Of course the standard left/right dichotomy is a historical accident and contingent on many local factors. And yet we continue to reify it as if it were some Platonic truth.
Of course the standard left/right dichotomy is a historical accident and contingent on many local factors. And yet we continue to reify it as if it were some Platonic truth.
This attempted act of censorship by an ex-Twitter employee is a fairly tame example of their tactics, though notable for affecting the President.
(For the downvoters, prove me wrong, how many votes did a far left party get in US elections in the past 20 years? Does the US even have a far left party? :) )
Lea DeLaria: "Or pick up a baseball bat and take out every f-cking republican and independent I see"
Madonna: "I’ve thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House."
Mickey Rourke: "I’ll meet [Trump] in a hotel room any motherf-cking day of the week and give him a Louisville slugger."
Bow Wow: "@realDonaldTrump shut your punk a-- up talking s--t about my uncle @SnoopDogg before we pimp your wife and make her work for us."
Eminem: "And fuck Ann Coulter with a Klan poster. With a lamp post, door handle, shutter. A damn bolt cutter, a sandal, a can opener, a candle, rubber. Piano, a flannel, sucker, some hand soap, butter. A banjo and manhole cover"
Then there's Kathy Griffin's famous photo with a severed "Trump" head, Snoop Dog's video shooting Trump ...
And that's just Hollywood. There's no room here to discuss all the incidents of actual violence, or protesters denying people the right to hear speakers at public universities, etc, etc.
7 celebrities talking shit does not equate a massive, unified, violent left-wing movement in the US with conspiracy-like powers and tactics to censor the right. I think the right is pretty well represented in the US.
Measure the support for the movement by the number of people who celebrated those remarks. A lot of people.
EDIT: Twitter literally suppressed the leaks of DNC and Podesta emails hashtags and admitted to it:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/twitter-admits-it-b...
https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-...
Is that conspiracy enough for you?
How about this:
On October 31, 2016, The New York Times reported: "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked e-mails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton's campaign."
And that's just off the top of my head.
EDIT 2: Can you explain how all these very similar headlines were possible without there being a conspiracy? And yes, those are real, I saw it when it happened.
https://pics.onsizzle.com/headlines-think-the-media-got-the-...
https://www.thewrap.com/mickey-rourke-calls-donald-trump-big...
A literal socialist reaching 43.1% of votes not influential enough?
Someone, therefore, from the moderate left getting a sizable minority of votes within the left-most party of a two-party system where the most votes in that party went to a center-right neoliberal is not evidence of the far left having much (or any) influence, especially when it's the best anyone not from the center-right has done in that party for at least a quarter century.
There's circumstantial evidence he was even a Stalinist at one point: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sanders+stalinist+kibbutz
You do realize how closely your argument resembles a "No True Scotsman" in this case, yes?
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
EDIT: Here he is, calling himself a socialist without any qualifiers in 1989: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_QLek6Qvzg
1. People can change.
2. People might moderate their actions when faced with reality (heck, even Trump does/is forced to).
From what I remember back when he was campaigning, most things he was proposing would definitely fall under socialist-democrat in Europe.
And then a decade in the future (might even be more than that, US is resilient) it would have blown up in everyone's faces, just as it did in Venezuela.
The general public has a short attention span, it seldom thinks of what would happen 10-15 years down the road.
The problem is that they aren't the same definitions, and the game being played of pretending that they are is the fallacy of equivocation.
"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"
Would you describe Venezuelan regime as center-left social democrat?
Who's the banana republic now? Indeed, the irony would be amusing if only this failure did not leave millions and millions of people with no money, no food and no hope.
Can you fit all his voters there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_sanders
His wiki mentions "socialist" 35 times. Is that not leftist enough for you?
There's circumstantial evidence that he was even a Stalinist at one point: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sanders+stalinist+kibbutz
It's disheartening how deeply the "us vs. them" mindset dominates our politics. You used the term "they" or "them" seven times in your short post. Seven. Who are they? A few trolls on twitter does not equal a meaningful movement. Categorizing half of the American populace based on the views/actions of fringe nutjobs is absurd and not conducive to meaningful discourse.
Having a slang term for "them" (SJW) implies that it's a such a common issue that people face daily, when in reality it's a strawman argument largely fabricated by organizations interested in keeping you squabbling vs examining their policies.
You go on to say "attempted act of censorship by an ex-Twitter employee is a fairly tame example of their tactics" "Their Tactics" as if this incident was part of a master plan orchestrated by a shadowy far-left extremist org. This is pizza-gate levels of delusion.
1) Lena Dunham has called for the extinction of white men. 2) The President of the United States then sent his teen daughter to do an internship with this "fringe nutjob".
Sorry, this crazy, hateful bigot is not "fringe", she's squarely in the mainstream of the modern Democratic Party. They need to fix that if they're planning to ever win a national election again.
Had to Google that. Is there more than the 30 second animation? Because as a straight white male, I didn't feel particularly victimised by it.
If she had done that to any other identifiable group, she would have been hounded from the public sphere.
Instead, she gets rewarded with some personal time with the President's daughter. Do you think Trump, or Bush II, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Nixon... would have sent their child off to intern with someone who called for the extinction of, say, black people? Nope.
And no, that's not the bottom of her lunacy, not by many, many levels.