Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway

[kmoney]

What's funny about this is that it would actually take very little to persuade me that we don't need a national socialist white ethnostate.

All you would have to do is demonstrate that liberalism is not under threat, especially by cultural marxists, and that a large number of cultural marxists are not waging an unholy crusade against white people, especially white men.

Of course...

You can't do that.

Can you?

Do you still consider yourself a Catholic or Christian of any type?

 

[patrick jane]

1. That plainly falls under what should be "the free marketplace of ideas." If other races obviously are not to blame for our problems, then you should love the fact that I'm blaming other races, since that gives many people the opportunity to show exactly why that's not true.

Of course, you can't do that, because the things that you've found so repulsive aren't actually false.

In fact, the legislator who pushed the law in California was Jewish.

In fact, Jews are vastly over represented in various fields.

In fact, Jews have a vastly disproportionate impact on the world economy.

In fact, US foreign policy is disproportionately impacted by Jewish interests (read: Israel).

Those points are indisputably true. You may disagree with the spin that I'm putting on those things, but you can't actually disagree with the facts. Because they're correct.

2. And let's be real, Ebenz: you, and most right wing evangelicals, are likely DEEPLY racist.

That's likely WHY you guys are right wingers.

I don't really explain what I meant by a subtly racist subtext in the OP, but let's talk about that.

If I used the phrase "welfare queen," chances are, you, and most right wingers on this website, would applaud my use of the term. After all, Reagan used it, and all good right wingers know that those welfare queens are the scum of the earth, aren't they?

Except you and I both know EXACTLY what a welfare queen looks like. You know the image that conjures up.

Complaining about welfare queens is qualitatively no different from using the n-word.

Right wing political ideology is largely veiled racism.

That's why the Southern Strategy was so effective for so long, after all!

The difference between me and you right wingers is that I don't bother doing the song and dance to hide it...and, of course, you right wingers are likely far more racist than I'll ever be.

The right wing hatred of welfare, as well as continued support for the war on drugs, is veiled racism against black people.

The right wing hatred of illegal immigration is veiled racism against Latinos.

The right wing fear of Islamic migrants is largely veiled racism against brown people in general.

And there's a good chance that you didn't vote for Trump because he said would impose trade tariffs, if you know what I'm saying. After all, "evangelical Christians," you weren't attracted to his good, wholesome family values, were you?

And deny it all you want.

But studies have been done.

And if you were to take the various tests designed to reveal implicit/subconscious racial biases, I think we all know what the results would be.

Your assessments are wrong on so many levels. You don't seem to be answering or paying attention to questions people are asking you, you're just rambling on.

 

[Traditio]

Your assessments are wrong on so many levels.

Which parts are wrong and why?

 

[Town Heretic]

The core doctrine of liberalism, in the classical sense, is laissez faire (let it be). Liberalism is tolerance. Liberalism is the political doctrine that, though I may find what other people think, say, and, to a real extent, do, to be abhorrent, nonetheless, I shouldn't intervene, because it could well be the case that people who think differently may think the same about me.

The notion that unbridled liberty of literally any sort is a public virtue is a peculiarly modern one and irrational by any serious examination.

My tolerance of others gives me, in turn, a right to be tolerated. Not endorsed. Not accepted. But certainly tolerated.

No, you have the right to speak, which is a bit different. I may exclude you from my society or accept you into it at will.

Of course, liberty has clear boundaries and restrictions.

Of course. And the moment you note that you undo much of your complaint.

The right to free speech should be absolute...save where that speech constitutes a clear and present infringement against the rights of another.

Which rights? By way of, should your right to speak your mind include the right to scream profanity at children leaving a daycare? Obscenity laws are restrictions on speech. What fundamental right do they protect to your mind?

When, however, speech does not constitute infringement upon the rights of others, it must be permitted, and this, for a multitude of reasons. First, if you deny me the right to express my opinions, then you have no grounds upon which to object when you yourself are denied the right to express yours. Second, if my opinions are so obviously incorrect, then allowing me to express them is actually a service to your own cause, since I am providing you a chance to refute obviously false opinions. Denying me a right to speak is an active disservice to your own cause.

It can but needn't be. Because we don't have an absolute and unfettered right to anything in our compact. So the notion that if we forbid one thing we jeopardize our own security rather misses the point that it's already a social truth. Meaning you aren't really threatening us with anything if, collectively, we say, "No, Nazi's have given up their right to promote their filth by virtue of crimes against humanity." We deny felons the right to firearms for a lot less than attempted genocide. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate on the point, but it's a solid one.

If anything, the opposite is true: the fact that you had to deny me the right to speak is, in a sense, a proof of the weakness of your own beliefs.

No, not really. When I insist Jack doesn't utter a word that's inherently unworthy of the language and education he's being given it doesn't underscore a weakness, it removes a weak and corrupting habit from his methodology. And because he's not mature enough or developed enough to draw some of the lines and appreciate some of the distinctions that weaken minds and hearts, it's my responsibility to instruct, guide, and forbid.

Shutting me down means that your own views aren't strong enough to stand on their own merits in the free marketplace of ideas.

Not really true though. We can deny pedophiles a platform to promote their ideas without it in the least suggesting their efficacy or an insufficiency in our contrary position.

Say things explicitly critical of Jews, black people, and brown people, even if what you are saying doesn't constitute incitement to violence, slander, libel, etc., and is technically WAY more mild than the things that right wing evangelicals say? NO! The mere mention of the word "Jew" is somehow unacceptable!

The moment you have to be dishonest to attempt a point you only announce you have nothing worth consideration, that your rationality has been overwhelmed by your bias. At that point you might as well be stupid. The mere mention of the word Jew isn't unacceptable. It's the context of use that can make it problematic.

Or, it's one thing to say, "Jesus was a Jew" and another to say, "All Jews are untrustworthy" or worse.

 

[quip]

I believe one of his points is tolerance of others views per free speech.
Trad has no problem tolerating you expressing your view per free speech, so why can't you be as tolerant of his view as he is to yours?
Why must tolerance of free speech be one-sided?

Freedom of speech not one-sided in such cases, rather it's the inherent values of such freely and divisively expressed notions that the typical "liberal" holds an intense intolerance toward.

 

[Tambora]

I don't have a problem with talking about racism. Most of my maternal uncles are former KKK members. I have a problem with blaming other races for the problems we're facing in society.

I don't mind talking about it either.
But, to be fair, a lot of the world does blame whites for problems in society.
Blame them for slavery.
Blame them for nearly killing off Indians.
etc.
And even us Christians know from our Bible that Israel was to avoid assimilation with entire groups of foreigners and their customs.
GOD told Israel that allowing assimilation with these foreigners and their customs would drag them down and cause all sorts of problems, which it did.
By today's standard of racism, we would have called Israel racist, intolerant, bigoted, Israeli supremacists for doing that.
Something has to give for us to be consistent about what racism really is.

Not sure if allowing more talk about it at TOL would benefit or hinder the traffic at TOL.
And it's not like there is nowhere on the internet to talk about it, even if forbidden at TOL.
Ultimately it needs to be beneficial to TOL in order for TOL to thrive.
All I know is that at least for now it is a topic that is being discussed practically everywhere, and has picked up even here at TOL over the last few months.
It is a subject a lot of folks do want to talk about.

And I, for one, will abide by whatever decision TOL makes to remain a member here, in the spirit of having the wisdom to accept the things I have no control to change, and also to honor the agreement I submitted to when I joined TOL.
Cause I just love this place!

 

[quip]

1. That plainly falls under what should be "the free marketplace of ideas." If other races obviously are not to blame for our problems, then you should love the fact that I'm blaming other races, since that gives many people the opportunity to show exactly why that's not true.

Of course, you can't do that, because the things that you've found so repulsive aren't actually false.

In fact, the legislator who pushed the law in California was Jewish.

In fact, Jews are vastly over represented in various fields.

In fact, Jews have a vastly disproportionate impact on the world economy.

In fact, US foreign policy is disproportionately impacted by Jewish interests (read: Israel).

Those points are indisputably true. You may disagree with the spin that I'm putting on those things, but you can't actually disagree with the facts. Because they're correct.

2. And let's be real, Ebenz: you, and most right wing evangelicals, are likely DEEPLY racist.

That's likely WHY you guys are right wingers.

I don't really explain what I meant by a subtly racist subtext in the OP, but let's talk about that.

If I used the phrase "welfare queen," chances are, you, and most right wingers on this website, would applaud my use of the term. After all, Reagan used it, and all good right wingers know that those welfare queens are the scum of the earth, aren't they?

Except you and I both know EXACTLY what a welfare queen looks like. You know the image that conjures up.

Complaining about welfare queens is qualitatively no different from using the n-word.

Right wing political ideology is largely veiled racism.

That's why the Southern Strategy was so effective for so long, after all!

The difference between me and you right wingers is that I don't bother doing the song and dance to hide it...and, of course, you right wingers are likely far more racist than I'll ever be.

The right wing hatred of welfare, as well as continued support for the war on drugs, is veiled racism against black people.

The right wing hatred of illegal immigration is veiled racism against Latinos.

The right wing fear of Islamic migrants is largely veiled racism against brown people in general.

And there's a good chance that you didn't vote for Trump because he said would impose trade tariffs, if you know what I'm saying. After all, "evangelical Christians," you weren't attracted to his good, wholesome family values, were you?

And deny it all you want.

But studies have been done.

And if you were to take the various tests designed to reveal implicit/subconscious racial biases, I think we all know what the results would be.

More importantly, what's your end-game?

Will you rise above this view and be the positive change you strive for i.e. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."?
Or are you just going to promote hate i.e. via Nazi Germany style?

 

[Tambora]

Freedom of speech not one-sided in the least, rather it's the inherent values of such freely and divisively expressed notion that the typical "liberal" holds an intense intolerance toward.

Free speech includes being allowed to voice their inherent values.
To prohibit them from voicing their opinion would be to prohibit them free speech.
We are not talking about supporting or agreeing with their viewpoint, we are talking about allowing them the same right of free speech you have.

Your view is appalling to them, and their view is appalling to you.
Should you have the right of free speech, but not them?

 

[Tambora]

More importantly, what's your end-game?

Will you rise above this view and be the positive change you strive for i.e. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."?
Or are you just going to promote hate i.e. via Nazi Germany style?

You are confusing preference with hate.
You can prefer to be with only black people, and not hate white people.

I like dogs, but I prefer to not allow them in my house.
I can prefer to live without dogs in my house without hating dogs.

 

[Town Heretic]

In fact, the legislator who pushed the law in California was Jewish.

A thing that doesn't necessarily impact any other point. The assumption that it must is one illustration of what bigotry does to mental process.

In fact, Jews are vastly over represented in various fields.

Like saying blacks are over represented in the NBA. You earn your place. It's disproportionate, but not over represented, which implies an unfairness instead of merit. Now if you could demonstrate a willful attempt to exclude rooted in race it's another thing altogether.

And let's be real, Ebenz: you, and most right wing evangelicals, are likely DEEPLY racist.

That's real. Real stupid. There's nothing inherently true about it as a statement. Are right wing evangelicals more likely to be racist? I'd have to see studies in support. I can understand why the hard right would be more prone to racism as an expression of holding the status quo, if not overtly, but you'll have to make the case empirically, or you should, if you're going to try to plant that flag here.

That's likely WHY you guys are right wingers.

Maybe your own racial problems are the issue and you're a hammer who sees nails everywhere.

If I used the phrase "welfare queen," chances are, you, and most right wingers on this website, would applaud my use of the term. After all, Reagan used it, and all good right wingers know that those welfare queens are the scum of the earth, aren't they?

Except you and I both know EXACTLY what a welfare queen looks like. You know the image that conjures up.

Not if they're rational. More white people receive public assistance than blacks. The percentages are higher among blacks, who are disproportionately poor in our society, but more whites receive benefits and always have.

Complaining about welfare queens is qualitatively no different from using the n-word.

Only if the person using it is a moron.

Right wing political ideology is largely veiled racism.

Not even a little true and no one here will confuse me with a right winger. It's a philosophy rooted in the individual and a belief that we're better largely left alone, with the larger government in place to promote our stability and defend our liberty. Government as the answer to every social problem runs contrary to that philosophy. In fact, the right would tell you that the left is at best mistakenly promoting cycles of poverty and underachievement by rewarding failure or the absence of effort.

That's why the Southern Strategy was so effective for so long, after all!

The South was won by two means. Fiscal conservatives, philosophical conservatives found a solid home there and the racist found a way to hide in plain sight once a stigma that had been the perspective of liberals became a larger lens for the culture.

The difference between me and you right wingers is that I don't bother doing the song and dance to hide it...and, of course, you right wingers are likely far more racist than I'll ever be.

How is that possible?

The right wing hatred of welfare, as well as continued support for the war on drugs, is veiled racism against black people.

Why can't it be a principled opposition to the ceding of power to an inexhaustibly power hungry federal apparatus?

The right wing hatred of illegal immigration is veiled racism against Latinos.

Why can't it be a strong reaction to an unjust usurpation of process? Who isn't ticked off by someone who cuts in line?

The right wing fear of Islamic migrants is largely veiled racism against brown people in general.

Or it's a mistaken notion predicated in conflating the anecdote with the rule, coupled with the worst impact of ethnocentrism.

And if you were to take the various tests designed to reveal implicit/subconscious racial biases, I think we all know what the results would be.

I took one of those from Harvard. Sneaky test. They asked questions to set up your reaction to photos in time that prevented a person from hiding and couching. I came out a little more comfortable among people unlike me than I am among people more like me, which seemed peculiar to me. But then, I spent a long time working among and for the poor and other minorities in this country, so maybe that's at the root.

Save, of course, to ban me, though I intellectually outclass all of you.

A king doesn't have to point out his crown. Silly business.

 

[Tambora]

I may exclude you from my society or accept you into it at will.

Trad should be able to do the same.
So if he wants to exclude all non-whites from his society or accept them into it at will, what's the problem?

 

[quip]

Free speech includes being allowed to voice their inherent values.
To prohibit them from voicing their opinion would be to prohibit them free speech.
We are not talking about supporting or agreeing with their viewpoint, we are talking about allowing them the same right of free speech you have.

Your view is appalling to them, and their view is appalling to you.
Should you have the right of free speech, but not them?

Though you're free to speak as freely as desired, one simply cannot parse the impetus of ideas so easily from its consequence.

What are the consequences of Trad's ideology? Hatred, bigotry, divisiveness, and - at worst - holocaust.

What are the consequences of the traditional "liberal" view in this regard? Inclusion, harmony, acceptance....

Which shall you choose?

As TH so aptly noted:

hould your right to speak your mind include the right to scream profanity at children leaving a daycare? Obscenity laws are restrictions on speech. What fundamental right do they protect to your mind?

 

[Tambora]

Or, it's one thing to say, "Jesus was a Jew" and another to say, "All Jews are untrustworthy" or worse.

[MENTION=7660]Traditio[/MENTION]

Do you say ALL Jews are untrustworthy?

 

[quip]

You are confusing preference with hate.
You can prefer to be with only black people, and not hate white people.

I like dogs, but I prefer to not allow them in my house.
I can prefer to live without dogs in my house without hating dogs.

Is it Trad's goal (on this forum no less.) to express his segregation for himself from his current community dynamic?

Not likely. You don't rally the troops for an exclusively subjective pursuit. We all cohabitate upon the same planet, within the same countries, cities and townships. We must learn to peacefully co-exist. Trad seems opposed to such diversity.

 

[Traditio]

[MENTION=7660]Traditio[/MENTION]

Do you say ALL Jews are untrustworthy?

Jews may or may not be particularly untrustworthy due to various cultural factors.

It really depends upon what you mean by the word.

 

[kmoney]

All you would have to do is demonstrate that liberalism is not under threat, especially by cultural marxists, and that a large number of cultural marxists are not waging an unholy crusade against white people, especially white men.

All you would have to do is show me that intersectional feminism and overt racism against white people is not becoming absolutely commonplace.

I still would like an answer to my question about Christianity but...

I'm not going to attempt to prove a negative so maybe you could show some evidence that overt racism against white people is commonplace. And I'm not sure what you mean by intersectional feminism.

 

[kmoney]

You are confusing preference with hate.
You can prefer to be with only black people, and not hate white people.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to explain such a preference without including hatred. What is the basis for the preference? There could be cultural differences between races and you prefer your own, what you've grown accustomed to, but that's a preference based in other things, not race. Why exclude all white/black? That, to me, indicates that something else is going on. Another indicator would be what you want to do with that preference as well.

A complete refusal to engage with other cultures may also indicate something more than simple preference.

 

[Tambora]

What are the consequences of Trad's ideology? Hatred, bigotry, divisiveness, and - at worst - holocaust.

Has Trad promoted killing Jews just because they are Jews?

I've seen Trad say he prefers a white ethno state (and he has a right to voice his opinion).
But he does not say that blacks cannot be allowed to have their own society too.
He just wants those two societies to be separate.
They can still trade commodities with each other if they feel it necessary, but still remain separate societies.
He's not suggesting that all non-whites should be killed on sight, but that they be separate with their own governing laws and customs.
And if some want a society of mixed races, they can, but it is to be separate from the white ethno society.

 

[Tambora]

Jews may or may not be particularly untrustworthy due to various cultural factors.

It really depends upon what you mean by the word.

Choose any definition you want to, and explain how that chosen definition equates to ALL Jews being untrustworthy.

 

[quip]

Has Trad promoted killing Jews just because they are Jews?

I've seen Trad say he prefers a white ethno state (and he has a right to voice his opinion).
But he does not say that blacks cannot be allowed to have their own society too.
He just wants those two societies to be separate.
They can still trade commodities with each other if they feel it necessary, but still remain separate societies.
He's not suggesting that all non-whites should be killed on sight, but that they be separate with their own governing laws and customs.
And if some want a society of mixed races, they can, but it is to be separate from the white ethno society.

He has, as well, a right to a detailed, rational defence of his views against opposition...of which he doesn't seem wont to engage upon.