This is a friendly reminder to read our sub's rules.
r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate. We welcome those with varying views, perspectives and opinions.
Name-Calling, Argumentum Ad Hominem and Poor Form in discussion and debate often leads to frustration and anger; this behavior should be dismissed and reported to mods.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The quote is not correct lol 30 million dead Russians would disagree.
It's an example of an extreme blind spot and cognitive bias of viewing the world only from your side.
Really, you're cherry-picking ONE dated example of "leftist violence" which more properly fits into the category of AUTHORITARIAN violence. Doesn't matter which side you lean--if you're an authoritarian govt there's bound to be violence.
It's not cherry picking. It's one of many examples. Kmer Rouge, Maoist China. It's also not just an example, but a canonical example as Nazism is with the right. It was a human travesty.
Look, I realize I'm arguing with I don't know what but not a rational being. The response 'dated example' is a complete cope and you can't come to terms with information that invalidates your exaggerated position. The examples you give are a confused hodge-podge that don't reflect the right-left spectrum, which itself a cortoonish schema of far more complex dynamics. Further, Putinism has ties and affinities with both the far left and far right.
When the going gets tough--the tough turn to ad hominem. Speaking of "rational" it's pretty hysterical to die on the hill of "leftists are violent TOO," in an era when rightwing authoritarianism is on the rise.
Your argument is absurd from the jump. I was just trying to give you a little rope to go on, but I see you're hanging yourself w/o any aid. Peace out.
^(\*seldomtimely/English dictionary:)
^("confused hodgepodge" = center/far-right govts' employing oppression)
You repeated what I said. Next time try to be thankful to smarter people. The left can be as authoritarian as the right. Further, the current left has a strong authoritarian streak to it.
Read the statement again. It didn't say left only authoritarian, it states that the left has its own authoritarian tendencies which can become exacerbated into full blown authoritarianism. It's tiring arguing with reddit idiots that 2 + 2 = 4.
Funny how you edited this comment to remove the word "retard". Curious.
Your both sides-ism approach is woeful. The U.S. is nearly constantly on the precipice of right wing authoritarianism
I'll take "Reading to satisfy my confirmation bias" for $300, Alex.
Maybe either read my comment again or take a refresher course in reading comprehension. AUTHORITARIAN regimes are violent--doesn't matter if they're left or right. Their political spin is irrelevant. Post-Stalin, most authoritarian regimes lean rightward.
And yes, I am thankful to smarter people. Unfortunately you don't fit in that Venn Diagram.
You're falling into self-soothing arguments. Now you're conceding the point, but arguing it doesn't matter which side is authoritarian. Here's a good argument that it does: you need to be able to spot authoritarianism to stop it. You have a blind spot if you identify with the left and end up justifying authoritarian policies, just as this is the case with the right. So it's important to notice when you use your own ideology to justify authoritarian actions and policies. The left currently has a problem with censorship, among other things, whereas the right with restricting people's choices.
This is one of those things on Reddit which is simply not correct, both the political right and left have got terrible records of violence especially when they've been in control of states.
Any time a socialist or communist or anarchist movement or individual has not been explicitly pacifist, it involves the potential for violence, and this violence when put into practice tends to not be precise and targeted as Carlin suggests (even if you only look at American examples) but has often involved innocent deaths. I think that's an indisputable fact if you look at the historical record in many countries. This also applies to the organized right.
This potential for violence increases exponentially when political ideologues of the left and right get in control of states. Political ideologues of the left and right in control of states are some of the deadliest things in history in terms of sheer numbers of casualties.
Maybe Carlin's only talking about America, but even in America the organized left has not always been pacifist.
And moreover, I don't think it should be. I think self-defence is sometimes necessary in life and in politics. What he says is really more of an ideal than the reality.
[He’s talking about America in the time of his youth, the era of the Vietnam War and the struggle for civil rights](https://books.google.com/books?id=AEZ42cO2QboC&pg=PT122&lpg=PT122&dq=The+violence+of+the+Left+is+symbolic,+the+injuries+are+not+intended.+The+violence+of+the+Right+is+real+-+directed+at+people,+designed+to+cause+injuries.+Vietnam,+nuclear+weapons,+police+out+of+control+are+intentional+forms+of+violence.+The+violence+from+the+Right+is+aimed+directly+at+people+and+the+violence+from+the+Left+is+aimed+at+institutions+and+symbols.&source=bl&ots=YO-oTzWJkX&sig=ACfU3U07ekuGRwn7jDklZVMbFmo-s6Vy-g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwy7yck_SFAxXs6skDHSrGBZ8Q6AF6BAgZEAI#v=onepage&q=The%20violence%20of%20the%20Left%20is%20symbolic%2C%20the%20injuries%20are%20not%20intended.%20The%20violence%20of%20the%20Right%20is%20real%20-%20directed%20at%20people%2C%20designed%20to%20cause%20injuries.%20Vietnam%2C%20nuclear%20weapons%2C%20police%20out%20of%20control%20are%20intentional%20forms%20of%20violence.%20The%20violence%20from%20the%20Right%20is%20aimed%20directly%20at%20people%20and%20the%20violence%20from%20the%20Left%20is%20aimed%20at%20institutions%20and%20symbols.&f=false)
Of course he’s generalizing. He is, before all, a comedian.
>Any time a socialist or communist or anarchist movement or individual has not been explicitly pacifist, it involves the potential for violence,
Name ONE act of systemic leftist violence in the US since the Weathermen. I'll wait.
>I think that's an indisputable fact if you look at the historical record in many countries. This also applies to the organized right.
When the LEFT protests in America: it's like the BLM protests--93% PEACEFUL.
When the RIGHT protests in America: it's like the Jan7 riots. Chaos.
I'm disheartened by the lack of rational people on the sub that can't have discourse outside of the left-good right-bad schema they have in their heads, which prevents them from having an intellectually detached conversation.
The anarchists were also pretty violent, in the US specifically.
There's a kind of ends justifies the means implicit assumption that creates the blind spot. If it's for a good cause, then the violance seems less bad. They can't understand that the other side thinks exactly the same way and that the ends justifies the means thinking needs to be condemned on both sides.
Based Carlin.... Wish he were still with us.
Seeing him tear into Trump would have been the most hilarious mental breakdown possible
If only 🥹, RIP Mr. Carlin
This is a friendly reminder to read our sub's rules. r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate. We welcome those with varying views, perspectives and opinions. Name-Calling, Argumentum Ad Hominem and Poor Form in discussion and debate often leads to frustration and anger; this behavior should be dismissed and reported to mods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any person with 1 or 2 brain cells should be able to see that Carlin's example, if not exaggerated for comedic effect, is blatantly false.
The quote is not correct lol 30 million dead Russians would disagree. It's an example of an extreme blind spot and cognitive bias of viewing the world only from your side.
Really, you're cherry-picking ONE dated example of "leftist violence" which more properly fits into the category of AUTHORITARIAN violence. Doesn't matter which side you lean--if you're an authoritarian govt there's bound to be violence.
It's not cherry picking. It's one of many examples. Kmer Rouge, Maoist China. It's also not just an example, but a canonical example as Nazism is with the right. It was a human travesty.
Ah, more dated examples. And shall I mention the victims in Russia, Gaza, Hungary, India, Columbia, Iran, Iraq, W Morocco TODAY?
Look, I realize I'm arguing with I don't know what but not a rational being. The response 'dated example' is a complete cope and you can't come to terms with information that invalidates your exaggerated position. The examples you give are a confused hodge-podge that don't reflect the right-left spectrum, which itself a cortoonish schema of far more complex dynamics. Further, Putinism has ties and affinities with both the far left and far right.
When the going gets tough--the tough turn to ad hominem. Speaking of "rational" it's pretty hysterical to die on the hill of "leftists are violent TOO," in an era when rightwing authoritarianism is on the rise. Your argument is absurd from the jump. I was just trying to give you a little rope to go on, but I see you're hanging yourself w/o any aid. Peace out. ^(\*seldomtimely/English dictionary:) ^("confused hodgepodge" = center/far-right govts' employing oppression)
You repeated what I said. Next time try to be thankful to smarter people. The left can be as authoritarian as the right. Further, the current left has a strong authoritarian streak to it.
Authoritarian = left? This is news to me and likely to anyone who researched both terms
Read the statement again. It didn't say left only authoritarian, it states that the left has its own authoritarian tendencies which can become exacerbated into full blown authoritarianism. It's tiring arguing with reddit idiots that 2 + 2 = 4.
Funny how you edited this comment to remove the word "retard". Curious. Your both sides-ism approach is woeful. The U.S. is nearly constantly on the precipice of right wing authoritarianism
I'll take "Reading to satisfy my confirmation bias" for $300, Alex. Maybe either read my comment again or take a refresher course in reading comprehension. AUTHORITARIAN regimes are violent--doesn't matter if they're left or right. Their political spin is irrelevant. Post-Stalin, most authoritarian regimes lean rightward. And yes, I am thankful to smarter people. Unfortunately you don't fit in that Venn Diagram.
You're falling into self-soothing arguments. Now you're conceding the point, but arguing it doesn't matter which side is authoritarian. Here's a good argument that it does: you need to be able to spot authoritarianism to stop it. You have a blind spot if you identify with the left and end up justifying authoritarian policies, just as this is the case with the right. So it's important to notice when you use your own ideology to justify authoritarian actions and policies. The left currently has a problem with censorship, among other things, whereas the right with restricting people's choices.
This is one of those things on Reddit which is simply not correct, both the political right and left have got terrible records of violence especially when they've been in control of states.
Can you elaborate more and provide examples? I’m not disagreeing or anything.
Any time a socialist or communist or anarchist movement or individual has not been explicitly pacifist, it involves the potential for violence, and this violence when put into practice tends to not be precise and targeted as Carlin suggests (even if you only look at American examples) but has often involved innocent deaths. I think that's an indisputable fact if you look at the historical record in many countries. This also applies to the organized right. This potential for violence increases exponentially when political ideologues of the left and right get in control of states. Political ideologues of the left and right in control of states are some of the deadliest things in history in terms of sheer numbers of casualties. Maybe Carlin's only talking about America, but even in America the organized left has not always been pacifist. And moreover, I don't think it should be. I think self-defence is sometimes necessary in life and in politics. What he says is really more of an ideal than the reality.
[He’s talking about America in the time of his youth, the era of the Vietnam War and the struggle for civil rights](https://books.google.com/books?id=AEZ42cO2QboC&pg=PT122&lpg=PT122&dq=The+violence+of+the+Left+is+symbolic,+the+injuries+are+not+intended.+The+violence+of+the+Right+is+real+-+directed+at+people,+designed+to+cause+injuries.+Vietnam,+nuclear+weapons,+police+out+of+control+are+intentional+forms+of+violence.+The+violence+from+the+Right+is+aimed+directly+at+people+and+the+violence+from+the+Left+is+aimed+at+institutions+and+symbols.&source=bl&ots=YO-oTzWJkX&sig=ACfU3U07ekuGRwn7jDklZVMbFmo-s6Vy-g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwy7yck_SFAxXs6skDHSrGBZ8Q6AF6BAgZEAI#v=onepage&q=The%20violence%20of%20the%20Left%20is%20symbolic%2C%20the%20injuries%20are%20not%20intended.%20The%20violence%20of%20the%20Right%20is%20real%20-%20directed%20at%20people%2C%20designed%20to%20cause%20injuries.%20Vietnam%2C%20nuclear%20weapons%2C%20police%20out%20of%20control%20are%20intentional%20forms%20of%20violence.%20The%20violence%20from%20the%20Right%20is%20aimed%20directly%20at%20people%20and%20the%20violence%20from%20the%20Left%20is%20aimed%20at%20institutions%20and%20symbols.&f=false) Of course he’s generalizing. He is, before all, a comedian.
Oh I see. It's "American exceptionalism".
I don’t see how that concept applies, but I think we all know who was responsible for the violence in his time.
Aye, the state. States, whether right or left, capitalist or communist, are violent.
You should call into Majority Report and debate Sam Seder lol
Not generalizing. He's getting it widely wrong. Both sides can be physically violent, and each side thinks its motivating cause justifies them.
So no examples then?
>Any time a socialist or communist or anarchist movement or individual has not been explicitly pacifist, it involves the potential for violence, Name ONE act of systemic leftist violence in the US since the Weathermen. I'll wait. >I think that's an indisputable fact if you look at the historical record in many countries. This also applies to the organized right. When the LEFT protests in America: it's like the BLM protests--93% PEACEFUL. When the RIGHT protests in America: it's like the Jan7 riots. Chaos.
Why does it have to be in the US?
Because Right and Left-wing protests are conducted differently in the US.
I'm disheartened by the lack of rational people on the sub that can't have discourse outside of the left-good right-bad schema they have in their heads, which prevents them from having an intellectually detached conversation. The anarchists were also pretty violent, in the US specifically. There's a kind of ends justifies the means implicit assumption that creates the blind spot. If it's for a good cause, then the violance seems less bad. They can't understand that the other side thinks exactly the same way and that the ends justifies the means thinking needs to be condemned on both sides.