Who's meaner? The left or right?

[Gorsnak]

@Sam Stone

Oh, is it any more ridiculous than using abortion protestors as an example of violence on the ‘right’? Did you miss the context of what I was saying? I said, “IF you want to compare them like that, then we have to start comparing the fringe groups on the left to the abortion protestors. I don’t think you want to go there.”

And it’s nice that you singled out the two organizations I mentioned that are no longer active (which seems hardly relevant), but how about the ones that are currently active? For example, the Earth Liberation Front, which is a large terrorist organization?

So now my argument is ridiculous, but the original one about abortion terrorists is right on the mark? Or what?

What the hell? Is there a coherant argument here? And did I ever suggest that people saying that the right has a monopoly on meanness are on the mark?

Your initial quote “I really don’t think you want to compare the violence on the left versus the right. On the right you have a handful of people who have attacked abortion clinics. On the left you have the ALF, the Unabomber, various environmental terror groups, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, and oodles and oodles of vandals.” is clearly suggesting that abortion clinic bombers are the only violent group of interest on the right, as compared to numerous examples on the left. This, as I pointed out, is bullshit, though I suppose you might not have meant it in that way.

And I’m simply dumfounded by this - " it’s nice that you singled out the two organizations I mentioned that are no longer active". I mean, yes, the Black Panthers are no longer active. But the KKK is still active. That’s not a point if your favour if you’re trying to demonstrate a lack of meanness on the right. And the other group I singled out was your “oodles of vandals”, which is a terribly vague group, and presumably still “active”, insofar as that’s possible for such a vague collection, and I countered it with gaybashers, who are still sadly very prevalent. I didn’t point out any defunct groups on the right. You pointed out some defunct groups on the left. What, exactly, are you trying to get at? The fact that I didn’t point out neat analogues for envirofascist loonies or the Unabomber? I’m terribly sorry. I frankly don’t see the point of trying to match off groups in a neat one-to-one correlation, especially when the size and activity levels of the groups in question are in no way similar. The KKK, for example, probably has more murders to its name than your entire list of nasty lefties, and the Unabomber is no more relevant to the discussion than Marc Lepine.

I will repeat my general position on the issue, since you didn’t seem to get it. Trying to compare groups as broad as ‘left’ and ‘right’ in terms of meanness is worse than useless. It suggests that somehow the behaviour of the lunatic fringes is relevant to the question of which moderate position is preferable. The activities of the ELO are no more relevant to the merits of environmental issues than the activities of abortion clinic bombers are to the merits of legal protections for fetuses.

I have no idea whether the sum total of crimes committed in history by those on the “left” is greater or lesser than those on the “right”, nor do I care. I strongly suspect that a great many of those crimes were committed by people who largely defy such classification in the first place. If you had responded to misguided souls who think that abortion clinic bombers are indicative of higher relative nastiness on the right with comments to this effect, I should have no argument with you. But you seem determined to make the same error in reverse, and you are incorrect to do so.

[F.U.Shakespeare]

As others here have said, this debate is VERY unlikely to result in a consensus: people biased in either direction will be less POed at nasty things said by those on their side. And will wonder what the fuss is when people on the other side get all sensitive.

That said…

Modern conservatives are certainly more likely to self-identify with images of combat, battle, ‘kicking ass’, etc. than their liberal counterparts. (This is just my opinion, but I don’t think it’s especially controversial).

This attitude may also have been bolstered by the optimistic ‘success mantra’ preached by the Republicans starting with Ronald Reagan in reaction to Goldwater’s principled defeat.

While it’s certainly possible to win a bar fight under Marquis of Queensbury rules, it’s not easy.

And politics is as ruleless as any bar fight.

Here’s a thought exercise: ask the following question of two groups (one liberal, one conservative):

Which do you consider more undesireable – a) for people think of you as weak/cowardly, or b) for people to think of you as mean/uncivilized?

I would wager that more conservatives would answer a) than liberals.

I’m not saying that exceptions don’t exist: there weren’t many people more civilized than Ronald Reagan, or more obnoxiously combative than James Carville or Al Sharpton.

But the fact that these personalities are so well-known supports what I’m saying: they ain’t the norm.

Does this prove that the right is meaner than the left? No.

(If you’re POed at me now, go back and read the previous paragraph before responding).

But it does maybe indicate that the right shouldn’t bristle at the assertion, any more than the left does at being called weak.

[Unregistered_Bull]

In their current forms, Democrats and Republicans, they both treat me (what I believe in) like shit. They are both busybodies that put the State’s nose in business that should be none of it’s concern.

[2sense]

@F. U. Shakespeare

Here’s a thought exercise: ask the following question of two groups (one liberal, one conservative):

Which do you consider more undesireable – a) for people think of you as weak/cowardly, or b) for people to think of you as mean/uncivilized?

I would wager that more conservatives would answer a) than liberals.

An interesting question. I have started an IMHO poll:

Political Poll: Rather Be Considered Weak or Mean?

[BrainGlutton]

@Machetero

In their current forms, Democrats and Republicans, they both treat me (what I believe in) like shit. They are both busybodies that put the State’s nose in business that should be none of it’s concern.

Maybe so, Machetero but if by that you mean that you are a Libertarian, well, it’s been my experience that Libertarians can be plenty mean in their own ways. There have been few meaner, more heartless intellectuals than Ayn Rand.

[Paladud]

@BrainGlutton

Maybe so, Machetero but if by that you mean that you are a Libertarian, well, it’s been my experience that Libertarians can be plenty mean in their own ways. There have been few meaner, more heartless intellectuals than Ayn Rand.

Heartless? Absolutely. Mean? When her ideology stems from the concept that the use of coercive force is never right? You might want to rethink that one.

[Zagadka]

@Paladud

Heartless? Absolutely. Mean? When her ideology stems from the concept that the use of coercive force is never right? You might want to rethink that one.

“Mean” doesn’t require doing anything at all, neither does it require “use of coercive force” - it can be standing by doing nothing, or it can be any number of ways of force.

[Paladud]

@Zagadka

“Mean” doesn’t require doing anything at all, neither does it require “use of coercive force” - it can be standing by doing nothing

“Heartless” encompasses that

4or it can be any number of ways of force.

Oh, and could you please tell me of those other ways of force?

[sqweels]

Sam Stone:

When’s the last time you heard of a Libertarian terrorist?

:eek: Timothy Mc-fucking-Veigh!!

[Guinastasia]

@Paladud

“Heartless” encompasses that

Oh, and could you please tell me of those other ways of force?

Manipulation, for one. Passive-aggression.

Or by doing nothing, the other people were caught between a rock and a hard place.

It might not be “force” to pay workers shitty wages in horrible working conditions-they’re free to go elsewhere, but if every place is just like this one, they have no choice-they are essentially forced to work there, or starve to death.

Ayn Rand’s evil was less of force and coercion and more of worshipping money over people.

[Sam_Stone]

Timothy McVeigh was a Libertarian? You have a cite for that, I assume?

[Sam_Stone]

It might not be “force” to pay workers shitty wages in horrible working conditions-they’re free to go elsewhere, but if every place is just like this one, they have no choice-they are essentially forced to work there, or starve to death.

And on the other hand, if the employer can’t find an employee, he’s pretty much forced to increase wages, correct? Why do you leave out the other side of this negotiation?

The fact that both employers and employees have power in this transaction would be why the vast majority of people in the U.S. make more than the legal minimum wage.

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam Stone

Timothy McVeigh was a Libertarian? You have a cite for that, I assume?

http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/mcveigh.html

April 17, 2001 - In a letter to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Timothy McVeigh said the although he sympathises with their cause, he will not request that his last meal be vegetarian.

“Truth is, I understand your cause - I’ve seen slaughter houses myself - but I still believe in reasonable taking and eating of game (as an outdoorsman and hunter),” he wrote. “My one main problem with the ‘veg’ movement is this (besides the fact I’m a libertarian): Where do you draw the line and what standard is used to define that line?”

[jayjay]

Wait…you’re saying that PETA wrote the single most reviled American-born person of our lifetime and asked him to ENDORSE THEM by asking for a vegetarian last meal!!!

In a move which completely surprises me, they prove themselves even more totally politically tone-deaf than I thought it was possible for them to be…

[sqweels]

Thankx, Fear Itself. McVeigh was one of those government-hating, gun-show-haunting extremists for whom The Turner Diaries was a bible. That fits in the broad catagory of libertarian even without the direct quote. I read somwhere that he was strongly influenced by Terry Gilliam’s movie Brazil, about a thoroughly invasive yet incompetant bureaucracy.

Anyway, the McVeigh remark was a hijack. This thread should focus on the mainstream. I’ll toss out an observation: When liberals oppose the government, their patriotism is questioned (to say the least). When conservatives oppose the government, they’re being patriotic.

[GLWasteful]

@sqweels

I’ll toss out an observation: When liberals oppose the government, their patriotism is questioned (to say the least). When conservatives oppose the government, they’re being patriotic.

True enough. But your observation comes from a conservative point of view. As far as opposition to the government, I think that either side is painted as extremist when they do. Of course, hewing closely to a party line can also get you viewed with suspicion.

Seems to be lose-lose all the way.

[Skott]

@New Iskander

1998, Fayetteville, AR, self-serve carwash station, heavy-duty snazzy-looking pick-up truck with loads of fancy trimmings, huge shining yellow plastic dome on top of the cabin with large words, “Your President? Not Mine!” The whole thing looked like it would be illuminated after dark. No, no gun-rack on the outside.

Well, that pretty much evens it out then and I guess I have my answer.

The only thing that makes me think otherwise is UncleBeer’s comment about the unparalleled joy some people felt at Regan’s death. And even for those who were kind enough to keep their thoughts to themselves during a time of morning, it doesn’t change whether or not they would be considered mean, especially if their heart leaped for joy upon hearing the news.

(As an antithesis, though, I wonder how many on the right will say good things about Clinton when his time comes, as compared to those who on the left who were willing to say kind things about Regan. And how many would want to piss on his grave.)

I guess that both sides have called the other “evil” in various ways, but I usually hear more about the left doing it than the right (it’s only in this thread that I’ve seen to what extent the right has gone to), so what does that imply?

[rjung]

@Skott

I guess that both sides have called the other “evil” in various ways, but I usually hear more about the left doing it than the right (it’s only in this thread that I’ve seen to what extent the right has gone to), so what does that imply?

The Right has better-trained liars.

[Stoid]

I can’t believe anyone thinks this question even needs asking.

[RickJay]

@Stoid

I can’t believe anyone thinks this question even needs asking.

I can’t believe that more people don’t see this thread for being the pointless partisan nonsense it is.