The Progressive ideology exposed

[Al Swearegen]

I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.

I gave up pretty soon, too. What did it for me was the fact that this is his Youtube channel, yet he chose a heading like "D'Souza absolutely DESTROYS leftist college student". He's not interested in a discussion, he's interested in boosting his ego.

He can't do both? I have no doubt that Dinesh is completely up himself. I think many Talking Heads are. Of course, no one ought to suggest that this somehow invalidates something he says, right?

[Al Swearegen]

He appears to have made a career out of conservative conspiracy theories, successful only in preaching to the choir.

He doesn't seem to have a lot more substance behind what he says than Milo Yiannopoulos.

I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.

One example: as soon as someone starts talking about privilege he suggests that they go to the Dean's office and give up their place at the university to someone from a minority. That's not how affirmative action works. But it saves Dinesh D'Souza from having to come up with some actual arguments.

Another one: D'Souza says you can't have land rights for Native Americans because then you'd have to give back everything that anyone ever took from anyone else. Of course you can't undo all the wrongs of the world, nobody is claiming that. But when you have a portion of society who are dispossessed and disadvantaged by the past dishonest and murderous actions of your government and your ancestors, maybe making some small amends is a sign of the fairer society that you are becoming.

Milo, is a completely different creature as you probably know. Milo is very smart and very articulate and says a lot of very insightful and intelligent things. He also says a lot of outlandish bullshit, a lot of deliberate trollish provocation and a lot of stupid contradictory stuff. It is good to cut the wheat from the chaff. Again, not everything he says is gold but there is a heck of a lot of stuff he says that is.

Not agreeing with one statement he says means that the next statement is flawed and it would be silly to make that mistake. As I have shown time and time again, there are people I disagree with vehemently most of what they say that occasionally they say something really good and worthy of posting. It does not mean that I am a fan or that the next thing that falls out of their mouth I will pay homage to.

Dinesh though, made a great point about people who play the role of champion of the minorities and virtue signal whilst not actually doing anything but handwringing over their own internalised shame over their believed privilege. It looks very much like simply announcing I am enjoying the fruits of my privilege but I feel bad and so therefore, I am a good guy and fighting for you, the unwashed. They lose nothing, sacrifice nothing and feel warm and fuzzy. But it is worse than that, they direct others to make and change things and be demonised if they don't, all in an effort to appease those who may otherwise wake up to the fact that they are no better or worse than someone in their position who did not proclaim themselves a warrior for the cause. It is hypocrisy that he pointed out and I think did it rather well.

As to the land rights issue. I will ask you what dollar figure would make up for the atrocities you mentioned and who should be the beneficiaries? How much should each receive? Who should pay into this amount to raise this? What dollar amount will wash everything away?

Hard questions, huh? Maybe a different way to do things is to simply correct for history and allow for all people to have the same rights? Maybe if all people have the same rights and opportunities the playing field is leveled. If not what more would you suggest that is not already in existence in the US from where he was speaking (and importantly for how long)?

[odeon]

Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.

[Calandale]

Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.

Principles matter. He has proven he is intellectually dishonest. That is enough for me.
I don't really care WHY he's avoiding the truth.

He puts it out there and we have an alternative position to consider. We do not have to buy it lock, stock and barrel but we can consider it. Pick out the things that sound interesting. Do our own research weigh them up against agreed knowledge.

I just see what he is doing in this respect. Not so much taking everything he says with a grain of salt but rather taking in what he says as a challenge to think upon.

Oh, I have no problem listening to what trope is being fed to the hogs. I do it all the time.

[Calandale]

As to the land rights issue. I will ask you what dollar figure would make up for the atrocities you mentioned and who should be the beneficiaries? How much should each receive? Who should pay into this amount to raise this? What dollar amount will wash everything away?

Hard questions, huh? Maybe a different way to do things is to simply correct for history and allow for all people to have the same rights? Maybe if all people have the same rights and opportunities the playing field is leveled. If not what more would you suggest that is not already in existence in the US from where he was speaking (and importantly for how long)?

Yeah. But just because the sin cannot be made good, doesn't mean a partial return can't be made.


You know damned well if a corporation was wronged in such a manner, their rights would be upheld.


'Rights' isn't enough, when those include things like "the right to live in a community where you can receive decent
schooling if you can afford it," and "the right to be arrested for defending your water sources which support your
traditional life."


Since America clearly cannot afford to reimburse the slaves with an appropriate cash value, it is even less possible to do so with the natives.
These are higher costs than paying off the holocaust, due to the long time involved.


But, we damned well ought to stop having policies which keep the inheritors of this legacy down.

[Al Swearegen]

As to the land rights issue. I will ask you what dollar figure would make up for the atrocities you mentioned and who should be the beneficiaries? How much should each receive? Who should pay into this amount to raise this? What dollar amount will wash everything away?

Hard questions, huh? Maybe a different way to do things is to simply correct for history and allow for all people to have the same rights? Maybe if all people have the same rights and opportunities the playing field is leveled. If not what more would you suggest that is not already in existence in the US from where he was speaking (and importantly for how long)?

Yeah. But just because the sin cannot be made good, doesn't mean a partial return can't be made.


You know damned well if a corporation was wronged in such a manner, their rights would be upheld.


'Rights' isn't enough, when those include things like "the right to live in a community where you can receive decent
schooling if you can afford it," and "the right to be arrested for defending your water sources which support your
traditional life."


Since America clearly cannot afford to reimburse the slaves with an appropriate cash value, it is even less possible to do so with the natives.
These are higher costs than paying off the holocaust, due to the long time involved.


But, we damned well ought to stop having policies which keep the inheritors of this legacy down.

Again, give me something constructive and I will likely agree.

You mention water sources. I do not mind you educating me on this and from what little you have inferred it is certainly got the feel of something nefarious or untoward.

Same with differing schooling or what have you but then again IF there is a free option for schooling and a private option and most people go to public schooling then absolutely they should have that right BUT they ought not have the right that only the upper middle class who pay for it have because most people do not have THAT right. So IF you are saying that Native kids do not get the option to go to public school then I agree this should be remedied - perhaps they don't and you can educate me there too, Happy to learn.

As for paying off natives or whomever else, which Natives and at what point is a native considered a native and to whom do you take money off? Which people actually have wronged the Native people? Any of them still alive? If not then maybe their descendants should pay? But then not only did their descendants not do anything BUT you will find a lot of the descendants from older families who have ancestors that were around at the time of the massacre and removal of Native People also have Native blood themselves.
If you take the position that everyone but Native Americans should pay, what about people who immigrated or their parents immigrated after such times?
Maybe it should come from the Government, but then the government does not have it's own money, that money comes from people mainly by way of taxes and levies from the public which again is indifferently going to run into same issues as above.

[Al Swearegen]

Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.

He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.

[Al Swearegen]

Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.

Principles matter. He has proven he is intellectually dishonest. That is enough for me.
I don't really care WHY he's avoiding the truth.

He puts it out there and we have an alternative position to consider. We do not have to buy it lock, stock and barrel but we can consider it. Pick out the things that sound interesting. Do our own research weigh them up against agreed knowledge.

I just see what he is doing in this respect. Not so much taking everything he says with a grain of salt but rather taking in what he says as a challenge to think upon.

Oh, I have no problem listening to what trope is being fed to the hogs. I do it all the time.

When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?

[Calandale]

Again, give me something constructive and I will likely agree.

You mention water sources. I do not mind you educating me on this and from what little you have inferred it is certainly got the feel of something nefarious or untoward.

XL Pipeline was a recent case. There have been many where native treaty-protected rights have been threatened by
large scale projects though. Dams and such.

Same with differing schooling or what have you but then again IF there is a free option for schooling and a private option and most people go to public schooling then absolutely they should have that right BUT they ought not have the right that only the upper middle class who pay for it have because most people do not have THAT right. So IF you are saying that Native kids do not get the option to go to public school then I agree this should be remedied - perhaps they don't and you can educate me there too, Happy to learn.

Public schooling is usually paid for largely by locality. Both money and overall quality is predicated upon the wealth
of the area. Disadvantaged groups tend to be clumped into areas where the schools are worse - and
unable to afford to live where they are better. Likewise though, if private schools are an advantage, we are
again favoring the 'haves' to continue to be in that position, by putting better schooling out of the reach
of the disadvantaged.

As for paying off natives or whomever else, which Natives and at what point is a native considered a native and to whom do you take money off? Which people actually have wronged the Native people? Any of them still alive?

Corporations are people too! Governments which facilitated the damage. It gets tougher with individuals.

If not then maybe their descendants should pay? But then not only did their descendants not do anything BUT you will find a lot of the descendants from older families who have ancestors that were around at the time of the massacre and removal of Native People also have Native blood themselves.

If such an individual payment were determined (unlikely), I guess they could transfer some of the gain their family
made off the improper actions to those harmed - including themselves. I'd imagine that there would be thresholds
for determining damage (both caused and suffered) which would preclude being in both camps at once though.

Maybe it should come from the Government, but then the government does not have it's own money, that money comes from people mainly by way of taxes and levies from the public which again is indifferently going to run into same issues as above.

Traditionally, this is how govt. wrongs are corrected.


But, if you read my last sentence again, you'd see that I'm not talking full reparations, or anything like them.
I'm suggesting that we ought to stop our currently oppressive policies which keep the poor that way. Things
like regressive taxes.

[Calandale]

When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?

Oh, I took that from your description of how he ignores many of  the salient facts, and only puts forth those which support
his argument. Which comported with the one topic (Southern Shift) that I paid attention to. In that example,
it qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.

[Al Swearegen]

LIke Dinesh, you give an alternative point of view certainly worth considering. Much can be argued either way on things and we can get into the weeds over things and question the minutiae but I think as food for thought it has merits.

[Al Swearegen]

When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?

Oh, I took that from your description of how he ignores many of  the salient facts, and only puts forth those which support
his argument. Which comported with the one topic (Southern Shift) that I paid attention to. In that example,
it qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.

You see in the videos he ignore no contested claims. Rather his assertions he makes strongly and boldly. People have suggested he should be (paraphrased) meeker with his claims and disclaim and water them down a little. I don't think so. I think that making strong claims is good, it makes each of us think and question our knowledge and our principles and values. Makes us re-assess. I think that is good.

[odeon]

Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.

He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html

Not very bright, if you ask me.

[Al Swearegen]

Milo the paedo apologist? No, I wouldn't characterise him as smart.

He is a very smart guy. He is not a paedo apologist either.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-from-breitbart-following-paedophile-comments-a7592416.html

Not very bright, if you ask me.

Oh I saw, saw the context, knew the hows and why.

[Calandale]

When did he prove he was intellectually dishonest? Missed that?

Oh, I took that from your description of how he ignores many of  the salient facts, and only puts forth those which support
his argument. Which comported with the one topic (Southern Shift) that I paid attention to. In that example,
it qualifies as intellectual dishonesty.

You see in the videos he ignore no contested claims. Rather his assertions he makes strongly and boldly. People have suggested he should be (paraphrased) meeker with his claims and disclaim and water them down a little. I don't think so. I think that making strong claims is good, it makes each of us think and question our knowledge and our principles and values. Makes us re-assess. I think that is good.

If you prefer the tools of the ideologue. Of course, those are precisely how we get to a situation
where neither side will listen when the other has valid points.


Certainly, in a learned colloquium, which the vid I watched appeared to be, the level of dismissal that I saw was unacceptable.
On the other hand, [size=78%]for popular consumption, he seems willing enough to entertain questions.[/size]