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

[-Ra-]

This is incorrect. Leftist ideals originated in the French revolution.

Apparently Thomas Paine is a Frenchman now.

Thomas Paine was not a leftist. He was a liberal.

Have you read any Thomas Paine. If you did you might have some Common Sense...

[Aureumterra]

Is the stuff shown in the cartoon really confined to leftism? Or any political view in general? It just seems a problem of toxicity, which sadly seems to be more prevalent than ever, since most people can hide behind a screen and be keyboard warriors.

[Aureumterra]

This is incorrect. Leftist ideals originated in the French revolution.

Apparently Thomas Paine is a Frenchman now.

While I don’t quite agree with the notion of leftism being born out of the French Revolution, Paine was not a leftist in the modern sense

[Outer Acharet]

I'd actually give more credit to the Enlightenment in general if we accept the reasoning given. Those ideas certainly got a rather large pulpit in the French Revolution, though.

[Necroghastia]

Apparently Thomas Paine is a Frenchman now.

Thomas Paine was not a leftist. He was a liberal.

Have you read any Thomas Paine. If you did you might have some Common Sense...

Whether or not Vass has read any Paine, and whatever Paine considered himself, it seems that you were unable to read your own source:

In the United States, many leftists, social liberals, progressives and trade unionists were influenced by the works of Thomas Paine, who introduced the concept of asset-based egalitarianism, which theorises that social equality is possible by a redistribution of resources.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Is the stuff shown in the cartoon really confined to leftism? Or any political view in general? It just seems a problem of toxicity, which sadly seems to be more prevalent than ever, since most people can hide behind a screen and be keyboard warriors.

There are smart people and there are dumbasses. The people in the comic are dumbasses.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The term "left" originated in the French Revolution but leftist ideals are much older.

This is incorrect. Leftist ideals originated in the French revolution.

You hear that everyone? No one was ever politically left of center till the French Revolution.

[Awesomeland012345]

People just want to be right. They don't care if they're wrong, then they'll use flawed logic to argue. And when that fails, they'll repeat their arguments. And so on. It's the same for everyone, except for the exceptionally levelheaded or logical.

[Outer Acharet]

This is incorrect. Leftist ideals originated in the French revolution.

You hear that everyone? No one was ever politically left of center till the French Revolution.

While it's a misstatement, modern "liberalism" and that school of thought originated around this time. Not wholly from the French revolution, but secular government, democratic, free society, social equality of all peoples, etc. are outgrowths of the Enlightenment IIRC.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

People just want to be right. They don't care if they're wrong, then they'll use flawed logic to argue. And when that fails, they'll repeat their arguments. And so on. It's the same for everyone, except for the exceptionally levelheaded or logical.

Some people have a complex, nuanced view of the world.

Others just parrot talking points without knowing what they're saying, like my friend tyler who said trump is racist but doesn't know why.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You hear that everyone? No one was ever politically left of center till the French Revolution.

While it's a misstatement, modern "liberalism" and that school of thought originated around this time. Not wholly from the French revolution, but secular government, democratic, free society, social equality of all peoples, etc. are outgrowths of the Enlightenment IIRC.

Guess we gotta define what "leftist ideals" are then.

[Major-Tom]

What, no? The hell?

I tell people to get off my side because they're pissing me off and harming an otherwise good movement, that's it.

[Nuroblav]

Guess we gotta define what "leftist ideals" are then.

From the perspective of someone on the left, 'anti-unregulated-capitalism' is about as specific as you can go without ignoring entire ideologies.

[Outer Acharet]

While it's a misstatement, modern "liberalism" and that school of thought originated around this time. Not wholly from the French revolution, but secular government, democratic, free society, social equality of all peoples, etc. are outgrowths of the Enlightenment IIRC.

Guess we gotta define what "leftist ideals" are then.

Unfortunately, yeah. Too many people go "my tribe good other tribe bad" without bothering to actually think about what their chosen political group wants. Like, for example, if I think that Republicans are God's gift to Earth because they're against the dirty Reds and for no other reason, I'm doing myself and my party a disservice because I don't have any real stake in my party's platform but rather give them a free pass to do whatever they want.

EDIT TO NOT DOUBLE POST:

Guess we gotta define what "leftist ideals" are then.

From the perspective of someone on the left, 'anti-unregulated-capitalism' is about as specific as you can go without ignoring entire ideologies.

Yeah, the left (and in the US, the right as well) is a pretty big tent.

[Xmara]

What are we supposed to be discussing? And how does any of this constitute as “tampering with evidence?” I thought tampering with evidence referred to messing with stuff at a crime scene.

[Outer Acharet]

What are we supposed to be discussing? And how does any of this constitute as “tampering with evidence?” I thought tampering with evidence referred to messing with stuff at a crime scene.

LUNA's threads are generally vague enough they go off on tangents pretty quick.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

That comic is so stupid. The artist clearly doesn't understand that Leftists and Progressives are not necessarily the same thing nor are they required to be.

Leftist bigots are no less impossible than open-minded Rightists. Just another reason political compasses are shit.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Apparently Thomas Paine is a Frenchman now.

Thomas Paine was not a leftist. He was a liberal.

Have you read any Thomas Paine. If you did you might have some Common Sense...

I believe he was a leftist liberal.
He believed in improving conditions for the poor,
A rightist liberal like Jefferson would leave it to the market.

[Steppe Khanate]

It isn’t just leftists, every political faction has their fair share of toxic assholes. Giving them any attention only encourages them

[Lanoraie II]

Tampering with evidence of....what? Is this an investigation?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

of course it is
god i cannot stand edgy "comedians"

Fuck no. George Carlin was good. If you think being edgy is all there was to him, you're missing out.

And no, I'm not going to condemn him for mocking the appearance of these pro-life weirdos. Precisely as he says, they are anti-women (and don't actually care about human life, if you take into account their usual accompanying positions), and to think people here might be getting more outraged at the mockery than what he is mocking... give me a break.

To imply their appearance is fair game is to call appearance fair game, making it just as fair game in people of OTHER opinions, whether you acknowledge that or not. You can't have it both ways.

As well, there are motives for being anti-abortion that do not boil down to jealousy or you wouldn't see these same activists getting abortions when it's they themselves get pregnant.

So is George Carlin discredited by this sort of thing? He never outright said "if it isn't motivated by envy, it's motivated by estrogen/progesterone," which would give him some backpedal room for such cases, but also didn't outright say otherwise.

But as it is, I have reason to believe he was... not exactly of sound judgment in the conclusions he came to.

. . .

Okay, a few things I need to clear up.

1. I'm not calling politics in general an experiment in and of itself; merely indicating that it inadvertently doubles as one and I do not wish people to rig the game against legitimate generalizations (or evidence thereof) about which ideas correlate against which other ideas. If people being themselves gives your side a bad name, perhaps it deserves the bad name.

2. With all that said, the people asking if it's any more common on this side than the other really do raise a legitimate issue; I have yet to quantify this pattern. I would think if I noticed this pattern before it's for a reason. But it's possible I take a little more personally hearing people who support the same abortion policies I support say the exact same thing that used to be said about me when I bought into "niceguyism's" fearmongering about "bad boys." It's possible I take a little more personally hearing people who mock anti-gay figures' supposed homosexuality mock them for having gay sex and then claim to be less homophobic than them. (Surely "we're less willing to impose gender roles on people" should be a strong enough point.) It's possible I take a little more personally hearing people use the same cheap shot on Trump they use on Michael Moore. I just feel compelled not to stack the deck against it because we... might find out a little something about human nature while we're at it.

But that's the key phrase. We might.

[Duvniask]

Fuck no. George Carlin was good. If you think being edgy is all there was to him, you're missing out.

And no, I'm not going to condemn him for mocking the appearance of these pro-life weirdos. Precisely as he says, they are anti-women (and don't actually care about human life, if you take into account their usual accompanying positions), and to think people here might be getting more outraged at the mockery than what he is mocking... give me a break.

To imply their appearance is fair game is to call appearance fair game, making it just as fair game in people of OTHER opinions, whether you acknowledge that or not. You can't have it both ways.

It can be fair game, I guess. Carlin is just doing an insult against these people who prattle on and on about the sanctity of life and the value of the unborn while also calling out their usual hypocrisy and the inconsistency of their arguments (i.e. if human life begins at fertilization, that means any fertilized eggs flushed out during a period are equivalent to the death of a human being).

If you're going to be critical of that, you may as well levy a criticism against all insults and inflammatory language. I mean why not? Any kind of insult has an unnerving aspect to it, so if that by itself is the problem, then they must all be immmoral or at least problematic. Calling someone a "piece of shit" or "dumbfuck" is probably just as damaging if not more so than implying they are ugly/insufferable to be around. The issue, it seems to me, has more to do with whether it's fair/understandable or not to make the insult, not "HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING BAD ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON".

As well, there are motives for being anti-abortion that do not boil down to jealousy or you wouldn't see these same activists getting abortions when it's they themselves get pregnant.

So is George Carlin discredited by this sort of thing? He never outright said "if it isn't motivated by envy, it's motivated by estrogen/progesterone," which would give him some backpedal room for such cases, but also didn't outright say otherwise.

But as it is, I have reason to believe he was... not exactly of sound judgment in the conclusions he came to.

I think you're reading far too much into it. All this talk of conception, fertilization, sperm, uterus, etc. etc. and he's just making a joke at pro-lifers' expense. A joke in poor taste? Perhaps, but I think it would be imprudent to think that means he is saying people are pro-life because they are ugly/insufferable or otherwise unattractive in some way. That's not what I get from it at all. To the extent that he gives an explanation for why people are pro-life, he's implying later in the clip that they don't understand or empathize with women who choose to get abortions, as he suggets at 6:55.

Okay, a few things I need to clear up.

1. I'm not calling politics in general an experiment in and of itself; merely indicating that it inadvertently doubles as one and I do not wish people to rig the game against legitimate generalizations (or evidence thereof) about which ideas correlate against which other ideas. If people being themselves gives your side a bad name, perhaps it deserves the bad name.

2. With all that said, the people asking if it's any more common on this side than the other really do raise a legitimate issue; I have yet to quantify this pattern. I would think if I noticed this pattern before it's for a reason. But it's possible I take a little more personally hearing people who support the same abortion policies I support say the exact same thing that used to be said about me when I bought into "niceguyism's" fearmongering about "bad boys." It's possible I take a little more personally hearing people who mock anti-gay figures' supposed homosexuality mock them for having gay sex and then claim to be less homophobic than them. (Surely "we're less willing to impose gender roles on people" should be a strong enough point.) It's possible I take a little more personally hearing people use the same cheap shot on Trump they use on Michael Moore. I just feel compelled not to stack the deck against it because we... might find out a little something about human nature while we're at it.

But that's the key phrase. We might.

Making fun of homophobes for having gay sex, like Ted Haggard for instance, isn't a condemnation of homosexuality. It's a condemnation of their hypocrisy.

I mean, I guess in some instances it can be homophobic, but I personally don't think all of it is. Having a laugh that another anti-LGBT GOP senator got caught with a gay prostitute doesn't strike me as homophobic.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It can be fair game, I guess. Carlin is just doing an insult against these people who prattle on and on about the sanctity of life and the value of the unborn while also calling out their usual hypocrisy and the inconsistency of their arguments (i.e. if human life begins at fertilization, that means any fertilized eggs flushed out during a period are equivalent to the death of a human being).

And by bringing up their looks as part of that insult, he is calling their looks fair game, which by definition calls it just as legitimate an insult against anyone else with a similar appearance, regardless of their opinions.

You can't have it both ways. There is no way around this.

If you're going to be critical of that, you may as well levy a criticism against all insults and inflammatory language. I mean why not? Any kind of insult has an unnerving aspect to it, so if that by itself is the problem, then they must all be immmoral or at least problematic. Calling someone a "piece of shit" or "dumbfuck" is probably just as damaging if not more so than implying they are ugly/insufferable to be around. The issue, it seems to me, has more to do with whether it's fair/understandable or not to make the insult, not "HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING BAD ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON".

Way to miss the point of what I'm saying.

Perhaps, but I think it would be imprudent to think that means he is saying people are pro-life because they are ugly/insufferable or otherwise unattractive in some way.

That is EXACTLY what he was saying. Watch the clip; or at least the first half minute; again.

The vast majority of men and women support abortion rights, and some of the most vocal opponents are women. It isn't for lack of personal experience with labour pains that some people want to restrict it. It could be anything else; pro-life, jealous, prioritize birth rates over people's well-being, etc... but the first half minute was the clearest explanation of what he attributes it to. If the last minute or so was calling it lack of empathy, he's contradicting himself, at best. At worst, he wasn't calling it that but calling abortion immune from their criticism unless they experience the exact same thing he knows they cannot experience.

Making fun of homophobes for having gay sex, like Ted Haggard for instance, isn't a condemnation of homosexuality. It's a condemnation of their hypocrisy.

So if a straight person were falsely labelled gay, they don't get to complain that they're being smeared as a liar, since the only problem is that they're being falsely labelled gay?

(Putting aside the other potential problems than just homosexuality/hypocrisy, such as the effects of subconscious lusts affecting interaction with the opposite sex being mistaken for a lack thereof, vice versa with the same sex, etc...)

[Rusozak]

I'm confused. What evidence? What is it the evidence of? How is it being tampered with?

[Picairn]

I'm confused. What evidence? What is it the evidence of? How is it being tampered with?

You will have to wait forever for a satisfactory answer. Dozens of nations have raised the same questions before you, and they remain unanswered.