Does "Get Off My Side" constitute tampering with evidence?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So I was recently thinking about this editorial cartoon, and while it is slightly refreshing to see someone call out flawed reasoning even when it's on "his side" (to whatever extent that can be defined), it also reminds me of a more common refrain:

"Stop giving us a bad name!"

Theoretically criticism of Ann Coulter is distinct from the assumption that she is secretly male, theoretically criticism of Clarence Thomas is distinct from attempts to label him an Uncle Tom, etc... follow through to the rest of the cartoon.

But if two "distinct" ideas correlate strongly enough, does that not suggest that they are caused by the same aspects of human nature? If so, why attempt to rig the game against any evidence of that by asking people who are just being themselves to shut up? While it isn't being done in a strictly coercive manner, doesn't asking them to do so constitute tampering with evidence?

The very notion that "leftism" is definable at all is based on correlating all 8 (or 16, depending on how you're counting them) ideas with each other, along with many, many more. (Again, how many depends on how you're counting.) The alternative is to base it on it being the rejection of tradition. But not everyone who rejects tradition reverts to the same alternative to it as everyone else who rejects tradition. Me, I reject conservatism AND many of the ideas associated with the left, and I'm tired of being mistaken for some kind of traditionalist every time I question whatever leftist mantra is popular this week.

[Sundiata]

Politics beyond a partisan lense is too abstract for most Americans, a simple people.

[Neanderthaland]

What?

No. That's silly.

[Purpelia]

(Image)

So I was recently thinking about this editorial cartoon, and while it is slightly refreshing to see someone call out flawed reasoning even when it's on "his side" (to whatever extent that can be defined), it also reminds me of a more common refrain:

"Stop giving us a bad name!"

Theoretically criticism of Ann Coulter is distinct from the assumption that she is secretly male, theoretically criticism of Clarence Thomas is distinct from attempts to label him an Uncle Tom, etc... follow through to the rest of the cartoon.

But if two "distinct" ideas correlate strongly enough, does that not suggest that they are caused by the same aspects of human nature? If so, why attempt to rig the game against any evidence of that by asking people who are just being themselves to shut up? While it isn't being done in a strictly coercive manner, doesn't asking them to do so constitute tampering with evidence?

The very notion that "leftism" is definable at all is based on correlating all 8 (or 16, depending on how you're counting them) ideas with each other, along with many, many more. (Again, how many depends on how you're counting.) The alternative is to base it on it being the rejection of tradition. But not everyone who rejects tradition reverts to the same alternative to it as everyone else who rejects tradition. Me, I reject conservatism AND many of the ideas associated with the left, and I'm tired of being mistaken for some kind of traditionalist every time I question whatever leftist mantra is popular this week.

You have to realize something. The modern left is toxic. It is as toxic as the radical left of the 00's and the 30's. They operate on the principal of "the ends justify the means" and "if you are not with us, you are against us." There is no reasoning with them because they will acknowledge no reason. There is no middle ground because they will permit no middle ground. And there is nothing to them other than bare naked greed and powerlust.

So you are more or less stuck. You can either join them and accept the evil this will make you do. Or you can oppose them and accept this means you will have to compromise on some things.

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, look. I don't like Ann Coulter in part because of the way she denegrates people who oppose her, so if people are denegrating her based on her looks or transphobic humor, they're not really agreeing with me. They're just someone who also dislikes Ann Coulter but they don't share my values about respecting people's bodies.

And there is a whole genre of fiction and non-fiction among people of color about the way white people 'ally' themselves and the position that they put their so-called 'allies' in. I don't have to be black to feel that Thomas has worked against things I agree are in the best interests of people of color in this country, but getting to decide how he fits into the black community is an intrusion. In that regard I think we can have a discussion over how it is we talk to and related to each other, though.

There is enough instances of fiercely anti-gay figures actually turning out to being gay, but I feel like joking about that is part of what creates that level of shame and self denial that creates a closeted case that lashes out against their own desires. Again, I think that one can be dealt with by having a conversation with them about what they're doing versus what they think they're doing.

Making fun of Trump because he's fat can just fuck right the fuck off and goes back the Coulter thing. We don't really share the same values, we just both dislike a guy and probably some of the things he's done. But, I'm fat too and if you're saying fat unattractive people can fuck off, well...bye, I guess. I wouldn't consider you 'on my side'.

I actually never have heard someone say that pro-life women are unfuckable. I have heard people imply that ideological opponents are unfuckable, but that stands to reason. Sex is an intimate connection for some and forming that with someone who is dismissive or even encouraging of suffering might be at turn off. But yeah, if you're devaluing someone's opinion based on how interested your dick is in them...you can fuck off, we're not really on the same team we just dislike the same people for different reasons.

The world in general can just shut the fuck up about dicks. I don't know how big mine is, I don't know anyone who does...no one in my entire life as a dude has ever offered me up the numbers on their dick, nor have they shown me their dick (perks of being a dude), the rare joke about dick size has always been an ironic play on how important the dick is supposed to be to our very idea of self worth. I bought a sports car, no one checked if my dick was small enough. I bought a car with no horsepower and famous for going slow, no one checked if my dick was big enough for that confidence. No woman has gotten together with me nor has their decision to stay or leave based on my dick. When I do talk about or drive sports cars and someone starts talking about my dick...that's weird. Its a car. Why are you talking about my dick via my car? You did that, I didn't do that. I drove a car that was fun to drive and then you made it weird. I'm sick of dicks. I'm sick of dudes who care about dicks, I'm sick of people assuming as a dude I give a shit about the size of my dick or that I want people to think about my dick. But this dick shit is so ingrained in the culture even though I'm actively frustrated by especially since I'm into cars I still catch myself dipping in that pool. So mixed result, I guess. Pee in the pool water. One Czech dude posits that his penis is the key to human interaction and this is what we get.

Classism sucks. But also, eat the rich.

People making fun of people getting raped in prison means you're not on my side, though again this is so casual I'm sure if I scoured hard enough I would be at least a little guilty of it somewhere. First of all, I'm either against rape or I'm not. Second, this is a sentiment celebrating something I feel is inadequate in society and absolutely a contributing factor to the pain disproportionately felt by minorities in this country who...you know...can hear me. Finally, you're casting homosexuality in a predatory light and tacitly projecting the myth that a gay person is a danger to a straight person which I find super offensive as a straight person. Can't imagine how gay people feel about it. Well, a rich tapestry of opinions like anything else. But in this case you really aren't on my side because you don't seem to think the way we deal with criminality as a huge problem but rather a way to enjoy the suffering of your opponents. We just both want there to be consequences for misconduct, but we differ wildly on what form that should take.

So what complicates this idea is the notion that there can only be two sides and they are monolith. Of course that's at the root of a lot of problems in the public discourse.

[Heloin]

Every ideology has it's morons. I fail to see the problem with wanting to disassociate with said morons however.

[Vassenor]

I'm confused. What exactly is the point we're supposed to discuss here?

[Kowani]

I'm confused. What exactly is the point we're supposed to discuss here?

LUNA's latest nonsensical pet issue.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Well, look. I don't like Ann Coulter in part because of the way she denegrates people who oppose her, so if people are denegrating her based on her looks or transphobic humor, they're not really agreeing with me.

Then where would you draw the line between agreeing with someone and disagreeing with them? What about let's say, two people both casting ballots for legal abortion in a referendum while still disagreeing with each other on whether its opponents are "just jealous" that they "didn't get laid."

There is enough instances of fiercely anti-gay figures actually turning out to being gay, but I feel like joking about that is part of what creates that level of shame and self denial that creates a closeted case that lashes out against their own desires.

I would think it is rather a symptom of the same thing; that human nature is homophobic, and both the left and the right are subject to human nature.

I don't think homophobia alone would've driven people to be "fiercely" anti-gay. Most people don't give a damn beyond looking down on it for the purposes of calling people who disgust them "faggots," be they straight or gay. I hear of China censoring LGBT content and see little reason to call that procreation-centric or religious, which to me suggests an irreplaceable role of gender roles in "political" homophobia, putting aside whatever other factors may influence "primal" homophobia.

Making fun of Trump because he's fat can just fuck right the fuck off and goes back the Coulter thing. We don't really share the same values, we just both dislike a guy and probably some of the things he's done. But, I'm fat too and if you're saying fat unattractive people can fuck off, well...bye, I guess. I wouldn't consider you 'on my side'.

Being fat isn't necessarily unattractive. Meghan McCain would probably count as overweight by BMI standards and she's beautiful; almost all those who say otherwise happen to be her detractors, some of whom have already established that they aren't above lying about other things.

That said, I do think it taps into an evolutionary instinct meant to identify food hoarders without having to think. Before we had "food deserts" it was a useful heuristic, and though it's outlived its purpose, its unfortunate continued existence would explain the contempt for the overweight and why its harmful existence correlates with the more beneficial aspects of human nature like contempt for the greed of Donald Trump.

I actually never have heard someone say that pro-life women are unfuckable.

I've seen it insinuated by George Carlin, to enormous applause from his audience, although he might've been referring exclusively to anti-abortion males; he didn't specify the sexes of those involved. And indeed, anyone who expressly included pro-life women in the category can fuck right off if only because they've been discredited by the existence of pro-life women who get abortions. But even the alternative... that genuine opposition to abortion requires either jealousy OR estrogen/progesterone... sounds like an oddly specific narrative, and I've yet to hear any of the people who seem to be implying this one say it outright.

I think what bothers me more is to hear it from people who otherwise feign being about "gender-neutral" stuff. Then again, that notion wasn't objectively definable either.

I have heard people imply that ideological opponents are unfuckable, but that stands to reason. Sex is an intimate connection for some and forming that with someone who is dismissive or even encouraging of suffering might be at turn off.

That might depend on the individual. We evolved in circumstances where if you didn't impregnate her, someone else would. Someone who is less like oneself, and therefore an evolutionary disadvantage to whom to pass the torch. It makes sense that we wouldn't need to trust them to lust after them. It'd also explain the sales figures of erotic manga portraying characters who are not exactly trustworthy. All this isn't an absolute; who knows how much it's been thrown off by hormones in our food in ways the food industry might be covering up; but at least it's a starter to help explain this.

I bought a sports car, no one checked if my dick was small enough. I bought a car with no horsepower and famous for going slow, no one checked if my dick was big enough for that confidence. No woman has gotten together with me nor has their decision to stay or leave based on my dick.

How can you be so sure either way, though? The "joke" is told WAY too often to be merely a joke.

I would speculate that both the instinct to protect the climate and the lust for the uh... tools of a better orgasm (this is still PG-13, right?) are both natural instincts and the reasons to fight either them are more artificial, for good or for ill.

People making fun of people getting raped in prison means you're not on my side, though again this is so casual I'm sure if I scoured hard enough I would be at least a little guilty of it somewhere.

I definitely have. I regret it, but I think it comes from a place not of condoning prison rape itself so much as relishing in the spiteful thought of people who contributed to prison's brutal conditions get a taste of their own medicine. Then I catch myself and remind myself that this same spiteful instinct might be part of what's fueling the brutality of American prisons. Even if it isn't, it means it's fueled by corporate America/unfalsifiable notions of deterrence/etc... which means there's a lot of blame to go around other than toward that one "right-winger."

So what complicates this idea is the notion that there can only be two sides and they are monolith. Of course that's at the root of a lot of problems in the public discourse.

Indeed. And I find your perspective on this interesting... and better thought out than that of LeftyCartoons. But that leads back to the question asked at the top of this post...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You have to realize something. The modern left is toxic. It is as toxic as the radical left of the 00's and the 30's. They operate on the principal of "the ends justify the means" and "if you are not with us, you are against us." There is no reasoning with them because they will acknowledge no reason. There is no middle ground because they will permit no middle ground. And there is nothing to them other than bare naked greed and powerlust.

So you are more or less stuck. You can either join them and accept the evil this will make you do. Or you can oppose them and accept this means you will have to compromise on some things.

How, if at all, can "the modern left" be defined? I called that into question in the OP and you still have yet to address it.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No, when you're motivated by anger you lose inhibitions in speech.
Including "politically correct" ones you weren't brought up with but adopted voluntarily.

[Purpelia]

You have to realize something. The modern left is toxic. It is as toxic as the radical left of the 00's and the 30's. They operate on the principal of "the ends justify the means" and "if you are not with us, you are against us." There is no reasoning with them because they will acknowledge no reason. There is no middle ground because they will permit no middle ground. And there is nothing to them other than bare naked greed and powerlust.

So you are more or less stuck. You can either join them and accept the evil this will make you do. Or you can oppose them and accept this means you will have to compromise on some things.

How, if at all, can "the modern left" be defined? I called that into question in the OP and you still have yet to address it.

There are, in very broad terms two types of "left". Now, this is going to be a massive generalization that obviously does not cover the nuances. But it is good enough for the uninitiated who just wants a broad overview.
The two categories are what I would call the "old" and "new" left. Although perhaps a better description would be "identity" and "economic" left.

Put simply, the economic or old left is the sort of left wing that has existed since Marx and until pretty much recently. The old left believes that all the fundamental problems of society stem from the fact that the majority of wealth is concentrated with a minority of the population. The people who work, identity be damned, simply do not have access to the wealth they need to live happy lives. And this wealth is being stolen by a parasitic class of "owners" who contribute nothing to the businesses they control beyond being in charge. The economic left largely ignores identity issues on account of the fact that it recognizes all classes have members of all identities thus identity is largely irrelevant as say a homosexual capitalist parasite owner is no less a parasite owner than a heterosexual one and an oppressed and exploited homosexual worker is no more or less oppressed or exploited, economically speaking than his heterosexual counterpart. The struggle is between classes and all members of a class are equal.

The identity left is a branch of left wing politics that came into being some time during the first half of the 20th century. So it is somewhat newer than its counterpart. Although the reason I call it the "new" left is that, aside from a short burst of popularity in central Europe during the 1930's and 40's it's been pretty much dead and discredited here on the continent for the last 6 or so decades, only really reappearing in the 21st century due to american influence. In terms of basic principals the identitarian left relies on all the same economic theories as the old left and espouses the same general views to the point where it has all the same main branches like stalinism, anarchism, liberal left etc. who operate mechanically pretty much the same as with their economic counterparts. The difference is in what they see as the root of all problems. In their case, instead of explaining society as a collection of conflicting economic classes they do so in terms of conflicting identities. In other words they represent the view that people with different entities such as religion, race, gender and sexual orientation are inherently opposed and irreconcilable to the point where all societies are locked in an eternal struggle between these. And than, much like the economic communists pick their preferred class they pick their preferred identity or collection there off and seek to make it "win" this struggle.

Personally I feel that the economic side has a better point. But I tried to make the explanations as unbiased as possible.

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, look. I don't like Ann Coulter in part because of the way she denegrates people who oppose her, so if people are denegrating her based on her looks or transphobic humor, they're not really agreeing with me.

Then where would you draw the line between agreeing with someone and disagreeing with them?

Why is that a complicated question? I feel like the answer is in the question.

What about let's say, two people both casting ballots for legal abortion in a referendum while still disagreeing with each other on whether its opponents are "just jealous" that they "didn't get laid."

I'm not sure I understand your confusion.

There is enough instances of fiercely anti-gay figures actually turning out to being gay, but I feel like joking about that is part of what creates that level of shame and self denial that creates a closeted case that lashes out against their own desires.

I would think it is rather a symptom of the same thing; that human nature is homophobic,

Nope.

and both the left and the right are subject to human nature.

People use 'human nature' to excuse a lot of shit. They shouldn't do that. Especially when they have only a fleeting grasp of what that concept really is.

I don't think homophobia alone would've driven people to be "fiercely" anti-gay.

I mean, those two terms mean more or less the same thing.

Most people don't give a damn beyond looking down on it for the purposes of calling people who disgust them "faggots," be they straight or gay. I hear of China censoring LGBT content and see little reason to call that procreation-centric or religious, which to me suggests an irreplaceable role of gender roles in "political" homophobia, putting aside whatever other factors may influence "primal" homophobia.

I'm not going to pretend I have any idea what you're going for here.

Making fun of Trump because he's fat can just fuck right the fuck off and goes back the Coulter thing. We don't really share the same values, we just both dislike a guy and probably some of the things he's done. But, I'm fat too and if you're saying fat unattractive people can fuck off, well...bye, I guess. I wouldn't consider you 'on my side'.

Being fat isn't necessarily unattractive. Meghan McCain would probably count as overweight by BMI standards and she's beautiful; almost all those who say otherwise happen to be her detractors, some of whom have already established that they aren't above lying about other things.

Okay.

That said, I do think it taps into an evolutionary instinct meant to identify food hoarders without having to think.

No.

Before we had "food deserts" it was a useful heuristic, and though it's outlived its purpose, its unfortunate continued existence would explain the contempt for the overweight and why its harmful existence correlates with the more beneficial aspects of human nature like contempt for the greed of Donald Trump.

Really...no. You maybe want to read some work on the history of aesthetics.

I actually never have heard someone say that pro-life women are unfuckable.

I've seen it insinuated by George Carlin, to enormous applause from his audience, although he might've been referring exclusively to anti-abortion males; he didn't specify the sexes of those involved.

Okay. But...you know a stand up routine is kind of a different animal, right?

And indeed, anyone who expressly included pro-life women in the category can fuck right off if only because they've been discredited by the existence of pro-life women who get abortions. But even the alternative... that genuine opposition to abortion requires either jealousy OR estrogen/progesterone... sounds like an oddly specific narrative, and I've yet to hear any of the people who seem to be implying this one say it outright.


I think what bothers me more is to hear it from people who otherwise feign being about "gender-neutral" stuff. Then again, that notion wasn't objectively definable either.

Read this a couple of times, still didn't get it.

I have heard people imply that ideological opponents are unfuckable, but that stands to reason. Sex is an intimate connection for some and forming that with someone who is dismissive or even encouraging of suffering might be at turn off.

That might depend on the individual. We evolved in circumstances where if you didn't impregnate her, someone else would.
Someone who is less like oneself, and therefore an evolutionary disadvantage to whom to pass the torch. It makes sense that we wouldn't need to trust them to lust after them.

You're relying a lot on a pretty awkward understanding of evolution.

It'd also explain the sales figures of erotic manga portraying characters who are not exactly trustworthy. All this isn't an absolute; who knows how much it's been thrown off by hormones in our food in ways the food industry might be covering up; but at least it's a starter to help explain this.

We went for quite a ride there...

I bought a sports car, no one checked if my dick was small enough. I bought a car with no horsepower and famous for going slow, no one checked if my dick was big enough for that confidence. No woman has gotten together with me nor has their decision to stay or leave based on my dick.

How can you be so sure either way, though? The "joke" is told WAY too often to be merely a joke.

Look man, I don't know how you roll, but my relationships are of the long term variety. Enough time for them to find more substantial objections than my dick.

I would speculate that both the instinct

I know I'm setting myself up for an awkward primer on someone's half understanding of evolutionary psychology, but even evolutionary psychologists aren't this committed to this notion.

to protect the climate and the lust for the uh... tools of a better orgasm (this is still PG-13, right?) are both natural instincts and the reasons to fight either them are more artificial, for good or for ill.

That just got weird.

People making fun of people getting raped in prison means you're not on my side, though again this is so casual I'm sure if I scoured hard enough I would be at least a little guilty of it somewhere.

I definitely have. I regret it, but I think it comes from a place not of condoning prison rape itself so much as relishing in the spiteful thought of people who contributed to prison's brutal conditions get a taste of their own medicine. Then I catch myself and remind myself that this same spiteful instinct might be part of what's fueling the brutality of American prisons. Even if it isn't, it means it's fueled by corporate America/unfalsifiable notions of deterrence/etc... which means there's a lot of blame to go around other than toward that one "right-winger."

Not sure how we got there from here, but I think you're agreeing so I'll just back away slowly.

So what complicates this idea is the notion that there can only be two sides and they are monolith. Of course that's at the root of a lot of problems in the public discourse.

Indeed. And I find your perspective on this interesting... and better thought out than that of LeftyCartoons. But that leads back to the question asked at the top of this post...

No, that's an imposed binary and this problem is a function of that thinking, not an inherent problem of human behavior. You're trying to get the results to fit a conclusion not a conclusion from the results.

[Nuroblav]

This:

Every ideology has it's morons. I fail to see the problem with wanting to disassociate with said morons however.

[The New California Republic]

Lol. We are discussing a cartoon as if it has some deep alternate meaning. Weird. But seriously, what are we meant to be discussing here, as the premise seems nonsensical.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Lol. We are discussing a cartoon as if it has some deep alternate meaning. Weird. But seriously, what are we meant to be discussing here, as the premise seems nonsensical.

"Now that one person has identified 8 separate issues on which the left tends to use the worst possible reasoning for positions that could be better justified with better reasoning, is this the exception that proves the rule? Should we presume whatever in human nature is causing these positions is causing the reasoning people who hold them tend to revert to?"

I'll further clarify where I was going with the other post when people specify where precisely I lost them. So far the main objection seems to be my reliance on evolutionary psychology... as opposed to what, mainstream psychology, wherein respondents lie to surveys? Are we supposed to just take their word for all 8 examples noted here not being their "real" reasons for their views despite the commonality of such types of reasoning?

[The New California Republic]

Lol. We are discussing a cartoon as if it has some deep alternate meaning. Weird. But seriously, what are we meant to be discussing here, as the premise seems nonsensical.

"Now that one person has identified 8 separate issues on which the left tends to use the worst possible reasoning for positions that could be better justified with better reasoning, is this the exception that proves the rule? Should we presume whatever in human nature is causing these positions is causing the reasoning people who hold them tend to revert to?"

I'll further clarify where I was going with the other post when people specify where precisely I lost them. So far the main objection seems to be my reliance on evolutionary psychology... as opposed to what, mainstream psychology, wherein respondents lie to surveys? Are we supposed to just take their word for all 8 examples noted here not being their "real" reasons for their views despite the commonality of such types of reasoning?

I think you are trying to read too much into a cartoon.

[Purpelia]

Lol. We are discussing a cartoon as if it has some deep alternate meaning. Weird. But seriously, what are we meant to be discussing here, as the premise seems nonsensical.

"Now that one person has identified 8 separate issues on which the left tends to use the worst possible reasoning for positions that could be better justified with better reasoning, is this the exception that proves the rule? Should we presume whatever in human nature is causing these positions is causing the reasoning people who hold them tend to revert to?"

I'll further clarify where I was going with the other post when people specify where precisely I lost them. So far the main objection seems to be my reliance on evolutionary psychology... as opposed to what, mainstream psychology, wherein respondents lie to surveys? Are we supposed to just take their word for all 8 examples noted here not being their "real" reasons for their views despite the commonality of such types of reasoning?

Evolutionary psychology is derided by a lot of people because it is one of the few branches of science that stands to give us actual real truths about human nature, how we think and why we think the way we do. And in doing so, it poses a threat to any ideology that seeks to describe the world by offering its own version of the same. Like say one that claims a persons race or gender is more important than their underlying basic human nature.

[-Astoria-]

...no.

[Picairn]

I think you have spent too much time on Twitter and Reddit. The Democratic party is very diverse, you would found a lot of left-center and centrist voters if you looked more closely.

[Thermodolia]

I think you have spent too much time on Twitter and Reddit. The Democratic party is very diverse, you would found a lot of left-center and centrist voters if you looked more closely.

That requires work

[Picairn]

That requires work

Too bad not all of us have the strength to spend several minutes every day researching more, eh?

[The Holy Therns]

"Tampering with evidence"? This one's out there even for you.

[Cannot think of a name]

"Tampering with evidence"? This one's out there even for you.

I have to be honest, I have no idea what that was even supposed to mean.

[The Holy Therns]

"Tampering with evidence"? This one's out there even for you.

I have to be honest, I have no idea what that was even supposed to mean.

I'm not convinced LUNA does, either.