mister Can and his ilk most want is to reverse the modern scourges of gay marriage, gays in the military, and acceptance of gay people in normal life as a rule. It makes a mockery of all that conversion therapy he suffered as young man, and nullifies the thrill of guilt he enjoys every time he purchases a handjob behind a truck stop.

But mister Can probably doesn't want Brown V Board reversed, or Loving v Virginia. Those are the targets of people who think of Charlie Kirk as a "centrist" - so the full 1950s rollback is Jacobi's concern.

[Immanuel Can]

A university graduate is trained to be impartial in their judgements.

Oh, you ARE funny!

Have you ever been to a university...especially in the last 20 years or so? One thing they're NOT taught to be anymore is "impartial." Instead, they're told that partisanship is inevitable, and they should be on the politically correct side every time. Critical thinking has been replaced with an ideology called "Critical Theory," that has zero to do with actual independent thinking.

Impartiality isn’t an on/off switch — it’s a spectrum.

No, actually, "impartiality" means "not taking any part," i.e. not taking ANY side.

And while it's true that absolute impartiality is an ideal that nobody reaches, the key virtue of impartiality is the gravitation toward that ideal. So long as we believe that impartiality is a desirable goal, we find people will prefer that which tends toward fairness, reason and truth; and the minute they abandon it, and start to excuse their various lacks of impartiality, you'll find the "spectrum" sort of talk -- which really means, "I want to be unabashedly partisan, but I don't want to be noticed for it or accused of it."

The Critical Theory set has taken this to the extreme. They say that all perspectives are "positional," or "ideologically coded," so they don't even have to try to be fair, or to give any space to the other side, or to aim at impartiality. But what they really want is not to be blamed for being Marxists...which they are, and of a particularly stupid and nasty sort.

[Belinda]

Oh, you ARE funny!

Have you ever been to a university...especially in the last 20 years or so? One thing they're NOT taught to be anymore is "impartial." Instead, they're told that partisanship is inevitable, and they should be on the politically correct side every time. Critical thinking has been replaced with an ideology called "Critical Theory," that has zero to do with actual independent thinking.

Impartiality isn’t an on/off switch — it’s a spectrum.

No, actually, "impartiality" means "not taking any part," i.e. not taking ANY side.

And while it's true that absolute impartiality is an ideal that nobody reaches, the key virtue of impartiality is the gravitation toward that ideal. So long as we believe that impartiality is a desirable goal, we find people will prefer that which tends toward fairness, reason and truth; and the minute they abandon it, and start to excuse their various lacks of impartiality, you'll find the "spectrum" sort of talk -- which really means, "I want to be unabashedly partisan, but I don't want to be noticed for it or accused of it."

The Critical Theory set has taken this to the extreme. They say that all perspectives are "positional," or "ideologically coded," so they don't even have to try to be fair, or to give any space to the other side, or to aim at impartiality. But what they really want is not to be blamed for being Marxists...which they are, and of a particularly stupid and nasty sort.
[/quote}

I thought you wanted to make the world a better place.

[Belinda]

Oh, you ARE funny!

Have you ever been to a university...especially in the last 20 years or so? One thing they're NOT taught to be anymore is "impartial." Instead, they're told that partisanship is inevitable, and they should be on the politically correct side every time. Critical thinking has been replaced with an ideology called "Critical Theory," that has zero to do with actual independent thinking.

Impartiality isn’t an on/off switch — it’s a spectrum.

No, actually, "impartiality" means "not taking any part," i.e. not taking ANY side.

And while it's true that absolute impartiality is an ideal that nobody reaches, the key virtue of impartiality is the gravitation toward that ideal. So long as we believe that impartiality is a desirable goal, we find people will prefer that which tends toward fairness, reason and truth; and the minute they abandon it, and start to excuse their various lacks of impartiality, you'll find the "spectrum" sort of talk -- which really means, "I want to be unabashedly partisan, but I don't want to be noticed for it or accused of it."

The Critical Theory set has taken this to the extreme. They say that all perspectives are "positional," or "ideologically coded," so they don't even have to try to be fair, or to give any space to the other side, or to aim at impartiality. But what they really want is not to be blamed for being Marxists...which they are, and of a particularly stupid and nasty sort.

I thought you wanted to make the world a better place.

[Immanuel Can]

Impartiality isn’t an on/off switch — it’s a spectrum.

No, actually, "impartiality" means "not taking any part," i.e. not taking ANY side.

And while it's true that absolute impartiality is an ideal that nobody reaches, the key virtue of impartiality is the gravitation toward that ideal. So long as we believe that impartiality is a desirable goal, we find people will prefer that which tends toward fairness, reason and truth; and the minute they abandon it, and start to excuse their various lacks of impartiality, you'll find the "spectrum" sort of talk -- which really means, "I want to be unabashedly partisan, but I don't want to be noticed for it or accused of it."

The Critical Theory set has taken this to the extreme. They say that all perspectives are "positional," or "ideologically coded," so they don't even have to try to be fair, or to give any space to the other side, or to aim at impartiality. But what they really want is not to be blamed for being Marxists...which they are, and of a particularly stupid and nasty sort.

I thought you wanted to make the world a better place.

Is that what you think Critical Theory is about? You poor soul. No, it's about calling everything "racist" (or "misogynist" or "homophobic," or "Islamophobic," or "fatphobic," or "oppressive" or "colonial" or whatever) until you gain control of it. Then it's about revenge -- punishing anybody who disagreed with you.

[Belinda]

No, actually, "impartiality" means "not taking any part," i.e. not taking ANY side.

And while it's true that absolute impartiality is an ideal that nobody reaches, the key virtue of impartiality is the gravitation toward that ideal. So long as we believe that impartiality is a desirable goal, we find people will prefer that which tends toward fairness, reason and truth; and the minute they abandon it, and start to excuse their various lacks of impartiality, you'll find the "spectrum" sort of talk -- which really means, "I want to be unabashedly partisan, but I don't want to be noticed for it or accused of it."

The Critical Theory set has taken this to the extreme. They say that all perspectives are "positional," or "ideologically coded," so they don't even have to try to be fair, or to give any space to the other side, or to aim at impartiality. But what they really want is not to be blamed for being Marxists...which they are, and of a particularly stupid and nasty sort.

I thought you wanted to make the world a better place.

Is that what you think Critical Theory is about? You poor soul. No, it's about calling everything "racist" (or "misogynist" or "homophobic," or "Islamophobic," or "fatphobic," or "oppressive" or "colonial" or whatever) until you gain control of it. Then it's about revenge -- punishing anybody who disagreed with you.

Oh no, Manny, revenge is never right as has been proved time and time again. You need not be afeared of academic personnel going avenging .

[Gary Childress]

I think it's the Socialists that are...they may be as hardcore as Communists, but I don't see that they're giving evidence of that. Certainly the candidates they've been fielding are more and more wacky, more and more further Left. And it strikes me as an odd strategy: the US electorate rejected their radicalism, so they go more radical?

But maybe loonies do what loonies do. There's no strategic explanation for it that I can see.

What is an example of Democrats going "further and further Left"? How are they going any further "left" than the right is going "right"?

This question reminds me of an old joke about poker. It goes, "If you look around the table, and you can't see who the sucker is...it's you."

I'm not saying you're a sucker, Gary. But if you look around the Dems like Newsome or AOC and her pack, and can't see radicalism....well, what's the conclusion?

But are they more radical than Greene or other MAGA followers? Trump's group seems to be in all out science denial. That seems pretty radical to me. Plus withdrawing from the UN Human rights commission. It all seems not just conservative but reactionary.

[Immanuel Can]

I thought you wanted to make the world a better place.

Is that what you think Critical Theory is about? You poor soul. No, it's about calling everything "racist" (or "misogynist" or "homophobic," or "Islamophobic," or "fatphobic," or "oppressive" or "colonial" or whatever) until you gain control of it. Then it's about revenge -- punishing anybody who disagreed with you.

Oh no, Manny, revenge is never right as has been proved time and time again.

Why not? In a world in which, Critical Theorists tell us, there's no God and you can do whatever you like, why not take revenge? They see that logic, even if you don't.

Don't mistake Critical Theorists for "academics." They're just ideologues, plain and simple. They have the utmost contempt for things like truth, standards of evidence, science, logic and critical thinking. They call those things "patriarchal," "narrow," "oppressive" and "white." But the truth is, they couldn't meet basic standards of evidence, and still say the silly things they say. So there's nothing really "academic" about them...they're just grifters.

[Immanuel Can]

What is an example of Democrats going "further and further Left"? How are they going any further "left" than the right is going "right"?

This question reminds me of an old joke about poker. It goes, "If you look around the table, and you can't see who the sucker is...it's you."

I'm not saying you're a sucker, Gary. But if you look around the Dems like Newsome or AOC and her pack, and can't see radicalism....well, what's the conclusion?

Trump's group seems to be in all out science denial.

Like Elon Musk, you mean? I have a feeling that guy does know some science.

Plus withdrawing from the UN Human rights commission. It all seems not just conservative but reactionary.

The UN "human rights" commission doesn't stand for human rights. They don't condemn places like China, Russia or Syria or anything in the Islamic world (if they can possibly avoid it) for their abuses...they only condemn those who have a Western conscience.

The US should close down the UN and get out of the whole thing permanently. It's a thoroughly corrupt, debased, stupid and freedom-hating organization. Why should Americans be paying to keep that thing going?

[Belinda]

Is that what you think Critical Theory is about? You poor soul. No, it's about calling everything "racist" (or "misogynist" or "homophobic," or "Islamophobic," or "fatphobic," or "oppressive" or "colonial" or whatever) until you gain control of it. Then it's about revenge -- punishing anybody who disagreed with you.

Oh no, Manny, revenge is never right as has been proved time and time again.

Why not? In a world in which, Critical Theorists tell us, there's no God and you can do whatever you like, why not take revenge? They see that logic, even if you don't.

Don't mistake Critical Theorists for "academics." They're just ideologues, plain and simple. They have the utmost contempt for things like truth, standards of evidence, science, logic and critical thinking. They call those things "patriarchal," "narrow," "oppressive" and "white." But the truth is, they couldn't meet basic standards of evidence, and still say the silly things they say. So there's nothing really "academic" about them...they're just grifters.

So you think your heuristic is better than the academics' heuristic.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh no, Manny, revenge is never right as has been proved time and time again.

Why not? In a world in which, Critical Theorists tell us, there's no God and you can do whatever you like, why not take revenge? They see that logic, even if you don't.

Don't mistake Critical Theorists for "academics." They're just ideologues, plain and simple. They have the utmost contempt for things like truth, standards of evidence, science, logic and critical thinking. They call those things "patriarchal," "narrow," "oppressive" and "white." But the truth is, they couldn't meet basic standards of evidence, and still say the silly things they say. So there's nothing really "academic" about them...they're just grifters.

So you think your heuristic is better than the academics' heuristic.

They're not academics. They're just posers. There's nothing academically-sound about Critical Theory.

[MikeNovack]

Why not? In a world in which, Critical Theorists tell us, there's no God and you can do whatever you like, why not take revenge? They see that logic, even if you don't.

Speak for yourself, IC. It is YOU who feel that were there no God to punish you for wrongdoing, you could do whatever you wanted.

But there are others of us who don't need the threat of being spanked to do the right thing. More to the point, we would rejuect a god telling us to do what we knew was wrong << like burning people accused of being witches at the stake >>

Yes, I know your argument, God is good, would not give an evil order. By which you mean, well the order cant really be evil, because came from God. The ultimate "I was only following orders".