• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Are right-wingers seen as scum?

Right-wing political ideology, fundamentalist religion, ultra-nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, it's all the same thing. It's an idea that says I'm more important than everyone else. And then they turned it into a philosophy and a political party. That doesn't mean it's legitimate.

The ideas are my target. Most people who hold these bad, bad, bad ideas would otherwise be very decent people.

People are worth saving, those ideas need to be flushed down the toilet.
 
Right-wing political ideology, fundamentalist religion, ultra-nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, it's all the same thing.

Brainwashing at its finest right here. The acceptance of social hierarchy immediately makes someone a sexist, racist homophobe. :rolleyes:

EDIT: not sure if troll. 6/10 if you are.
 
Brainwashing at its finest right here. The acceptance of social hierarchy immediately makes someone a sexist, racist homophobe. :rolleyes:

EDIT: not sure if troll. 6/10 if you are.

But is hierarchy of the ecomonic right wing or of the reactionary side of the power structure scale?

Ecomonically left wing conseratives exist. Case in point: the Pope.
 
How is an internet forum "in" a certain country?
If an American owns the site, pays the bills, etc. it's not unreasonable to think of the site as being "in" the U.S. Same with a site owned/paid for by somebody from a different country.

... the vast majority of lefties on this forum are little more than children age wise.
And some of us are old enough to be grandparents.

Not really true at all, care to support?
Would you take the observations of an ex-moderator as support?

Studies actually show that individuals tend to grow increasingly more socially liberal as they age, but move back to the right whenever thy have children, grandchildren, etc. The elderly that never had children are a very left leaning demographic, and those who have children early are very right leaning. Those who delay having children to focus on school naturally tend a bit more towards social liberalism (whether left liberalism or right libertarianism).
Interesting. My grandfather was a left-winger for most of his life, and didn't start leaning to the right until the year that convicted Holocaust-denier Jim Keegstra ran in a federal election. My grandmother and I were horrified, and I told my grandfather that sure, Keegstra was capable of making a reasonable-sounding speech for about 5 minutes, but any longer than that, and he'd veer off into a lot of really vile stuff. Thankfully my grandfather listened to me and thought it over. Of course I don't know who he really voted for (and can't ask him now, since he's been dead for over 25 years), but at least if he did vote for Keegstra, my grandmother and I out-voted him.
 
Well, oddly, many of the OTers who participate in the politics discussions, and get banned a lot, are righttwingers. So I wouldn't congratulate them as a group of being well behaved.
Yeah... and since the board is clearly dominated by a certain view point... that seems kind of a foregone conclusion.
I suppose it makes you feel better...

I get banned a lot.
However, when I report people who are often rude jerks, it routinely gets ignored (and while I have some strong opinions I am not a right-winger.) I can't even count the times it has happened.

I've mentioned it to supermods.

Sometimes I've reported the same post several times to see how long it goes before it gets infracted... knowing that some just blow off the report, and then seeing it later infracted, it's an interesting phenomenon.

As far as insults, it happens on both sides... the board is dominated by left wingers, so it seems they do it more often, but they don't, proportionally.
 
Right-wing political ideology, fundamentalist religion, ultra-nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, it's all the same thing. It's an idea that says I'm more important than everyone else. And then they turned it into a philosophy and a political party. That doesn't mean it's legitimate.

The ideas are my target. Most people who hold these bad, bad, bad ideas would otherwise be very decent people.

People are worth saving, those ideas need to be flushed down the toilet.
Wow...
That's the equivalent of the most close-minded, ridiculous post I've ever seen here.
Very tolerant there pizza guy.

I suppose if you had your way everything would be better... if it wasn't for those opposition voices, you'd control the world and your ideas, which are inherently superior in all cases, would control us all.

Great.
 
If an American owns the site, pays the bills, etc. it's not unreasonable to think of the site as being "in" the U.S. Same with a site owned/paid for by somebody from a different country.

Well yes, I'm aware of that meaning of the statement. But Form used it in the "this is an American forum" sense, and I don't see how you can say that a website is "in" a specific country, since the location of the servers has zero impact on the cultural happenings of that site, even if it were written in the language of that country (I would not say, for example, that a website written and conducted purely in Armenian was "in" Armenia).
 
Wow...
That's the equivalent of the most close-minded, ridiculous post I've ever seen here.
Very tolerant there pizza guy.

I suppose if you had your way everything would be better... if it wasn't for those opposition voices, you'd control the world and your ideas, which are inherently superior in all cases, would control us all.

Great.

You're telling me that I should be more tolerant of intolerance.


Here's how it goes:

1. Racists are intolerant of other races.
2. Someone says they should be more tolerant.
3. Someone responds that they should be more tolerant of racists.

1 and 3 are illegitimate. And playing the wounded right-winger is pathetic.
 
That last post was a joke. Hell, this whole thread's a joke. Nobody sees anybody as "scum". To think that someone does is just wishing for persecution.

That's my input, now I'm getting out of this joke of a thread.
 
You're telling me that I should be more tolerant of intolerance.


Here's how it goes:

1. Racists are intolerant of other races.
2. Someone says they should be more tolerant.
3. Someone responds that they should be more tolerant of racists.

1 and 3 are illegitimate. And playing the wounded right-winger is pathetic.
No, I don't say you should be ok with people being intolerant.

All right wingers are not all of the following:
fundamentalist religion, ultra-nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia

No one is asking you to tolerate racism... sexism... etc...
But saying all right wingers are all of those things is the equivalent of saying left wingers are all state-subservient, control mongering, liberty thieving, communist, socialists...
It's utterly ridiculous.

Those are the ugly parts of both parties, sure... but you go way too far.
 
Right-wing political ideology, fundamentalist religion, ultra-nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, it's all the same thing. It's an idea that says I'm more important than everyone else.

To expand upon my point-

One of the Republican slogans in recent campaigns has been "Country First". That's their slogan. Their actions don't match the rhetoric. In fact, their rhetoric doesn't match their rhetoric.





Republicans in Congress have been acting like whiny children who can't get their way, throwing a tantrum that their man didn't get elected in 2008, and have been beating their fists and digging in their heels ever since. And I'm not talking about continuing to be against the Democratic agenda, which would be obvious. I'm talking about campaigning against, shouting down, and otherwise rejecting a myriad of ideas they used to campaign for, and even authored. Particularly ideas which were developed on a bipartisan basis, ignoring the Democratic majority, involving just 3 people from each side, who came up with an agreement they all could live with. All because they want to defeat Democrats, not help the nation.

I'd like to be able to point out that Democrats did the same thing during the Bush years, but frankly, I found them to be all-too cooperative.

That's because the current Republican party takes petulant selfishness to the extremes of human behavior, and the Democrats are still dealing with them like they're attempting to deal with reasonable adults. Even with huge majorities in both houses, the Democrats brought Republicans on board with every single major piece of legislation, including health care, and did everything they could to compromise (and I do mean compromise) the legislation to get Republican votes. How many votes did they get? They're morons for even trying at this point.

Listen to what the Republicans are saying and watch what they're doing. They're not being Congressmen. They're simply being stubborn blockheads, and their chosen 'strategy' is an unpatriotic disgrace. It's not "Country First" it's Republicans First. Me First.

When offered a chance to propose their own ideas, free of Democratic Compromise, they opted to produce a few pages of unspecified garbage. A budget without numbers. A generic solution to our problems- let's cut all the waste in the budget and not raise anyone's taxes and that will magically solve our deficit problems! Romney 2012! Gosh, if it is that simple, why haven't the Democrats done it already? They haven't exactly been big on raising taxes under Obama, in spite of the bold-faced lie to the contrary.

But that's just one example. That's just today's political landscape in one country under one party. Is that a representative sample of right-wing ideology? No, not completely. Just a very good example.

Let's move past Republican politics and into right-wing religion. Because let's face it, religion is largely political... if it stayed in the realm of the spiritual, where you opt to simply be a good person and suggested good things would happen if you did, then it would be apolitical, and more philosophical. But it's not. Religion plays a major part in politics and campaigns and even prevents people from living a decent and respected life.

What is the difference between deeply conservative Christian religion in America and deeply conservative Islamic religion in Iran? Let's discuss the similarities.

  • What is your stance on homosexuality- It's an abomination and must be prevented from spreading. It is a danger to people, particularly children.
  • What is your stance on the status of gay people- They have chosen a lifestyle that is against God, and can only be saved through converting to our religion. They must be held accountable for their wrong choice of lifestyle, looked down upon and declared to be immoral people.
  • What is your stance on the status of women- They stay home and have children. Anything else is due to the corrupting influence of Satan.
  • What is your stance on the right to choose- Women do not deserve the right to decide to have children. If they are pregnant, they must have that child, even if it kills them. Even if they were raped. By their father. Who has a terrible flesh-eating disease that will also kill the child minutes after birth.
  • What is your view of other, deeply conservative religions that are essentially the exact same thing as your own- They are serving a false god and living their lives according to a false set of values.
  • What is your view of the irreligious- They're scum of the earth and cannot be saved unless they convert to our religion.

In other words, thousands of years will pass, and the brain will still be stuck in the bronze age, thanks to fundamentalist thought. And whom does it all serve? If this were politics, would it be "God first" or "What is right comes first"? No. It all serves racist, homophobic, misogynistic males. In other words, traditional patricians who believe that they alone are the perfect people and all others are subordinate under them. Other genders, races, religions, preferences, they can all burn in hell. It's not "good comes first" it's "Daddy comes first". The Me-First universe of conservative males who believe that everyone else serves them or is subordinate to them.


Let's talk about ultra-nationalism. Well, on the surface, that would look like an "us-first" philosophy, now wouldn't it? Putting nation ahead of self? Sure, if that's what it meant. Instead, it means putting MY nation ahead of all others, and screw those other nations. Diplomacy is for the weak, BOMB THEM.

And that still relies on the idea of self-sacrifice for the betterment of our nation. What exactly is the Right willing to sacrifice for this nation?

Their personal finances? Heck no. Higher taxes is against the sacred Norquist code. It doesn't matter if we've been at war for a decade. It doesn't matter if we've been ravaged by natural disasters. It doesn't matter if unemployment reaches record highs, while the elites at the top enjoy unfettered expansion of their already formidable wealth. Raising taxes is a communist plot to destroy America. Expand unemployment benefits? That means I might have to give up on getting a third yacht... no wait, it doesn't, because paying for it would cost me a tiny fraction of that yacht, which I can easily afford whether taxes go up or not!

How about military service? Do you see a lot of really wealthy people signing up to fight in these wars? Or do you see a whole heck of a lot more poor people in impoverished areas signing up?

What about their beliefs? Do they concede that while X might be against their religion, it's also none of their business and therefore should not be legislated if other people do it? That it might be better for the nation if they kept their views inside their church and home? No, it becomes very much their business and they demand that their viewpoints become law, essentially that their worldview becomes the only acceptable one, even if I don't follow that religion, I still must adhere to its tenets.

So when they say Country First, what they mean is Me First, Other citizens second, other countries last. That's your ultra-nationalism.

Racism is the same thing. It says Me first, other people of my skin color next, everyone else last. That's racism.

Sexism is the same thing. It says Me first, other people of my gender second, everyone else last. That's sexism.

Homophobia is the same thing. It says Me first, other people of my sexual orientation second, everyone else burns in hell. That's homophobia.



It says I'm more important than everyone else. I'm not willing to do a darned thing to help any one of you, and I think you're all inferior to me.

That's right-wing ideology. It's all the same unjust idea, over and over and over again. Hasn't changed in tens of thousands of years.

What makes liberalism so much better? It's the idea that other people are just as good as me, regardless of skin color, sex or orientation, or national affiliation. It says bombing people indiscriminately in Iraq is not the correct response to a largely Saudi-born plot to harm innocent people. Nor would it be correct to indiscriminately bomb Saudi Arabia. Because there are innocent people there, and just because they're not white, of our nation, of our religion, that doesn't mean they're not PEOPLE.

And that idea has not been around, or at least, in the majority, screwing things up throughout the ages. Tolerance, understanding, and progressive, fair-minded ideals had to evolve and develop and take shape through education and expanding freedom of thought.

There hasn't been an era of history where closed-minded religious/racial/national patrician intolerance wasn't the norm, accepted virtually everywhere. That idea has been tried. It sucks out loud. It goes in the dustbin of history.


And the folks who believe in it will die off naturally and will be replaced with better educated people.

Sounds harsh? Not tolerant enough of backwards ridiculousness? Too bad. If I've ever seen a right-winger go easy on the things they think are wrong, it happened too quickly and too rarely for me to ever see it. As it stands, there are thousands of people across this country, in religious buildings, at this very moment, decrying the existence of gay people, and a Black President. Not one of them are liberal.
 
you go way too far.

Really?

To quote your own Barry Goldwater:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

There's no compromise between racism and fairness. It's one or the other.

There's no middle ground. Ok, black people can vote, but we can spit on them. There's nothing like that. There's fairness and tolerance, or there's racism. To compromise on justice is not a compromise, it's a violation. The same is true regarding sexism, and sexual orientation, and national origin.

Every time I've heard something sexist uttered, it's been in defense of 'traditional values' or conservative principles. Every time I've heard some slander against gay people, it's been in defense of 'traditional values' and/or religiously fundamental ones.

Tens of thousands of years of silliness may in fact be a tradition, but that doesn't make one we should celebrate or perpetuate.
 
Well yes, I'm aware of that meaning of the statement. But Form used it in the "this is an American forum" sense, and I don't see how you can say that a website is "in" a specific country, since the location of the servers has zero impact on the cultural happenings of that site, even if it were written in the language of that country (I would not say, for example, that a website written and conducted purely in Armenian was "in" Armenia).
Even though there are thankfully many foreigners here, largely because Civ is an international game, it is very much still dominated by American politics and culture because most of the members are Americans. If you visit just about any other similar forum based in the US you will find that they are dominated by much more right-wing views. This is even true with those that have fairly similar moderation, but it becomes even more pervasive on ones which have little or no moderation.

What the authoritarian far-right claims is happening in reverse on this site is the norm just about everywhere else. Anybody who disagrees with their incessant rants gets shouted down and ganged up on by everybody else until they finally stop posting. I bet it really pisses them off that they can't manage to do the same thing here.
 
To expand upon my point-
One of the Republican slogans in recent campaigns has been "Country First". That's their slogan. Their actions don't match the rhetoric. In fact, their rhetoric doesn't match their rhetoric.
In your opinion, which is, well, clearly very left wing... so far so that you hold yourself to be superior morally and intellectually... and leave no room for argument.

Republicans in Congress have been acting like whiny children who can't get their way, throwing a tantrum that their man didn't get elected in 2008, and have been beating their fists and digging in their heels ever since.
Congress has sucked for a long time... or is it only since 2008?

I'm talking about campaigning against, shouting down, and otherwise rejecting a myriad of ideas they used to campaign for, and even authored.
It's called, politics, buddy. The dems do it too.
How many things has the Senate refused to vote on that were passed by the House?
Par for the course.

That's because the current Republican party
Is voted for by right wingers, but doesn't mean right wingers are all for their actions, politics, etc.

I don't have the energy to address the rest.
 
The one was a man from the right
Who in losing an internet fight
Was beat like a drum
Until he felt like scum
Even though he was white.
 
Top Bottom