[Alex3917]

> are people writing checks to re-elect Robert Mugabe?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/whos-helping-finan...

> Also, way to go easy on the left.

I mean if you actually read DailyKos or whatever it's clear that a lot of the people there are batshit crazy. But as far as I can tell it's one level of crazy, I'm sure there are exceptions but for the vast majority of people I don't think it goes 10 levels deep. Whereas on the right it seems to be the rule that when people are fighting against the public option for healthcare what really want is to genocide minorities, rather than the exception.

Whereas when people on the left have historically supported genocidal regimes, as far as I can tell it's been because they (perhaps naively) did so unknowingly rather than because supporting genocide was their intended outcome.

[twoodfin]

Whereas on the right it seems to be the rule that when people are fighting against the public option for healthcare what really want is to genocide minorities, rather than the exception.

I think you've been reading too much Daily Kos if you think it's an exceptional right-winger who doesn't want to genocide minorities.

[Alex3917]

> I think you've been reading too much Daily Kos if you think it's an exceptional right-winger who doesn't want to genocide minorities.

I mean you could just watch Fox news or whatever and see what they say they want in their own words. It's largely not social liberals who are supporting the war on drugs, war in the middle east, privatized healthcare/water/education, climate change denial, etc.

[fennecfoxen]

According to this piece:

(a) Miscellaneous fundamentalist elements of the Christian right who clearly don't support gays have been doing miscellaneous agitation through their missionary arms; African churches have been lobbied (in the passive voice) "to drop ties with mainstream Christian groups." I'm not sure who these shadowy figures are, but it sounds like they're not mainstream.

(b) Everyone is helping support the death penalty for gay people because the Obama administration gave the Museveni regime cash and military aid.

This situation seems problematic. However, notably absent is commentary about people who "say they support gays but are against gay marriage" lending any form of material support through their actions. Is it possible you have conflated several of your political enemies? It's an easy mistake to make, we pretty much all do it from time to time...

[Alex3917]

> I'm not sure who these shadowy figures are, but it sounds like they're not mainstream.

My understanding is that they are actually quite mainstream:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?story...

E.g. they include several prominent senators and congressman. I'll admit that I don't know for a fact that the exact same people have said they support gay people, but I still think my comment is valid because that's basically the right-wing party line and these are folks at the very top of the Republican party.

Again I'm not saying that if the left had a monopoly on politics that they wouldn't do a terrible job, only that I think they have less of a propensity to say they want X when really what they want is Y.

E.g. when they say they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% because that's what climatologists say is necessary to prevent runaway climate change, I don't get the feeling that what they really want is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100%.

[eli_gottlieb]

>I mean if you actually read DailyKos or whatever it's clear that a lot of the people there are batshit crazy. But as far as I can tell it's one level of crazy, I'm sure there are exceptions but for the vast majority of people I don't think it goes 10 levels deep. Whereas on the right it seems to be the rule that when people are fighting against the public option for healthcare what really want is to genocide minorities, rather than the exception.

I don't think comparing crazy blog commentators is a fair standard for either side. I'm going to come up with something I think is a bit more fair: compare the intellectual component of each side.

* Left intellectuals (ie: writers at the Guardian, Jacobin, etc.): tendency towards hero-villain thinking in domestic policy/class struggle, a tendency to apologize for violent regimes that purported to be engaged in class struggle. Occasional cultural silliness, and fairly commonly prone to apologia for anything a perceived "underdog" does whatsoever. Otherwise, generally quite cogent and able to come up with extensive critiques of the status quo and platforms of action.

* Right intellectuals (ie: the National Interest, The Economist): tendency towards hero-villain thinking in foreign policy, leading to support for violent regimes purporting to "keep the damn dirty Leftists out". Large amounts of cultural silliness, especially prone to believing that hierarchies of authority just are morality, especially prone to tribalism and a bizarre fixation on people's recreational proclivities, especially sexual ones. Often cogent, but not actually consistent in platforms and critiques: usually more focused on rationalizing the existence and actions of some power-hierarchy to which the intellectual is loyal than with establishing any universal moral principle at all (other than hierarchy itself).

It's pretty damn clear which side I'm on, but I also can't think of any facts I've neglected at the moment. Worldwide, the separation between Left and Right seems to really be about principles versus hierarchy.

[ghufran_syed]

The economist recently had several articles supporting the right of sex workers to work legally and openly, and is supportive of gay marriage: when you say they have a 'bizarre fixation on people's recreational proclivities, especially sexual ones' , are you suggesting they are against those things or supportive of them?

[eli_gottlieb]

The Economist is a bit of a weirdo: a genuine liberal-capitalist publication. They're the odd ones out, these days.