So what form does the resistance take?

[Emily's Cat]

Are you opposed to —

• Women being outside the home without a male chaperone?

No, which is why I strongly oppose islam and extreme fundamentalist christianity.

• Women having to hide their hair when out in public?

No, which is why I strongly oppose islam.

• Women being able to vote?

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

• Women being able to hold seats in legislative assemblies?

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

• Women being able to drive vehicles?

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

• Females in any profession other than teaching and nursing?

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

• Women getting a loan without their husband's signature?

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

• Women holding a credit card?

No, which is why I consider myself a classical feminist.

Because at one time in many places all of the above were progressive policies!

Islamic subjugation of females as property is a progressive policy?

You're also committing a pretty fundamental fallacy here, of assuming that what the term meant in the past is what it means today. Classical feminism was progressive for its time, but it was also rational and well thought out, and didn't sacrifice the well being of the whole in order to privilege a small cohort.

 

[lobosrul5]

A rose by any other name would be Occupy Wall Street and a host of other progressive policies whose sole aim seems to be to punish the wealthy.

Actually their general aim is to redistribute wealth.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"fiscally conservative" = "I don't know how the monetary system works".

"fiscally liberal" = "I think the monetary system is like the game monopoly, and we can just tweak the rules without consequence, and who cares if it devalues the dollar and shoots inflation through the roof and further destabilizes our economy leading to even more booms and busts that further divide the wealthy from the common person"

"small government" = "I imagine that I don't need the government, because I'm currently doing fine".

"large government" = "I imagine that I know what's best for everything based on what I think is best for me, and I don't actually give a crap about what other people might value more or what their actual circumstances are, I'm confident that my way is the best way and I'm happy to use the government to force my way on everyone else"

The combination is code for "I want to pay less in taxes, even though I could easily afford it".

Actually, it simply means that taxes should be collected to only fund things that actually benefit the entire country rather than privileging few, and should be wisely spent with minimal waste and such expenditures should be available for complete public review and auditing. It means that the government should not be in the business of enriching itself or of making politicians wealthy, nor should it favor any particular business or industry by providing investment to them without extraordinarily compelling reason. It means that the government should not have the authority to interfere in any individual's personal life, nor to impeded an individual's ability to make a living. The government's job is to ensure fair application of our laws and protection of our country.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually their general aim is to redistribute wealth.

Yes, that's their stated aim. Now... why do they think that they should have the right to take money away from some people and give it to others? What's the underlying principle involved with the entire notion that wealth should be redistributed in the first place?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Someone should read " A Libertarian walks into a Bear".

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I've always been fiscally conservative and preferred smaller government. On the other hand, I've been generally socially liberal and a fan of strong, well-thought-out regulation, and socialization of natural monopolies and municipal utilities. I strongly support education as a public good, including pre-school and post-secondary education that incorporates trades, and I would like to abolish the private education system entirely. I think the provision of health care should be nationally endowed and managed for critical illness and acute events, with a private system of insurance for routine and chronic care coverage. I favor a moderate by meaningful social safety net to provide short-term assistance, backed by a societal value of volunteer and charitable work.

I'm aware of what colors you pretend to fly under as you strenuously defend the honor of MAGA, Charlie Kirk and Unite the Right ralliers. You didn't need to recite them again. I'm sure you read "The Economist", too. Or perhaps it's actually the "National Review"? They both style themselves as classically liberal, after all.

Just because you and others of your ilk have warped the meaning of the term doesn't actually make it disappear, nor does it make it synonymous with Republicans.

I and "others of my ilk" didn't warp anything; it was ilks like Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannapolous, and January 6 rioters wrapping themselves in the Gadsden flag. But why complain about them when you can complain about the left.

What I will 100% own is that I'm quite clearly NOT PROGRESSIVE. Not because I oppose progress, but because most of what gets framed as progressive policy is horribly limiting, oppressive, authoritarian, and pretty much looks like a great path to becoming a People's Republic of Marxist Idiocy.

"People's Republic of Marxist Idiocy". Alright, you've convinced me: you're totally not aligned with the right wing.

 

[dudalb]

The ancient Egyptians weren't necessarily white either. And as for the Ptolemaic dynasty, the term Greek descent does not necessarily reference the modern European(?) genetics of present day Greeks. And the Ptolemaic royalty does not necessarily refer to the rest of the populace of the period.

True, but the Ancient Egyptians were not black either........

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm aware of what colors you pretend to fly under as you strenuously defend the honor of MAGA, Charlie Kirk and Unite the Right ralliers.

Look, if you want to attack and argue against Trump, Republicans, Kirk, or anyone else, go for it. All I ask is that you do it based on actual information, supported by evidence, and without hyperbolization and out-of-context snippets that completely alter the meaning of the words. Have a go at the actual white supremacist organizations - I'll join you in that. But for the love of all sense, please stop maligning every conservative and/or Republican by calling all of them fascists and nazis.

"People's Republic of Marxist Idiocy". Alright, you've convinced me: you're totally not aligned with the right wing.

Huh. That you think being opposed to marxism makes someone "right wing" says a whole lot about your politics.

Marxism is fundamentally flawed for any group of people larger than maybe a few hundred. It is entirely unworkable at scale, and has repeatedly done massive amounts of harm under extraordinarily undemocratic, oppressive, authoritarian regimes every single time it's ever been attempted. Anyone who supports marxism is a far-left totalitarian in my view.

 

[Emily's Cat]

True, but the Ancient Egyptians were not black either........

Gonna go out on a limb and say that ancient egyptians probably looked an awful lot like modern egyptians. Which is to say, rather like Egyptians, Israelis, Moroccans, and Lebanese. Light to olive skin tones, straight to wavy dark hair, predominantly brown eyes.

ETA: Probably looked pretty much like the other Mediterranean people of their time.

 

[bruto]

I think most of the politicians I've seen who advocate "smaller government" mean anything but less government. They mean less democracy. They want fiat government with near-divine power, telling you what to say and what to do and what part of your body you may do it with. Democracy is cumbersome and expensive and sometimes slow. Tyranny is lean, cheap and efficient but concentrating power into a smaller package is not decreasing it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Look, if you want to attack and argue against Trump, Republicans, Kirk, or anyone else, go for it. All I ask is that you do it based on actual information, supported by evidence, and without hyperbolization and out-of-context snippets that completely alter the meaning of the words. Have a go at the actual white supremacist organizations - I'll join you in that.

Maybe you could start with the organizers and participants of the Unite the Right rally you've been trying to sanewash lately for some reason.

But for the love of all sense, please stop maligning every conservative and/or Republican by calling all of them fascists and nazis.

Hold that thought a moment.

Huh. That you think being opposed to marxism makes someone "right wing" says a whole lot about your politics.

No, reflexively and unironically throwing around labels like "People's Republic of Marxist Idiocy" for anybody you find too far to the left marks you as right-wing. Doing so immediately after writing

But for the love of all sense, please stop maligning every conservative and/or Republican by calling all of them fascists and nazis.

is also both hypocritical and unintentionally funny.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe you could start with the organizers and participants of the Unite the Right rally you've been trying to defend lately for some reason.

This is a false claim by you. Please retract and stop spreading misinformation.

No, reflexively and unironically throwing around labels like "People's Republic of Marxist Idiocy" for anybody you find too far to the left marks you as right-wing. Doing so immediately after writing

Not "too far to the left", only the actually far left. I'm quite happy with the majority of the left - I simply oppose the majority of what gets considered "progressive" these days. Most of the activism that falls under the umbrella of progressive causes has marxist underpinnings. And marxism is a dumb, authoritarian, oppressive view that can only be made policy by extreme force and the rescission of personal liberties.

is also both hypocritical and unintentionally funny.

It was intentionally funny. It was also narrowly applied, as opposed to be tossed around with the broadest of brushes.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

This is a false claim by you. Please retract and stop spreading misinformation.

You said that you'd be happy to join me in having a go at white supremacists. Unite the Right was a white supremacist rally. You have yet to join me in having a go at them, responding instead with excuses and bogus analogies to BLM rallies to which "some" black separatists showed up. You have an opportunity to fix that. But don't do it here; do it in the appropriate thread.

 

[Resume]

Stephen Miller definitely not calling the opposition fascist.

 

[Olmstead]

Yes, that's their stated aim. Now... why do they think that they should have the right to take money away from some people and give it to others? What's the underlying principle involved with the entire notion that wealth should be redistributed in the first place?

Because the ownership of land and resources is ethically untenable. If we decide to uphold such an artificial and unfair concept for the sake of civilization, we are morally obligated to balance the scales, i.e. assure an acceptable standard of living for everyone.

ETA: It's essentially a lease payment for unfairly appropriated land and resources that should belong to everyone. Since managing such lease payments would be a nightmare, we have to settle for socialism.

 

[dudalb]

Because the ownership of land and resources is ethically untenable. If we decide to uphold such an artificial and unfair concept for the sake of civilization, we are morally obligated to balance the scales, i.e. assure an acceptable standard of living for everyone.

Total nonsense.
SO a farmer does npt have the right to own his own farm?.
Seems like you want the government to own just about anything. That system has been tried a number of times, and has failed miserably whenever tried.

 

[Olmstead]

Total nonsense.
SO a farmer does npt have the right to own his own farm?.
Seems like you want the government to own just about anything. That system has been tried a number of times, and has failed miserably whenever tried.

Ethically, they do not. What claim do they have to that piece of land compared to any other human on earth?

If you want to pretend they do for the sake of a workable system, that's a different discussion. But that's why I'm arguing for socialism, not communism. We accept that we need to uphold the fiction of land ownership, but in exchange a portion of the profits from the land goes to everyone.

 

[Random]

Total nonsense.
SO a farmer does npt have the right to own his own farm?.
Seems like you want the government to own just about anything. That system has been tried a number of times, and has failed miserably whenever tried.

The amount of land is finite. Every acre of land that is owned by one person is an acre of land that cannot be owned by another. Once the good land is taken, the whole "concentration of wealth" cycle starts up, just as it does with money. Not any real way to fix it except with some kind of redistribution of wealth system.
Not sure what the solution is, but the problem exists.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You said that you'd be happy to join me in having a go at white supremacists. Unite the Right was a white supremacist rally. You have yet to join me in having a go at them, responding instead with excuses and bogus analogies to BLM rallies to which "some" black separatists showed up. You have an opportunity to fix that. But don't do it here; do it in the appropriate thread.

You claimed that I have defended the organizers. I have not done so.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You claimed that I have defended the organizers. I have not done so.

...and participants. Don't forget all those "fine people" on both sides. And yes, you have defended them, by pretending they were something other than white supremacists themselves. Otherwise, your attempted comparisons to BLM and pro-Palestinian protests make no sense.