Why I Left the Left

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even had a show with The Young Turks! But now he's not a progressive. He has left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&t=7s

It's all definitional.  Even if it were true, it's just single issues and not worth the change in affiliation.

Americans have not changed their views on freedom of speech/religion.  It's in the First Amendment.  More accurately, it's the Europeans that have this view that free speech should be censored if it involves hate.  Europeans had that nasty bad encounter with Nazism, so you have to sympathize.  But America didn't have that close-call, and they would rather battle free speech and religion out in argument, rather than call in censorship.

The administrators (of universities) that are cancelling appearances of controversial speakers are doing so because they want to avoid property damage.  They have no feelings on freedoms.  And those who do the damage are not progressives, but of the same ilk as the Trump Rednecks.  Note the Jewish cemeteries that are being desecrated by Trumpsters...all of the same coven.

It's a strange world.  But the standard dichotomies of politics are no longer applicable--you might have noticed it's not a real Republican in the White House.  Any attempt to tie any cause to the old-line Republicans and Democrats is bogus.  I feel sorry for the misguided Mr. Ruben, but I have another shock for him...the real president is a Mr. Steven Bannon.

Original Quill wrote:It's all definitional.  Even if it were true, it's just single issues and not worth the change in affiliation.

Americans have not changed their views on freedom of speech/religion.  It's in the First Amendment.  More accurately, it's the Europeans that have this view that free speech should be censored if it involves hate.  Europeans had that nasty bad encounter with Nazism, so you have to sympathize.  But America didn't have that close-call, and they would rather battle free speech and religion out in argument, rather than call in censorship.

The administrators (of universities) that are cancelling appearances of controversial speakers are doing so because they want to avoid property damage.  They have no feelings on freedoms.  And those who do the damage are not progressives, but of the same ilk as the Trump Rednecks.  Note the Jewish cemeteries that are being desecrated by Trumpsters...all of the same coven.

It's a strange world.  But the standard dichotomies of politics are no longer applicable--you might have noticed it's not a real Republican in the White House.  Any attempt to tie any cause to the old-line Republicans and Democrats is bogus.  I feel sorry for the misguided Mr. Ruben, but I have another shock for him...the real president is a Mr. Steven Bannon.

Property damage?
That will have to go down Quill as one of the worst excuses to back authoritarianism
That fear controls, the very thing that the left is supposed to fight against.
Ruben was actually right on many of the issues he said, not all but most.

The one thing I disagree on is where people can refuse to serve someone. As this has happened with segregation in the US. Hence on that issue I disagree. Nobody should have the right to refuse someone based solely on who they are or their beliefs. That is discrimination. Where he went wrong in his speech and tried to push the problem onto those being discriminated. Is that they should go somewhere else. Well in some parts of the world, they have nowhere to go anywhere else. What he should of said, is that anyone else in that bakery for example should make the cake for the homosexual couple. Not that they should be able to refuse them because of their sexuality.

As I say it opens the door to group discrimination, not on character as Ruben contradicts with, but as a collectively minority. Like I said the emphasis should be placed on those who wish to refuse, not on those victims of this discrimination. To find alternative means to help that customer. For example, some of his employees.

He is 100% right on those who are the regressive left, who are certainly not Liberal. What I also disagree with him on is that now makes him conservative. No it means he is conservative with now some Liberal values.

No University should cancel anyone based on a climate of fear
Its pandering to fear Quill.

I agree that a real threat is Steve Bannon, but he like anyone else. Has a right to free speech. You dispell and demolish his poor hate-filled arguments. Not provide him with an unjustified victim card get out clause. Over the hate he states. As you offer them excuses by banning them, to claim that the left is now in thinking, as much authoritarian, as the Far Right. Those regressive.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's all definitional.  Even if it were true, it's just single issues and not worth the change in affiliation.

Americans have not changed their views on freedom of speech/religion.  It's in the First Amendment.  More accurately, it's the Europeans that have this view that free speech should be censored if it involves hate.  Europeans had that nasty bad encounter with Nazism, so you have to sympathize.  But America didn't have that close-call, and they would rather battle free speech and religion out in argument, rather than call in censorship.

The administrators (of universities) that are cancelling appearances of controversial speakers are doing so because they want to avoid property damage.  They have no feelings on freedoms.  And those who do the damage are not progressives, but of the same ilk as the Trump Rednecks.  Note the Jewish cemeteries that are being desecrated by Trumpsters...all of the same coven.

It's a strange world.  But the standard dichotomies of politics are no longer applicable--you might have noticed it's not a real Republican in the White House.  Any attempt to tie any cause to the old-line Republicans and Democrats is bogus.  I feel sorry for the misguided Mr. Ruben, but I have another shock for him...the real president is a Mr. Steven Bannon.

Property damage?
That will have to go down Quill as one of the worst excuses to back authoritarianism
That fear controls, the very thing that the left is supposed to fight against.
Ruben was actually right on many of the issues he said, not all but most.

The one thing I disagree on is where people can refuse to serve someone. As this has happened with segregation in the US. Hence on that issue I disagree. Nobody should have the right to refuse someone based solely on who they are or their beliefs. That is discrimination. Where he went wrong in his speech and tried to push the problem onto those being discriminated. Is that they should go somewhere else. Well in some parts of the world, they have nowhere to go anywhere else. What he should of said, is that anyone else in that bakery for example should make the cake for the homosexual couple. Not that they should be able to refuse them because of their sexuality.

As I say it opens the door to group discrimination, not on character as Ruben contradicts with, but as a collectively minority. Like I said the emphasis should be placed on those who wish to refuse, not on those victims of this discrimination. To find alternative means to help that customer. For example, some of his employees.

He is 100% right on those who are the regressive left, who are certainly not Liberal. What I also disagree with him on is that now makes him conservative. No it means he is conservative with now some Liberal values.

No University should cancel anyone based on a climate of fear
Its pandering to fear Quill.

I agree that a real threat is Steve Bannon, but he like anyone else. Has a right to free speech. You dispell and demolish his poor hate-filled arguments. Not provide him with an unjustified victim card get out clause. Over the hate he states. As you offer them excuses by banning them, to claim that the left is now in thinking, as much authoritarian, as the Far Right. Those regressive.

Yep, property damage.  I've been on such university committees.  While professors in the classroom speak of freedom of speech and religion, those committees are much more concerned about how to replace the cast iron statute of Willie the Silent, out on the Quad.  Insurance won't pay for intentional damage, and artwork wont fit into the renovation budget.

As I say, the old dichotomies don't work anymore.  The kids know...they know how to program your TV remote when you don't, and they know very well that a third stripe has entered into politics today...one that you don't know about.  Brexit isn't Tory and it sure isn't Labour.  Trump isn't Democrat and he sure ain't Republican.

Until we study, learn and know about such political dynamics, the Russian mafia--a much more practical player--will work its magic in the politics of western Europe and in the USA.  If they can invent a credit card reader, they can surely get into your voting machines. All they have to do is stage the players, as they did Trump.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Property damage?
That will have to go down Quill as one of the worst excuses to back authoritarianism
That fear controls, the very thing that the left is supposed to fight against.
Ruben was actually right on many of the issues he said, not all but most.

The one thing I disagree on is where people can refuse to serve someone. As this has happened with segregation in the US. Hence on that issue I disagree. Nobody should have the right to refuse someone based solely on who they are or their beliefs. That is discrimination. Where he went wrong in his speech and tried to push the problem onto those being discriminated. Is that they should go somewhere else. Well in some parts of the world, they have nowhere to go anywhere else. What he should of said, is that anyone else in that bakery for example should make the cake for the homosexual couple. Not that they should be able to refuse them because of their sexuality.

As I say it opens the door to group discrimination, not on character as Ruben contradicts with, but as a collectively minority. Like I said the emphasis should be placed on those who wish to refuse, not on those victims of this discrimination. To find alternative means to help that customer. For example, some of his employees.

He is 100% right on those who are the regressive left, who are certainly not Liberal. What I also disagree with him on is that now makes him conservative. No it means he is conservative with now some Liberal values.

No University should cancel anyone based on a climate of fear
Its pandering to fear Quill.

I agree that a real threat is Steve Bannon, but he like anyone else. Has a right to free speech. You dispell and demolish his poor hate-filled arguments. Not provide him with an unjustified victim card get out clause. Over the hate he states. As you offer them excuses by banning them, to claim that the left is now in thinking, as much authoritarian, as the Far Right. Those regressive.

Yep, property damage.  I've been on such university committees.  While professors in the classroom speak of freedom of speech and religion, those committees are much more concerned about how to replace the cast iron statute of Willie the Silent, out on the Quad.  Insurance won't pay for intentional damage, and artwork wont fit into the renovation budget.

As I say, the old dichotomies don't work anymore.  The kids know...they know how to program your TV remote when you don't, and they know very well that a third stripe has entered into politics today...one that you don't know about.  Brexit isn't Tory and it sure isn't Labour.  Trump isn't Democrat and he sure ain't Republican.

Until we study, learn and know about such political dynamics, Russian mafia--a much more practical player--will work its magic in western Europe and in the USA.

So you are denying free speech, based on not the speech, but on bowing down to those who commit violence. Who's intent is to deny this Free Speech? That is what you are saying. That a university, should bow down to thugs and stop someone from speaking if they disagree with their views.

How on earth is that even Liberalism what you profess?
You stand up and counter those chosen to speak, when they speak. 

By banning or cancelling, you are surrendering to the very hate and fear, you then claim to be against.

Potential cost should never be an object when standing up for Free Speech and Liberal values Quill.
As it provides people with a better way of life. If others thought as you did, that the fear will bring violence. Then what hope does free thinking secular Muslims have in the Muslim majority world. When you back fear of violence as a reason to deny them their right to speak?

You are using that fear, as an excuse to censure.
Both you and Ruben contradict.

Again his mistake was this

Ruben states people should be judged on their character. Then claims that business can deny people based on their beliefs. That is discrimination. If that individual wishes to refuse serving someone as it may conflict with their beliefs. Then they have their right to do so, but if it may then rightly cause them conflict with their terms of employment. Then they face the consequences for falling foul of equality laws. If an owner does not want to cater to an order themselves, they can. Unless it conflicts with equality, but they should provide someone else who can.

Then he wrongly places the emphasis on these victims of discrimination, to find an alternative to fulfill their order. Those refusing to do this, should still take the order. Then have someone else take ownership for that order. Which even means another employee fulfilling that order or out sourcing. If someone was refused because of their race. Nobody would except that, so why if gay or for their sex for example?

Hence it is never right to discriminate people collectively and on an issue. Ruben is wrong. Its the ownership of those with conflicting beliefs, to place their beliefs on hold, to find a solution to this. Where they can then either outsource another company  and or find someone within the company not at odds, to carry out that order. As soon as you stand behind your business, it ceases to be accountable to the individual, but the company as a whole. Hence no business has the right to discriminate, based on the beliefs of the owner. Freedom of beliefs, does not give free reign to discriminate.

Everyone has the right to refuse serving someone if they are rude, abusive etc, but they should never have the right to not serve you based on who you are. No matter your views, as you can find someone else to serve them.

They weren't refused service... it was their specific request that the cake people weren't happy about providing... many other cakes were available to them and the staff were more than happy to serve these cakes to them...

Tommy Monk wrote:They weren't refused service... it was their specific request that the cake people weren't happy about providing... many other cakes were available to them and the staff were more than happy to serve these cakes to them...

Again poor mentality.
The Customer, is by definition, always right.
To refuse based off a prejudice, without finding alternative means to fulfill that order, is discrimination.
Again no person here would justify or back Africans being refused a wedding cake, because they were African.
No company can discriminate or should discriminate, even if it conflicts only with that individual's beliefs. Then they have to provide someone else to then fulfill that order. Being an owner, does not excuse someone from following the application of human rights. It allows them to still not make or even sell that cake themselves, but delegate this to someone who can.

They were not refused service... the cake people were happy to serve them any of the full range of cakes that they normally provide to any of their other customers...

Tommy Monk wrote:They were not refused service... the cake people were happy to serve them any of the full range of cakes that they normally provide to any of their other customers...

They were refused service for the type of cake they wanted made.
Cakes are made there.
They refused to make this cake, based on prejudice.
As a business, that is discrimination.
What you are saying is that the customer should settle for clothes that simple do not fit them.
The owner, no matter if they disagree on who that person is. Cannot discriminate.
That owner had no reason to not take their order and have someone not with their views make that cake. Whether that be another employee or outsourcing another company.
So thy were most definitely refused a service

The customer is not always right.

Just saying ...

Raggamuffin wrote:The customer is not always right.

Just saying ...

When paying, they are for that business Rags.
How can a customer be wrong on something they want you to make them, Then you refuse them on prejudice?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The customer is not always right.

Just saying ...

When paying, they are for that business Rags.
How can a customer be wrong on something they want you to make them, Then you refuse them on prejudice?

It doesn't matter if they're paying - they're not always right. I'm not talking about discrimination against gay people in particular, I just object to your view that the customer, by definition, is always right. They are not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


When paying, they are for that business Rags.
How can a customer be wrong on something they want you to make them, Then you refuse them on prejudice?

It doesn't matter if they're paying - they're not always right. I'm not talking about discrimination against gay people in particular, I just object to your view that the customer, by definition, is always right. They are not.

When buying, they are always right. To then deny them based off what they believe or who they are. Shows the owner conflicts with Universal Human rights. He tries to champion his or her rights over other groups by discrimination.
Hence the customer, will always be right, even if morally wrong. When it comes to a sale of purchase, based on equal rights.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't matter if they're paying - they're not always right. I'm not talking about discrimination against gay people in particular, I just object to your view that the customer, by definition, is always right. They are not.

When buying, they are always right. To then deny them based off what they believe or who they are. Shows the owner conflicts with Universal Human rights. He tries to champion his or her rights over overs by discrimination.
Hence the customer, will always be right, even if morally wrong. When it comes to denying sale of purchase, based on discrimination.

No, they are not always right. If they're rude, they're not right, and they can be refused service. If they complain about the price and demand to get a discount, they're not right. If they cause trouble in the shop, they're not right, and they can be asked to leave.

These people wanted something that was outside of the boundaries of what the cake company routinely offered to provide, as is their right as a business to decide on what they do/don't provide...


The cake people were happy to serve them any number of cakes that were within the boundaries of what they offered as their regular service...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


When buying, they are always right. To then deny them based off what they believe or who they are. Shows the owner conflicts with Universal Human rights. He tries to champion his or her rights over overs by discrimination.
Hence the customer, will always be right, even if morally wrong. When it comes to denying sale of purchase, based on discrimination.

No, they are not always right. If they're rude, they're not right, and they can be refused service. If they complain about the price and demand to get a discount, they're not right. If they cause trouble in the shop, they're not right, and they can be asked to leave.

Even if they are rude, you will lose money by not serving them Rags
Based on a business strategy to maker money. How could it be right to refuse any customer?
How is asking for a cake to be made to celebrate a homosexual wedding, trouble?
Because it conflicts with the owners belief on gay marriage?
Hence refusing, is in conflict with laws on equality.

Tommy Monk wrote:These people wanted something that was outside of the boundaries of what the cake company routinely offered to provide, as is their right as a business to decide on what they do/don't provide...


The cake people were happy to serve them any number of cakes that were within the boundaries of what they offered as their regular service...

Sorry, but I had to laugh at this piss poor defense.
Was it outside the possibility of making this cake?

Take your time Tommy

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, they are not always right. If they're rude, they're not right, and they can be refused service. If they complain about the price and demand to get a discount, they're not right. If they cause trouble in the shop, they're not right, and they can be asked to leave.

Even if they are rude, you will lose money by not serving them Rags
Based on a business strategy to maker money. How could it be right to refuse any customer?
How is asking for a cake to be made to celebrate a homosexual wedding, trouble?
Because it conflicts with the owners belief on gay marriage?
Hence refusing, is in conflict with laws on equality.

If a shop prefers to lose money rather than pander to a rude customer, that's up to them.

Some shops refuse to sell energy drinks to anyone underage, even though there's no law against it, and they might lose money. Some shops won't serve people who are yacking on their mobile phones at the counter.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Even if they are rude, you will lose money by not serving them Rags
Based on a business strategy to maker money. How could it be right to refuse any customer?
How is asking for a cake to be made to celebrate a homosexual wedding, trouble?
Because it conflicts with the owners belief on gay marriage?
Hence refusing, is in conflict with laws on equality.

If a shop prefers to lose money rather than pander to a rude customer, that's up to them.

Some shops refuse to sell energy drinks to anyone underage, even though there's no law against it, and they might lose money. Some shops won't serve people who are yacking on their mobile phones at the counter.

It is up to them, but would that company make more or less money by doing so?

The answer is less money.

So the customer is by definition, always right.; Based on money.

Sorry are you attempting to equate aspects of sugar drinks being sold to where people are denied being sold goods based on who they are?

Seriously?

So now attention, as well as prejudice, is a law breaker to you, if you do not give your 100% attention when buying?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If a shop prefers to lose money rather than pander to a rude customer, that's up to them.

Some shops refuse to sell energy drinks to anyone underage, even though there's no law against it, and they might lose money. Some shops won't serve people who are yacking on their mobile phones at the counter.

It is up to them, but would that company make more or less money by doing so?

The answer is less money.

So the customer is by definition, always right.; Based on money.

Sorry are you attempting to equate aspects of sugar drinks being sold to where people are denied being sold goods based on who they are?

Seriously?

So now attention is a law breaker to you, if you do not give your 100% attention when buying?

Not everything is about money Didge. I'm not equating anything with anything, I'm merely objecting to your claim that the customer, by definition, is always right.

Being on the phone whilst being served is very rude, and shopkeepers have the right to refuse to serve someone until they finish their call.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It is up to them, but would that company make more or less money by doing so?

The answer is less money.

So the customer is by definition, always right.; Based on money.

Sorry are you attempting to equate aspects of sugar drinks being sold to where people are denied being sold goods based on who they are?

Seriously?

So now attention is a law breaker to you, if you do not give your 100% attention when buying?

Not everything is about money Didge. I'm not equating anything with anything, I'm merely objecting to your claim that the customer, by definition, is always right.

Being on the phone whilst being served is very rude, and shopkeepers have the right to refuse to serve someone until they finish their call.

It is to all non-charitable businesses.
Otherwise they would not survive
Okay lets put your dude customer being wrong to the test.

Customer calls 999, with crushing chest pains and wants an ambulance.
Was he right to want an ambulance?

Second, if someone is rude, what stops you for calling someone else to take their order?
You can still file a complaint or sue, but as an employee,. you cannot discriminate Rags

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not everything is about money Didge. I'm not equating anything with anything, I'm merely objecting to your claim that the customer, by definition, is always right.

Being on the phone whilst being served is very rude, and shopkeepers have the right to refuse to serve someone until they finish their call.

It is to all non-charitable businesses.
Otherwise they would not survive
Okay lets put your dude customer being wrong to the test.

Customer calls 999, with crushing chest pains and wants an ambulance.
Was he right to want an ambulance?

Second, if someone is rude, what stops you for calling someone else to take their order?
You can still file a complaint or sue, but as an employee,. you cannot discriminate Rags

A shop manager can ask someone to leave if they're being rude, and they can refuse service if they want to. What if someone is drunk? A shopkeeper can refuse to serve them. Most people are not rude, so of course shops survive by serving non-rude customers.

I don't see what calling 999 has to do with it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It is to all non-charitable businesses.
Otherwise they would not survive
Okay lets put your dude customer being wrong to the test.

Customer calls 999, with crushing chest pains and wants an ambulance.
Was he right to want an ambulance?

Second, if someone is rude, what stops you for calling someone else to take their order?
You can still file a complaint or sue, but as an employee,. you cannot discriminate Rags

A shop manager can ask someone to leave if they're being rude, and they can refuse service if they want to. What if someone is drunk? A shopkeeper can refuse to serve them. Most people are not rude, so of course shops survive by serving non-rude customers.

I don't see what calling 999 has to do with it.

They can refuse anyone on abuse, but financially, will their actions be right?
All this is to point out, that even here. If the person refused, based on a group association. Cannot suffer discrimination via law. A shopkeeper may refuse to serve someone for mistaking they are drunk.
Were they right to do so Rags? Based off an ignorance?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A shop manager can ask someone to leave if they're being rude, and they can refuse service if they want to. What if someone is drunk? A shopkeeper can refuse to serve them. Most people are not rude, so of course shops survive by serving non-rude customers.

I don't see what calling 999 has to do with it.

They can refuse anyone on abuse, but financially, will their actions be right?
All this is to point out, that even here. If the person refused, based on a group association. Cannot suffer discrimination via law. A shopkeeper may refuse to serve someone for mistaking they are drunk.
Were they right to do so Rags? Based off an ignorance?

If they refuse to serve someone who they think is drunk but isn't drunk? I think they could probably smell the booze.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They can refuse anyone on abuse, but financially, will their actions be right?
All this is to point out, that even here. If the person refused, based on a group association. Cannot suffer discrimination via law. A shopkeeper may refuse to serve someone for mistaking they are drunk.
Were they right to do so Rags? Based off an ignorance?

If they refuse to serve someone who they think is drunk but isn't drunk? I think they could probably smell the booze.

So a person out the night before who smells of booze is classed as over the limit to you based on smell?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they refuse to serve someone who they think is drunk but isn't drunk? I think they could probably smell the booze.

So a person out the night before who smells of booze is classed as over the limit to you based on smell?

No, if they were falling about, being obnoxious, and they stank of booze, I would think they were drunk.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So a person out the night before who smells of booze is classed as over the limit to you based on smell?

No, if they were falling about, being obnoxious, and they stank of booze, I would think they were drunk.

Think?

Not have a medical condition, even if they smelled of booze?

Do you see how your argument on perception is falling apart Rags.??

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, if they were falling about, being obnoxious, and they stank of booze, I would think they were drunk.

Think?

Not have a medical condition, even if they smelled of booze?

Do you see how your argument on perception is falling apart Rags.??

No - I would think they were drunk. What kind of medical condition makes someone obnoxious?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Think?

Not have a medical condition, even if they smelled of booze?

Do you see how your argument on perception is falling apart Rags.??

No - I would think they were drunk. What kind of medical condition makes someone obnoxious?

Dementia

Like I said.

You are playing a very poor game with customers.

Night Rags

x

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No - I would think they were drunk. What kind of medical condition makes someone obnoxious?

Dementia

Like I said.

You are playing a very poor game with customers.

Well then they probably shouldn't be drinking.

Goodnight!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Dementia

Like I said.

You are playing a very poor game with customers.

Well then they probably shouldn't be drinking.

Goodnight!

You have just judged their actions on drinking, based on only smell and not medical records.
Anyone should not smoke, but saying they should not smoke or drink, because they will be then labelled an alcoholic and not have dementia, based on your smell view Rags? Is wrong.

Catch you tomorrow

One last thing, before I go.
You seem to me to be claiming to qualified to diagnose illnesses Rags,. based off them drinking alcohol and not their condition.

Odd that. Seems you failed the first principle of science.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then they probably shouldn't be drinking.

Goodnight!

You have just judged their actions on drinking, based on only smell and not medical records.
Anyone should not smoke, but saying they should not smoke or drink, because they will be then labelled an alcoholic and not have dementia, based on your smell view Rags? Is wrong.

Catch you tomorrow

I didn't mention anyone being an alcoholic. One can get drunk, fall about, and be obnoxious without being an alcoholic.

Thorin wrote:

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even had a show with The Young Turks! But now he's not a progressive. He has left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&t=7s

The op video is much like this that I have posted numerous times...





https://youtu.be/nwK7VRkbGiU

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You have just judged their actions on drinking, based on only smell and not medical records.
Anyone should not smoke, but saying they should not smoke or drink, because they will be then labelled an alcoholic and not have dementia, based on your smell view Rags? Is wrong.

Catch you tomorrow

I didn't mention anyone being an alcoholic. One can get drunk, fall about, and be obnoxious without being an alcoholic.

I did because it proves your poor confirmation bias.
Smell alcohol and attribute that their behaviour to alcohol and not their condition
So you agree anyone can be obnoxious, even without drinking?
You are assuming, that the smell of alcohol is making their behaviours obnoxious.

Sorry Rags, that is poor

Have to go

Night

x

I thought this thread was about 'progressives' and their illiberal behaviour...!?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
The customer is not always right.

Just saying ...

When paying, they are for that business Rags.
How can a customer be wrong on something they want you to make them, Then you refuse them on prejudice?

OR,  as lecturers often phrase it in Business Studies classes :

"The customer is always right. Even when they're wrong !"

[quote="Original Quill
Yep, property damage.  I've been on such university committees.  While professors in the classroom speak of freedom of speech and religion, those committees are much more concerned about how to replace the cast iron statute of Willie the Silent, out on the Quad.  Insurance won't pay for intentional damage, and artwork wont fit into the renovation budget.

As I say, the old dichotomies don't work anymore.  The kids know...they know how to program your TV remote when you don't, and they know very well that a third stripe has entered into politics today...one that you don't know about.  Brexit isn't Tory and it sure isn't Labour.  Trump isn't Democrat and he sure ain't Republican.

Until we study, learn and know about such political dynamics, the Russian mafia--a much more practical player--will work its magic in the politics of western Europe and in the USA.  If they can invent a credit card reader, they can surely get into your voting machines.  All they have to do is stage the players, as they did Trump.[/quote]

true but there is 4 stripes now, apart from the hill shepherds (Trump/brexit) there is the new left, it is just not kicking off in the USA very well and is getting drowned out in the UK by the sort of Bull shit in the OP (and often implied with Lord foul etc), the idea that if you Don't agree with some of the more extreme leftist movements you cant be left at all, It doesn't mean you leave the left entirely, unless you never really believed in Human rights and equality to begin with.


the new left, which the Lew left is the economically and technically savvy that see new options emerging and want to move away from the old of either side. It is generally anti unionist driving the wedge between it and the old left. but supports more socially funded infrastructure and services. it's biggest element and core belief is real equality, which is really a tribute to Marin Luther King, the idea that people should be judged on their deeds and the content of their character. Not the fact they were born on a specific piece of dirt or 'fitting the mold'.

the hill shepherd are rising in response to this and the 'old guard' is desperately trying to convince everyone that there is only 2 options and only should be 2 options the idea that Corbyn is indicative of the 'left' is an example of this, Trump has really fucked up the old guard of the USA by taking one of the parties base from under it's feet. which is good, but would have been better if the Bernie had done it

here they represented in parliment, the hill shepherds have 'one nation' and new left have the greens, Both now poll in double digits but get no where near the representation due to in built mechanisms that give advantage to the major parties (both now poll around mid 30% on their primary vote)
The Greens are having issues expanding due to some of the unrealistic far left, but they are still more cohesive than the Liberal National coalition that is tearing itself apart over bleeding votes to One nation, (much like Brexiters, it is just racist nationalism cowardice trying to pretend to be something else) But big business can't win an election without the hill shepherd vote (that traditionally it has convinced through fancy ads and lies), but as the hill shepherds get increasingly isolationist (and through that racist) to appeal to the hill shepherds a party ends up alienating the reasonable majority. which doesn't just not bother on election day down here due to mandatory voting.

Also Mandatory voting means we don't have the disaffect youth not showing up to vote either. which probably accounts for the stronger new left movement down here.

I really don't understand this obsessive fixation on what's going on at a handful of university campuses. It hardly affects what's happening in the real world, but it sure-as-fuck does provide the anti-PC brigade with ammunition.

Who knows? Maybe some day they'll achieve their glorious dream of a world where it's acceptable to call Barack Obama a n---er.

Ben Reilly wrote:I really don't understand this obsessive fixation on what's going on at a handful of university campuses. It hardly affects what's happening in the real world, but it sure-as-fuck does provide the anti-PC brigade with ammunition.

Who knows? Maybe some day they'll achieve their glorious dream of a world where it's acceptable to call Barack Obama a n---er.

A handful?
Again downplaying a problem, why do you continually do this on such issues?
You then poorly reverse this, as if then people like myself want to make racism normalized.
This is what is wrong with the left, the continued denial of problems and placing the race card on any topic, to misdirect from the Issue at hand.
Clearly you have been watching Trump to much

I'm not downplaying anything, I'm putting it into context.

You won't hear a single Democratic political candidate spouting off about Jews or on banning of freedom of speech or any of these other so-called justifications for leaving the only political movement that stands a chance of defeating the likes of Trump.

Universities are petri dishes; people go to them to experiment and further the process of growing up, but they only take out of them what they need.

In order to get ammunition against the left, the right is forced to nutpick college campuses, which should show you how pathetic the entire argument is.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm not downplaying anything, I'm putting it into context.

You won't hear a single Democratic political candidate spouting off about Jews or on banning of freedom of speech or any of these other so-called justifications for leaving the only political movement that stands a chance of defeating the likes of Trump.

Universities are petri dishes; people go to them to experiment and further the process of growing up, but they only take out of them what they need.

In order to get ammunition against the left, the right is forced to nutpick college campuses, which should show you how pathetic the entire argument is.

Really no Democrats

http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/israel-thriving-mike-lumish/democrats-rediscover-anti-semitism/2016/11/22/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/racist-anti-semitic-comments-by-9-democrats-who-went-unpunished/article/2548693

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/17/democrats-must-scrutinize-keith-ellisons-anti-semitic-past-and-ties-to-radical-islam/

Again you are downplaying the problem which is rife in Universities in the UK and the US.

Many do call for people to be banned from speaking and when anyone does speak are often met by thugs or people attempting to shut down the speakers

What I am seeing from the left is the continual denial of this problme

Yeah... it's only a few...

Tommy Monk wrote:Yeah... it's only a few...

Actually, looking at Thorin's links, I would gauge that it's actually two. Two Democrats who *may* need to come to Jesus on the issue of either racism or antisemitism. Did you read the links, or did you just pile on?

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm not downplaying anything, I'm putting it into context.

You won't hear a single Democratic political candidate spouting off about Jews or on banning of freedom of speech or any of these other so-called justifications for leaving the only political movement that stands a chance of defeating the likes of Trump.

Universities are petri dishes; people go to them to experiment and further the process of growing up, but they only take out of them what they need.

In order to get ammunition against the left, the right is forced to nutpick college campuses, which should show you how pathetic the entire argument is.

Here in the uk, especially over the last decade or so, we have seen plenty of examples of lefties/'progressives' doing exactly that which I highlighted above... from people involved in politics as well as from university environments...


You say that 'universities are like petri dishes'... which is an interesting analogy... especially when you consider that petri dishes are the ideal environment for dangerous 'cultures' to grow... and if not dealt with properly, could easily spread to infect the wider population...!

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't mention anyone being an alcoholic. One can get drunk, fall about, and be obnoxious without being an alcoholic.

I did because it proves your poor confirmation bias.
Smell alcohol and attribute that their behaviour to alcohol and not their condition
So you agree anyone can be obnoxious, even without drinking?
You are assuming, that the smell of alcohol is making their behaviours obnoxious.

Sorry Rags, that is poor

Have to go

Night

x

I know a drunk person when I see one Didge.

So are you saying that if a customer in a shop abuses a young sales assistant, you'd say - that's fine because they're paying? Would you tell the young sales assistant to "suck it up" and be grateful because the customer is paying?

Ben Reilly wrote:I really don't understand this obsessive fixation on what's going on at a handful of university campuses. It hardly affects what's happening in the real world, but it sure-as-fuck does provide the anti-PC brigade with ammunition.

Who knows? Maybe some day they'll achieve their glorious dream of a world where it's acceptable to call Barack Obama a n---er.

University students are supposed to be the voice of the future aren't they? They're the creme de la creme of society.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I did because it proves your poor confirmation bias.
Smell alcohol and attribute that their behaviour to alcohol and not their condition
So you agree anyone can be obnoxious, even without drinking?
You are assuming, that the smell of alcohol is making their behaviours obnoxious.

Sorry Rags, that is poor

Have to go

Night

x

I know a drunk person when I see one Didge.

So are you saying that if a customer in a shop abuses a young sales assistant, you'd say - that's fine because they're paying? Would you tell the young sales assistant to "suck it up" and be grateful because the customer is paying?

You can claim many things, but its hearsay Rags.

An individual can refuse to serve someone if they have been abusive towards them, but then someone else should still serve them, as after all its business.

Thorin wrote:----

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even had a show with The Young Turks! But now he's not a progressive. He has left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&t=7s

So Dave Rubin (I've never heard of him) left the left and felt the need to make a song & dance about it?   Bye Rubin!

See ya.
Don't let the door hit ya.
Where the good Lord split ya.