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

[Cordel One]

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

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

Yeah, that's where the term came from. Leftist ideals are still older.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Don't know what the point of this is. American politics on both sides is partisan and toxic, big deal.

"The left" (whatever that vague and overused term is supposed to mean) isn't the only side in America that is toxic regardless.

[Duvniask]

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.

No. Lol.

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.

How is it "the clearest explanation"? The only thing he says in the first 30 seconds of the clip is literally just asking how come pro-lifers are people you wouldn't want to fuck anyway. What part of this statement implies a causal connection? If anything it's just saying these people are unbearable (and further implying they're not the kind you'd want to conceive a life with). The statement I referred to at 6:55 clearly implies lack of empathy and understanding for mothers, but not just all mothers either, especially poor mothers who have to, by his words, raise kids while working minimum wage.

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.

Christ, saying maybe people should experience something for themselves before criticizing how others respond to it is not tantamount to this twisted version of things where you can only judge a situation you've personally experienced.

"Experience with situation X will naturally give you a better understanding of it, so maybe don't be so quick to judge reaction Y" =/= "Experience with X is the only way you can be allowed to judge reaction Y".

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, 1) they don't get to complain that they're being smeared as a liar, 2) 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...)

How the hell does 2 follow from 1? If the (only) problem was that they're being falsely labeled as gay, then that implies they get to complain about being smeared as a liar does it not?

I really have no idea what you're trying to say with this. As a society we've largely agreed that it's wrong to be a homophobe, and having suspicions about people's hate being the result of hidden personal/psychological factors isn't "the real homophobia", because internalized homophobia is a real thing. Saying "I bet that hateful man is secretly gay" isn't homophobia or mocking of it in any way whatsoever, it's basically a recognition that hatred (of LGBT people) is irrational and often the result of a skrewed up mind. If someone really hates the gays with a passion we can only guess at why they might do so. Any guess necessarily risks being false, so of course people can choose to take issue with it. That doesn't mean it's not a possible explanation. As for my example, Ted Haggard really wouldn't have any grounds to call me a liar.

As an explanation for people's views, of course it's lazy and simplified, but it's like asking a racist "who hurt you?". Does that imply all racists have been personally hurt by someone of another race? No, but we wouldn't be surprised if that were the case for the individual we just so happened to ask. Similarly, upon seeing a homophobe spewing their vile hatred, we maybe poke the beehive just a little by wondering if they're trying to make up for a guilty conscience.

Attributing all homophobia to homosexuals with a guilty conscience is obviously not a good explanation; it's just mockery of people who hate - the kind of mockery where you imply they are the very thing they hate so darn much.

[Neanderthaland]

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

Yeah, that's where the term came from. Leftist ideals are still older.

This is only true if you define "leftist ideals" so vaguely that most right-wing groups qualify.

[Cordel One]

Yeah, that's where the term came from. Leftist ideals are still older.

This is only true if you define "leftist ideals" so vaguely that most right-wing groups qualify.

Not really. People have been fighting for equality long before the French.

[Neanderthaland]

This is only true if you define "leftist ideals" so vaguely that most right-wing groups qualify.

Not really. People have been fighting for equality long before the French.

What an honor for leftists that all fights for equality throughout history are now leftist.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Not really. People have been fighting for equality long before the French.

What an honor for leftists that all fights for equality throughout history are now leftist.

Leftists want change. Nobody is entirely satisfied with the situation of their country. Therefore everyone is a leftist.

Let's storm the batsteel! Free those whose only "crime" was trying to liberate some capital with a flintlock pistol!

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

How is it "the clearest explanation"? The only thing he says in the first 30 seconds of the clip is literally just asking how come pro-lifers are people you wouldn't want to fuck anyway.

It's not obvious how implicit claims about cause and effect were made?

The statement I referred to at 6:55 clearly implies lack of empathy and understanding for mothers, but not just all mothers either, especially poor mothers who have to, by his words, raise kids while working minimum wage.

But that doesn't cause opposition to legal abortion or those who know for a fact that it is physically impossible for them become "mothers" would universally oppose abortion. Obviously something else happened. It's not clear what that "something" is. Envy is plausible, though seems unlikely given instances like the Bristol Palin case. Commitment to birthrates over human well being is plausible. Genuine belief that it constitutes murder is also plausible, in which case lack of empathy for the circumstances that led them down that path are no more conclusive proof of intent on the activist's part than any lack of empathy for circumstances that led any other criminal down their path.

Now it's possible for us to become fathers, whether we would've wanted her to keep the baby or not. The law makes no distinction between "she intended to keep the baby and told him as much before sex" and "she pretended she wouldn't but did anyway and went after him for child support." Is the idea of making a distinction between the two within the law immune from the criticism of those who will never become fathers, only mothers, because they could abort if they wanted to?

Christ, saying maybe people should experience something for themselves before criticizing how others respond to it is not tantamount to this twisted version of things where you can only judge a situation you've personally experienced.

But this is not something they can experience for themselves.

Also, no one ever really believed in this "experience it before you judge it" crap in the first place. Urban dwellers mock small towns' concerns without living in them, small towns mock cities' concerns without living in them, and most of the people dismissing concerns about the state of modern China haven't actually ever set foot there. (Or ever listen to the people who have.)

"Experience with situation X will naturally give you a better understanding of it, so maybe don't be so quick to judge reaction Y" =/= "Experience with X is the only way you can be allowed to judge reaction Y".

Experience can be an unrepresentative sample of the big picture. Perhaps it's for the best we don't rely on it.

I dismissed myself as an unrepresentative sample when I avoided flirting from cute girls while obsessed enough with some other girl, or took off my shirt to beat the heat in warm weather, so it's not like experience was ever my guide. If experience were my guide, would this not paradoxically require me to assume no one else took experience as their guide?

I really have no idea what you're trying to say with this. As a society we've largely agreed that it's wrong to be a homophobe

Hypocritically so. It wouldn't have occurred to anyone to use faggot as an insult; against people gay OR straight; if it weren't human nature to, if only slightly, to look down on homosexuality itself regardless of the otherwise admired non-sexuality aspects of individual homosexuals' lives. (Freddie Mercury, Elton John, etc...)

Nowadays people are using it as a compliment, sure, but it's too late to bury the evidence of human nature's real opinions.

Saying "I bet that hateful man is secretly gay" isn't homophobia or mocking of it in any way whatsoever, it's basically a recognition that hatred (of LGBT people) is irrational and often the result of a skrewed up mind.

They could hate asexuals or demisexuals or... any other arbitrary group if they had a "screwed up mind." (If anything they admire demisexuals, whenever they believe they are sincere.) Something had to have happened to make LGBTQ people stand out, be it primal or political; my guess is that it's both, at least in the worst cases of gratuitous homophobia.

If someone really hates the gays with a passion we can only guess at why they might do so. Any guess necessarily risks being false, so of course people can choose to take issue with it.

"Necessarily risks being false" means it probably shouldn't be presented with the tone of certainty with which such remarks are often presented.

As an explanation for people's views, of course it's lazy and simplified, but it's like asking a racist "who hurt you?". Does that imply all racists have been personally hurt by someone of another race?

Again, there are plenty of evolutionary explanations of racism that do not require individual interactions with other races. If anything, I would sympathize MORE with a racist who was hurt by someone of another race, not less, as the former actually has a reason, however flawed, for their worldview, while the latter was too lazy to ask themselves if their instincts meant for their ancestors are as applicable to modern day.

Similarly, upon seeing a homophobe spewing their vile hatred, we maybe poke the beehive just a little by wondering if they're trying to make up for a guilty conscience.

Or rather just pander to customers/voters among the general public who have homophobic views of their own. There are a lot of them.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Not really. People have been fighting for equality long before the French.

What an honor for leftists that all fights for equality throughout history are now leftist.

There is no such thing as "equality." People have different circumstances in life AND different behaviours in life, and each affects the other. With no objective answer to what circumstances justify which behaviours or vice versa, there is no objective answer to what of one person's circumstances/behaviours count as "equivalent" to another's.

If "leftism" hinges on "equality" rather than the rejection of tradition, it truly is undefinable.

[Upper Nan]

Everything said in the OP is basically the reason why I stopped associating myself with any ideological current. They all do stupid and say shit and I was tired of being lumped in with them in areas where I didn't agree with them. (Just for the record, I've spent time on both sides of the political spectrum, though I was definitely "left" for longer.)

Every time I said something that went against the grain on whatever side I thought I was nominally on, they accused me of not being a "real leftist/conservative" and whenever I argued with someone on the other side, they'd make assumptions about my beliefs based on what others believed. It was so ridiculously infuriating to deal with that I just abandoned it altogether and decided to just be me. Not left, not right, not anything. My beliefs are mine and mine alone.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

What an honor for leftists that all fights for equality throughout history are now leftist.

There is no such thing as "equality." People have different circumstances in life AND different behaviours in life, and each affects the other. With no objective answer to what circumstances justify which behaviours or vice versa, there is no objective answer to what of one person's circumstances/behaviours count as "equivalent" to another's.

If "leftism" hinges on "equality" rather than the rejection of tradition, it truly is undefinable.

Leftism does not hinge on "equality" in the ridiculous parody of the concept you laid out. It's more like "equal opportunity" and "equal treatment" and only a communist would expect equal outcomes.

Leftism also isn't all about rejecting tradition. Some traditions are good, or inoffensive, or at least low priorities to be changed.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

There is no such thing as "equality." People have different circumstances in life AND different behaviours in life, and each affects the other. With no objective answer to what circumstances justify which behaviours or vice versa, there is no objective answer to what of one person's circumstances/behaviours count as "equivalent" to another's.

If "leftism" hinges on "equality" rather than the rejection of tradition, it truly is undefinable.

Leftism does not hinge on "equality" in the ridiculous parody of the concept you laid out. It's more like "equal opportunity" and "equal treatment" and only a communist would expect equal outcomes.

Leftism also isn't all about rejecting tradition. Some traditions are good, or inoffensive, or at least low priorities to be changed.

So who gets to say what constitutes "equal treatment?"

Some traditions are good, but different "leftists" will disagree on which ones are or aren't. If leftism is at all definable, it's definable by a spectrum of how much one prioritizes tradition for tradition's sake, putting people who accept tradition A and reject tradition B on the same position as someone who accepts tradition B while rejecting tradition A.

[Upper Nan]

Leftism does not hinge on "equality" in the ridiculous parody of the concept you laid out. It's more like "equal opportunity" and "equal treatment" and only a communist would expect equal outcomes.

Leftism also isn't all about rejecting tradition. Some traditions are good, or inoffensive, or at least low priorities to be changed.

So who gets to say what constitutes "equal treatment?"

Some traditions are good, but different "leftists" will disagree on which ones are or aren't. If leftism is at all definable, it's definable by a spectrum of how much one prioritizes tradition for tradition's sake, putting people who accept tradition A and reject tradition B on the same position as someone who accepts tradition B while rejecting tradition A.

The issue is you both simply seem to have different definitions of "equality." Not uncommon, but neither of you are going to make any headway with the other if you can't agree on the meaning of the word you're arguing over. Just throwing that out there.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So who gets to say what constitutes "equal treatment?"

Some traditions are good, but different "leftists" will disagree on which ones are or aren't. If leftism is at all definable, it's definable by a spectrum of how much one prioritizes tradition for tradition's sake, putting people who accept tradition A and reject tradition B on the same position as someone who accepts tradition B while rejecting tradition A.

The issue is you both simply seem to have different definitions of "equality." Not uncommon, but neither of you are going to make any headway with the other if you can't agree on the meaning of the word you're arguing over. Just throwing that out there.

Well, without an objective definition of "equality," we don't have an objective definition of "leftism" either.

[Upper Nan]

The issue is you both simply seem to have different definitions of "equality." Not uncommon, but neither of you are going to make any headway with the other if you can't agree on the meaning of the word you're arguing over. Just throwing that out there.

Well, without an objective definition of "equality," we don't have an objective definition of "leftism" either.

Well I guess you're screwed then, because there's no such thing as an "objective definition." They're more like a consensus. When in doubt, you could always just default to the dictionary definition--that's about the closest there is to an "objective definition" of a word. But then you'll have to choose which dictionary (though there's generally little variation outside of colloquialisms). I'm an American, so I use Merriam-Webster, but that's just me. That said, their definition of "equality" is pretty lacking.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Well, without an objective definition of "equality," we don't have an objective definition of "leftism" either.

Well I guess you're screwed then, because there's no such thing as an "objective definition." They're more like a consensus. When in doubt, you could always just default to the dictionary definition--that's about the closest there is to an "objective definition" of a word. But then you'll have to choose which dictionary (though there's generally little variation outside of colloquialisms). I'm an American, so I use Merriam-Webster, but that's just me. That said, their definition of "equality" is pretty lacking.

Where definitions are disputed, I revert to the original definition, even if it's the less popular one, as that means it's everyone else who's using the word wrong.

And in this case leftism, being derived from ye olden France, where you stand on tradition is the only holdover applicable to us.

[Nevertopia]

i feel like this entire thread is bait and op is a master.

[Galloism]

Well I guess you're screwed then, because there's no such thing as an "objective definition." They're more like a consensus. When in doubt, you could always just default to the dictionary definition--that's about the closest there is to an "objective definition" of a word. But then you'll have to choose which dictionary (though there's generally little variation outside of colloquialisms). I'm an American, so I use Merriam-Webster, but that's just me. That said, their definition of "equality" is pretty lacking.

Where definitions are disputed, I revert to the original definition, even if it's the less popular one, as that means it's everyone else who's using the word wrong.

And in this case leftism, being derived from ye olden France, where you stand on tradition is the only holdover applicable to us.

I would suggest you not make references to bundles of sticks in public.

[The Free Joy State]

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

^ Basically this. Every ideology has people who bring the ideology into disrepute. There's no problem in clarifying that they are a minority who do not represent you.

And, since being liberal is not a crime (well, with the possible exception of nations like North Korea), "tampering with evidence" comes completely out of left-field.

[Galloism]

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

^ Basically this.

And, since being liberal is not a crime (well, with the possible exception of nations like North Korea), "tampering with evidence" comes completely out of left-field.

Yeah, I have no idea what it even means in context.

[Farnhamia]

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

I'd be wary of characterizing large groups of people as "simple." It'll get you *** warned for trolling. ***

[Heloin]

^ Basically this.

And, since being liberal is not a crime (well, with the possible exception of nations like North Korea), "tampering with evidence" comes completely out of left-field.

Yeah, I have no idea what it even means in context.

I just assumed LUNA has a very interesting Word of the Day calendar and it actually means nothing in context.

[Galloism]

Yeah, I have no idea what it even means in context.

I just assumed LUNA has a very interesting Word of the Day calendar and it actually means nothing in context.

If that’s what it is, I’ll buy one.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I just assumed LUNA has a very interesting Word of the Day calendar and it actually means nothing in context.

If that’s what it is, I’ll buy one.

I'm making an analogy. Obviously "being liberal" isn't a crime; nor is having questionable justifications for otherwise reasonable stances on policy.

But if two "distinct" opinions correlate strongly, why stack the deck against any evidence that they do?

That's where the analogy comes into play. The subjectline didn't exactly have room for "analogous to tampering with evidence."

. . .

EDIT: Would "on the Stop Giving Us A Bad Name mantra" be a better subjectline?

[Galloism]

If that’s what it is, I’ll buy one.

I'm making an analogy. Obviously "being liberal" isn't a crime; nor is having questionable justifications for otherwise reasonable stances on policy.

But if two "distinct" opinions correlate strongly, why stack the deck against any evidence that they do?

That's where the analogy comes into play. The subjectline didn't exactly have room for "analogous to tampering with evidence."

. . .

EDIT: Would "on the Stop Giving Us A Bad Name mantra" be a better subjectline?

I’m not sure what your goal is. I think the “get off my side” stance is worth discussing. It’s a thing we’ve all experienced a time or two:



I just don’t think “tampering with evidence” is a good analogy at all.