Monday, December 20

Why Does The Left think the Right is Evil?

This is something I don't get. Right-leaning folks assume that left-leaning folks have good motives but are misguided in their approach, whereas left-leaning folks assume that right-leaning folks have evil motives.

Of course, I do not mean this in the absolute. There are folks whose views are hard to categorize, and what I said is not universally true in that there are many exceptions (and you may well be one of them), but this is a trend I certainly see.

Many commenters on my blog question my motivations when I put forward a right-leaning view. For example:

  • If we disagree on climate change I am accused of profiting from big oil status quo and wishing death and destruction on future people.
  • If we disagree on universal health care I am accused of wanting to salvage my tax dollars at the expense of poor people dying in the streets.
  • If we disagree on policing I am accused of being a racist and wanting to promote the white race at the expense of people of colour.
  • If we disagree on COVID response I am accused of wishing the convenience of going out and being maskless at the expense of millions dying a horrible death.
  • If we disagree on abortion I am accused of wanting to enslave all women as Handsmaid's Tale type baby factories to promote the white race.
These even come through on otherwise very reasonable people I debate with (you know who you are!).

On the other hand, I assume that the people arguing with me have big hearts and want the right things, but are just not thinking through all the consequences of the policies they advocate such as,

  • banning or heavily taxing fossil fuels,
  • defunding the police,
  • instituting affirmative action,
  • expanding hate speech laws,
  • forcing vaccine mandates,
  • banning private firearms ownership,
  • allowing abortion even to the moment of birth,
  • central planning and distribution of all health care,
  • massive government spending,
  • and so on...
I assume their hearts are in the right place, but I am concerned their policies will not achieve their ends, or the downsides will materially outweigh the upsides. But I don't ascribe evil motivations to them (although I do predict evil consequences in some cases).


First of all, though, what do I mean by a "left-leaning" versus a "right-leaning" person?  It's a bit of a data science type question. You develop a bunch of questions around perceived political issues, and there appears to emerge two clusters of people who answer more or less the same on these issues, but with opposite answers. One of these clusters you label "left", and the other "right". At the same time, there are many outliers who do not fit neatly into one cluster or the other; and there are people who clearly belong in one of the clusters, but have a handful of views that fall into the other.

From Left vs. Right-Wing: It's Complicated

So of course it's messy, but you likely know where you fall, and it's often reflected in your vote. Those who vote Liberal, NDP, or Green in Canada, or Democrat in the US, tend to belong to the left cluster. Those who vote Progressive Conservative or PPC in Canada, or Republican in the US, tend to belong to the right cluster. It is because these clusters naturally exist, on a variety of issues, that these parties form to represent them.

 

Social scientists have asked if there are more fundamental personality factors that push you more to the left or the right cluster. There's an interesting paper on this from 2011 I recently came across that prompted this blog post: The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political Arena from Yale University.

The "Big Five" personality traits emerged from research going back to 1949 that demonstrates there are five core personality traits that stay with you and influence your choices. It's by now well established in Social Science circles. Similar to how I defined left vs right above, Big Five researchers ask hundreds of questions on a diverse set of topics, and when they analyze the data people tend to fall into classifications along five dimensions.

from What Are The Big Five Dimensions of Personality

The Political Arena paper I referenced surveys the literature done up to that time. You can read it if you like, but the summary is as follows:

  • High Openness is associated with being on the left
    "Openness to Experience is associated with positive responses to novel stimuli. Thus, researchers posit that individuals high on this trait are more likely to respond favorably to liberal social policies, which often involve acceptance of unconventional behaviors, and liberal economic policies, which may involve a willingness to support proposals that entail new government involvement in the economy."
  • High Conscientiousness is associated with being on the right
    "Individuals high on Conscientiousness tend to be attracted to social norms and achievement striving. These response tendencies likely explain why those high on this trait are more likely to reject the challenges to social norms that often accompany liberal social policies, as well as liberal economic policies, which may be seen as undermining incentives for individual effort."
  • High Emotional Stability (opposite of Neuroticism) is associated with being on the right
    "People who score high on Emotional Stability are less likely to feel anxious about their economic futures, they respond less favorably to redistributive policies intended to strengthen broad economic security."

In other words, the flaky artsy neurotic types tend to lean left; and the solid, fact-based, conscientious, calm and collected types tend to lean right. Hey, don't blame me, it's the science! 😉

At any rate, my main message to you left-leaners in this Christmas Season is that if you have right-leaning family, friends and acquaintances, don't start off by ascribing bad motives to their views. They likely are just as selfish and unselfish as those on the left, and value everybody being happy, healthy, wealthy, and fulfilled just the same, man or woman, and all races the same. They just think the policies they support are a better way of getting there, and you likely disagree with that, and that's ok.

192 comments:

  1. But how do you account for the fact (at least I believe it's a fact) that the Left in the USA finds it acceptible to cheat in order to elect their candidate? Where else would it also be acceptible to elect a candidate with obvious mental impairment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's the old "ends justifying the means" argument. Likewise for getting Trump out of office (e.g. Russiagate hoax, fine people hoax, ...). They are so sure they are absolutely morally correct, that it's ok to lie, it's "for a good cause". Fauci with his original statement saying masks don't work is another example.

      Delete
    2. It's the right wing that cheats. Sometimes they get caught: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-north-carolina-idUSKCN1QG2FS

      Delete
    3. By which you mean both sides cheat? Yup.

      Delete
    4. Agreed Juliesp, Personally I have always felt Politicians both Left and Right are Professional Cheats, Liars, Hypocrites and Thieves. Both sides of the aisle only want power for themselves.

      Delete
    5. The left cheated. That's the stupidest lie ever. No, they voted. Over 8 million more Americans voted for Biden. Fun Fact. Hillary got more votes then tRump but the electoral college gave him the win. It's only happened a few times but the only candidates to win a d election and lose the popular vote are Republicans so your cheat chants don't add up. Here's the biggest difference I see between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans have to wear hats, tshirts, fly flags, scream about their candidates and tell everyone how stupid the other side is. Democrats don't do that. They quietly vote. That's it. They don't have to tell it from the mountain tops. They just vote. That's what happened this time. Suck it up buttercup.

      Delete
    6. The US is a constitutional republic, that's the way presidential voting works: the electoral college. Its not "cheating", it's balancing states rights with popular vote. Imagine a Canadian having to educate you on your own system. Shame on you!

      I'd say the $300M Zuck spent to "get out the vote" selectively in heavily Democrat areas amounts to cheating. I'd say suppression of the accurate New York Post reporting on Biden corruption a week before the election is cheating. Id say a massive fake news campaign for 4 years including Russiagate funded by Hilary is cheating. I'd say that massively enlarging mail-in ballots while loosening restrictions to benefit Dems without legislative approval is cheating. Then, given how unauditable the election is, who knows what other cheating went on?

      As Scott Adams said in a tweet just now:
      --
      It's weird that every American institution is riddled with corruption and fraud -- as we have all witnessed -- except for our election systems, which are coincidentally designed in a way that makes them impossible to audit.

      I guess we got lucky!
      (https://twitter.com/scottadamssays/status/1474014681400414210)
      --

      But, hey, you're the side that howls in distress when Trump won. The joy of that will last a lifetime (or at least until Manchin crosses over and Republicans take over the Senate, the 2022 midterms when they take over Congress, then the 2024 general where your boy Biden is going down hard. Cant wait!)

      Delete
  2. For two reasons:

    - In many cases right wing arguments ARE objectively "evil". I put that in quotes as it is not evil in the paranormal sense of course, but, probably harmful is the right word. Harmful to the interests of certain people. And vice versa.

    - The same reason right wingers consider left wingers to be "evil". The article starts off with either a lie or a false premise, that rights wingers simply think left wingers are misguided. I am sure there are right wingers who think that, as much as there are left wingers who think the same thing about right wingers. But there are people who think the people on the other side are evil because what the propose is seen as hurting them often times in intentional ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if the policies are harmful, in your opinion, it does not speak to the question of ascribing evil motives.

      I acknowledge there are many individual exceptions, but it is a tendency I have observed, and I've experienced a tremendous amount of online hate on this blog, ascribing evil motives when I don't have those. I have definitely not seen it as much from the right towards the left.

      Delete
    2. You have not seen as much from the right towards the left because you support the right and you don't follow left wing media. And when you do see hate you brush it off as criticism because you pretty much feel the same way as well. Its just bias.

      For example you dont support expanding hate speech laws. In your world, there will be no recourse for someone who was abused with the n-word (for instance). It wont matter to you because you will be never called the n-word. But someone black will be. And they may want speech like that banned. So per them, your suggestion of "free speech" will always be seen as an endorsement of racism. Hence evil.

      Delete
    3. I follow plenty of left wing media (it's hard to avoid it!). I get the morning paper delivered every day, that's very leftist. I watch the CBC (our PBS), that's very leftist. I watch some late night tv (same). The same often cannot be said for the left following right wing media (they have to go out of their way to find it).

      At any rate, I base my statements on personal observation. When me or my right of center friends criticize the left, they think they have good motives but are dangerously misguided. When leftists are criticizing me or my right wing friends, they ascribe bad motives. Perhaps your personal experience with friends and family differs?

      Delete
    4. A d, btw, I am called a "fascist cunt" on this blog on a pretty regular basis, and still would not dream of passing a law preventing people from saying that.

      Delete
    5. In political discourse today each side considers the other evil and ascribes bad motives to the other. It isn't limited to left wingers. Both call the other evil. Both engage in victimhood and identity politics. Both make use of their respective outrage machines. And both engage in cancel culture.

      Delete
    6. I think it's facile saying each is as bad as the other in everything. As far as ascribing evil to the other side, it's much more widespread currently on the left, with even mainstream leftists doing it. Just tune in the news.

      Delete
    7. That is absolutely not true. True there is more left wing media out there. But its not about the number of channels. Its about whether the right calls the left evil. They do

      Delete
    8. Of course they do. I'm just saying that nowadays it's coming more from the mainstream left than from the mainstream right. You have to have you head deeply in the sand to not see it. The "racist" epithet falls freely from the lips of the mainstream left directed to anybody on the right. You know it's true.

      Delete
    9. Since the racist epithet is usually used towards white people, there is a fundamental difference in what a right wing white person considers racist and a left wing person considers as racist. The right wing person is usually the more ignorant one and therefore thinks that "everything is being called racist", when in fact they ARE legitimately racist (in many cases).

      Delete
    10. The problem with a loaded term like "racist" is that it's a character assassination and implies an evil spirit of white racial supremacy. If you are using it simply to describe a well-intentioned policy (eg voter ID, intended to prevent election fraud) that will have disproportionate negative connotations to blacks (such as vaccine mandates as well, also well intentioned, but that can equally be so described), you are "loading" the conversation in a way that is not healthy. Rather than describe the policy as "racist", why not instead choose to say, "while voter ID would help prevent fraud, I'm concerned that it would disenfranchise many black voters who do not have and can not easily acquire an ID". Then we have something to talk about.

      Delete
    11. "Racist" implies many things. Its sort of a catch all term in today's parlance. It doesn't only mean white racial supremacy. Many things called racist today are actually xenophobic for example(which I think is a bigger problem than racism as I dont think most people "hate" people based on skin color alone these days).

      Delete
    12. "Xenophobic" is also a loaded term. Trump's early decision to ban travel from China early on was called xenophobic by Joe. Was it a "general and irrational fear of people from China", or was it good policy. As soon as you use that loaded word, any productive discussion is over.

      As to "racist", look it up in the dictionary:
      racist
      noun
      1. A person who believes a particular race is superior to others.
      2. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

      And it's disingenuous to think people that use the term "in today's parlance" don't impute racist motives to those they use the term against. At any rate, that's how we whom it is directed against take it, and I thought offence was in the eye of the beholder, no?

      Delete
    13. Xenophobic is not a loaded term. These days that is the most common form of discrimination. So when someone calls you xenophobic, you most likely are.

      Trump's ban on travel from China while calling it the China virus, the Wuhan virus and so on, resulted in a lot of xenophobia and attacks on Asian people. When Trump called Mexicans rapists and criminals in his very first speech, of course it was xenophobic because it doubled down on the narrative that Mexico was riddled with crime etc etc.,

      The dictionary definition of "racist" is wrong. Maybe it was written by white people lol.

      When someone is called "racist", they can believe/do any of the following, in today's context (not exhaustive by any means):

      - Hate people blindly for their skin color or ethnicity
      - Love people for their ethnicities
      - Have stereotyped ideas of a certain culture and assume things about people.
      - Believe their race is superior to others or believe their race is inferior to others
      - Believe their culture is superior to someone else's
      - Believe their religion is superior to someone else's
      - Believe, or express/promote stereotypes of another race. Akin to what Trump did.
      - Rail against immigrants or blame immigrants for their personal downfall or lack of success, especially if they are poc's
      - Date/fetishize or associate with only people of a certain race
      - Committing micro aggressions - "where are you REALLY from", "asking immigrants when they are planning to go back" etc.,

      And so on. So racism doesn't have a narrow dictionary definition TODAY. That definition is both outdated and outright wrong.

      Delete
    14. You're engaging in "word think" - instead of actually discussing issues you confuse people by redefining and overloading terms. "Racist" is an insult. You know it.

      In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests it was genetically engineered and leaked accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, aided and abetted by US and UN collaboration and research funds in hopes to "save the world" from the next pandemic by engaging in reckless gain of function research. Lots of blame to go around. Banning travel from China made sense because China was the epicentre.

      Trump did not denigrate Mexicans in general, but did denigrate a portion of illegals such as MS13 gang members, literal rapists and murderers. Anything else is fake news.

      Delete
    15. I am not engaging word think or anything. I am not even overloading terms. I am stating how it is today. Words like racist and xenophobic were never meant to be anything other than an insult. However when they are used, they are generally for legitimate reasons that I mentioned above.

      When Trump used terms like the wuhan virus, china virus etc, he didn't know anything about the wuhan leak theory. We had no information at that time. Similarly he did generalize Mexican immigrants and painted them as rapists and criminals. Hence xenophobic/racist.

      Delete
    16. So you advocate opening a discussion with an insult. Thank you for corroborating the thesis of my post.

      In fact, Trump publicly mentioned the lab leak very early on. Of course, since Trump suggested it, lefties tried to make it a "conspiracy theory" and censor any discussion of it online. Trump was right, they were TDS-blinded idiots, as it turns out.

      If you think Trump's remarks were meant to be applied to all Mexicans (a ridiculous proposition), you need to provide the in context quote to prove it. I'll not hold my breath.

      Delete
    17. Commenter's who refer to you as a "FASCIST CUNT" are just ignorant. We all know you're not a "Fascist"! ;-D

      MC H0! H0! H0!

      Delete
    18. Where did I say open a discussion with an insult? However there is no discussion to be had if you suggest something that is actually racist or xenophobic. For example, saying we should make a muslim registry when muslims enter the country - that is not a policy I am even willing to debate or engage in. Its outright racist and xenophobic, and therefore will be called as such and is out the door. If that bothers you well...#sorrynotsorry.

      And no I wont provide any contextual trump quote since you are a bonafide trump supporter and we will just end up going in circles. But he got voted out precisely for such racist, xenophobic and divisive bullshit, and that says everything.

      Delete
    19. Nobody has ever proposed a "Muslim registry". Under Bush after 9/11 they did put into place NSEERS which targeted male >16 immigrants from countries supporting or tolerating terrorist groups. It was cancelled under Obama and has not been seen since. If anybody did ever require a registry for folks of a certain religion (which NSEERS was not), I would agree with you.

      And no, you won't provide any contextual Trump quote because that would actually require doing research before running your mouth, and would risk deep cognitive dissonance. And his support actually grew, fueled by minority groups, from 2016 to 2020 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54972389).

      Delete
    20. Trump literally proposed a muslim registry. It was literally in his 2016 campaign.

      And no I wont provide any trump quote because you will just argue that the world is dark because you closed your eyes and its just a waste of time.

      People routinely make decisions that is harmful for them, so minorities and women voting for trump fall in that category. Regardless he got voted out.

      Delete
    21. "Literally" - why don't you "literally" provide a link to a statement from him or his campaign, else it's just bs.

      Delete
    22. Why dont you google it for yourself? You have fingers, a computer and an internet connection.

      Delete
    23. I did of course, before responding. All I found was a muddled mess of fake news that when you work back to a Trump statement only expressed concern about vetting for extremist terrorists. Why don't you now take your best shot at reproducing here an actual statement from Trump and arguing your point, you little baby.

      Delete
    24. What a childish and immature response. Basically you read about the racist bullshit that Trump spewed and instead of admitting to it, you call it a "muddled mess" which is just a another way of saying I am just gonna stick my head in the sand. Well, job well done. And that is precisely why I refuse to provide any statement from the internet, as you are incapable of making an objective argument.

      Delete
    25. Your inability to back up your statements is noted.

      Delete
  3. "n other words, the flaky artsy neurotic types tend to lean left; and the solid, fact-based, conscientious, calm and collected types tend to lean right" - only in your thinking maybe.

    The left tends to be young, intelligent and contemporary. While the right usually tends to be less educated, working class, white, culturally backward and generally lazy but entitled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot to add the 😉 indicating it's a joke. It's scary that your statement does not seem to be a joke...

      Delete
    2. I should have included an emoji. I was meaning to suggest how you can ascribe qualities and stereotypes to groups and how that is common across both sides of the political divide.

      Delete
    3. For sure, and that's not a good thing!

      Delete
  4. I'd say one reason is that a number of people are trained by the corporate media and the public schools to think the liberal point of view is the only one that is considered mainstream, and any opinion that varies from the Left's orthodoxy is rooted in extremist, evil ideology. It is therefore inconceivable to them that anyone could possibly come to an opposing viewpoint and not be a goose-stepping, cross-burning, woman-hating Klansman.

    Right-wing media has increased greatly in scope over the last decade, but someone still has to put in the effort to find it. The defaults almost invariably lean left.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you are painting with far too broad a brush. There are millions in each of these camps and they contain significant diversity. I don't think you need a laundry list but let's not forget that plenty of the right call Democrats "Demon-rats," accusing democrats of child-trafficking, think luciferase means the vaccine is literally demonic, and so forth. It would be just as wrong to generalize from those extremes to the 'right.'

    Your characterization ascribes positive motives to the group you identify with and negative ones for the group you dislike. That's classic bias. Even your interpretation the Gerber study reflects this as you describe the liberal personality in pejorative terms that go beyond what Gerber and others who do this research would state.

    Relatedly, I urge caution when reading and interpreting work like this without also learning the instruments used to measure the constructs along with the broader body of work. There's been a lot of work in this area and there is a lot of nuance to the findings, particulary since the labels for the big 5 are themselves very broad.

    For example, one recent study actually uses personality to test your hypothesis but has the opposite finding. The study finds that openness, extraversion, and agreeableness - all traits associated with the left, tend to make people less negatively disposed to those on the other side of the politcal spectrum.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764218756925

    Taken in isolation one could easily argue this proves the right is less tolerant. I would discourage that interpretation because there is a lot of missing context and nuance plus the fact that no one study is definititve and I'd say the same for your use of the Gerber study.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are of course extremists on both sides and I'm not referring to them.

      My "characterization" was a cheeky joke (thus the emoji), but I recognize that 30% of people have no sense of humour.


      I'm talking from personal experience on this blog and in real life.

      I added how I define left and right because it's often a disputed point. I added the big five to indicate that there are underlying personality drivers that correlate with left and right. I posit that because personality correlates with left/right, other things like this attitude towards the sides may as well.

      I end with a plea that everybody should ascribe good motives until and unless proven otherwise. Can we agree on that?

      Delete
    2. I am all for assume good faith. I'd suggest, though, a thesis that the other side doesn't but yours does, contradicts that sentiment.

      Delete
    3. Well, as I said, that has been my personal experience, and just look at some of the comments on this very post. I think I've already been accused of being "evil" twice so far 😆.

      Delete
    4. Your experiences, real as they are, are not generalizable. I have no doubt you've experienced what you claim. That's to be expected since those 1-who disagree with you will be on the left and 2-there are a lot of people who behave badly, especially online. My experience is the exact oppposite. I am regularly criticized and insulted by right-wingers. The reason and the dynamic is the same, just reversed in direction. It is what happens when people disagree and some feel free to be insulting or rude, for whatever reason. I try not to assume their poor behavior is due to some inherent aspect of their ideology or philosophy but rather is just an aspect of that individual.

      Delete
    5. I see it more than just on my blog. I think you may be confusing people claiming you have an evil motive with people claiming that instituting the policies you support will generate an evil outcome. There is a distinction.

      Delete
  6. The right wing will certainly go after Griswold v Connecticut, which allowed married couples (only) to use contraception ... after they've gutted Roe v Wade.

    When and if they go full Gilead, the authors and readers of blogs like this will be rounded up and sent to camps, except that some of the women will be made into "Jezebels" in the brothels reserved for the elite. What happens to them there will be completely non-consensual.

    That's evil in my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. Do you really think mainstream conservatives wish to ban birth control?!? You know that's cray-cray, right?

      Conservatives dislike Roe not only for its outcome (but I agree with the outcome, except it should have required banning 3rd trimester abortions of convenience), but because it represents left wing activist judging at its worst. There is no legal constitutional basis for deciding Roe the way it was. Even RBG agreed! (https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit)

      Delete
    2. Predicting the future is no easy task but I suspect at least one state will go after Griswold. They definitely will go after Obergefell. The idea that conservatives oppose Roe because of some legal reasoning that doesn't also apply to Griswold is wrong. Griswold established the right to privacy that Roe followed. A quick summary:

      In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore held null and void.

      https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

      Notice that the argument that abortion is not protected by the constitution applies equally since privacy is also not directly mentioned in the constitution. Moreover, the idea of penumbras and emmanation come from Griswold, not Roe, and that's been a conservative argument for decades.

      We'll have to wait and see the language of the Dobbs decision but unless it is a narrow opinion, which I doubt given the oral arguments, it is very likely to also weaken the concept of a constitutional right to privacy on which Griswold and Obergefell rest.

      Delete
    3. All of these cases have the same problem, the courts trying to act as lawmakers. If a law is bad (like Griswold) then the citizens of the state should elect representatives to repeal it. That was the essence of RGB's criticism of Roe, that she felt that the country was close to passing comprehensive abortion laws, and instead the country had to rely on shabby legal arguments that would be justly battled over for decades and could be reasonably overturned.

      Delete
    4. And because these cases are linked, both in philosophy and as a matter of jurisprudence, overturning one certainly can lead to overturning another. It is not hard to see a conservative activist court open to overruling or limiting Griswold or Obergefell.

      The courts are always lawmakers and hav been at least since Marbury when they gave themselves the power of judicial review. Conservatives are just as judicially active as liberals. The difference is only what rights and goals they focus on.

      Delete
    5. I am against all forms of judicial activism, left or right. The real division is between activists and textualists.

      Delete
    6. Until judges reconsider Marybury it'll be safe to say there are no textualists, just different flavors of actvists.

      Delete
    7. There is a spectrum from full activist to full textualist. Neither extreme is supportable. Judges align on the spectrum, as do their rulings. Roe is far along towards the activist extreme. Well constituted judiciary and judgments need to be closer to the textualist end IMO.

      Delete
  7. These posts are such ridiculous examples of someone who thinks they are brilliant trying to justify feeling superior to others. The Right is not superior to the Left and you really need to educate yourself on a variety of sources not those that make you feel better what you already believe. Trump’s defeat by Biden has broken a lot of Conservatives causing them to believe nonsense like the election in Georgia was stolen by Republicans for Biden. It’s sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And your comment is a ridiculous example of somebody so blinded by political tribalism that they cannot admit any unique fault on their side. Why not respond with, yup, that's a problem on the left, and on the right also, so let's not do it.

      Delete
    2. >> Accuses someone of political tribalism
      >> Dedicates an entire post to roundly saying rightwingers have healthier and more benevolent personalities than leftwingers

      I hope David beltwhips you for baiting your audience. ;)

      Delete
    3. I hope he beltwhips me, but it won't be for this. I cleared it with him. He's observed the very same thing, quite overwhelmingly.

      Delete
  8. I do think you are evil. Incredibly selfish, and self-righteous.

    Your spanking stuff is good. But I think you are indeed a bad person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for agreeing with me!

      Delete
    2. But how do you know they are left wing?

      Delete
    3. So July, just our of curiosity, do you think the person that just called you "Evil" and "Incredibly selfish and Self-righteous" is a bad person?

      Delete
    4. So if you think they are left wing (regardless of what they actually are), the that pretty much proves how the right wing is just as much guilty of the crime they are being accused of in this post.

      Delete
    5. I said I'll take the bet, not that I'm 100% positive, but I'm pretty darned sure from experience that the only ones visiting my blog who call me evil, bad, self-righteous, and selfish for my mainstream right political views are the loony-tunes left!

      Delete
  9. The clearest sign of a lost argument is when one resorts to insulting their opponent rather than rebutting their ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Only good republican is a dead republican.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll assume that was intended to be funny? ha ha?

      Delete
    2. Julie, with regards to "Anonymous" on 12/21/21 @ 00:27, I think you can say:

      GAME SET MATCH
      CHECKMATE
      THE FAT LADY IS SINGING

      Delete
    3. I'm just really, really hoping that was sarcastic, and meant to be the ha ha kind of funny, not the "back away slowly" sort of "funny".

      Delete
    4. Sorry it was confusing - I meant is as:

      YOU GO, GIRL!!!

      I am so TOTALLY on your side of this and love your No Fear approach.

      Delete
    5. Thank you Carl, my comment was referring back to the original sentiment, not the FAT LADY one! (As an Opera lover, I love when the fat lady sings).

      Delete
  11. It has gotten to the point that we cannot get along based on what we believe. The Right does to the Left, what the Left does to the Right. I feel that since it is your blog you need to address current issues and get it off your chest, lay it out there for all to know how you stand, I applaud you, we all have our views. The only difference between you and me is my wife. I can voice my views with friends, sometimes strangers, family, but if I go too far and this happens more than I like, my wife has that look, others see it to and know. She will wait until we are alone, or back home, I go to the bedroom, wait for her. I spend the longest time facing the wall in the front room after her discussion. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A little timeout for reflection (bare bum glowing and bare) is good for you, jack.

      Delete
  12. I totally disagree (though I didn't read the post, but I hope to get a tough reply from you so that David spanks you like the last political post).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daaaavid, Daaaavvvid, see Julie quickly.

      Delete
  13. It is really quite simple. Not all right-leaning folks are evil, but their political party has been hijacked by politicians who support the violent overthrow of the US government, or at least are afraid to stand up against those who espouse that objective, and who have already attempted at coup d'etat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a bit delusional, you know that, right? To cure yourself, please compare the actions taken by the Democrats after the 2016 Presidential election to those by the Republicans after the 2020 election. Write a 5000 word essay comparing and contrasting them and send me that by email.

      Delete
    2. I wrote the essay and sent it to you, Ms. Julie. Thank you for making me do that, it was enlightening. I guess both sides object to elections, sometimes on crazy grounds, but it's all part of a democratic process. Sorry for my over-the-top rhetoric above.

      Delete
    3. What a delight to have received your essay and your changed attitude! I did notice a fair number of typos and grammatical errors, though. Give yourself 100 good hard smacks with a wooden paddle on your bare bum and send me a photo of the aftermath. If you think a stroke is not hard enough to please me, repeat it.

      Delete
  14. Using labels isnt very helpful, it's just expedient. We have to drill down on each topic to find out people's motives, and then the evil begins to show, depending on your view point.

    Topic: Should people be allowed to keep more of their hard earned money and decide how to spend it. Or should most of it be taken by the government and doled out how they say? There are those that say keeping your money is evil, there are those that say government redistribution is evil.

    Can a government ever eliminate poverty???How much taxation is enough/too much?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just don't like the word "evil" to describe policy disagreements, as it presupposes bad intentions. I think the vast, vast, majority have good intent, and the disagreement is on whether or not the policies will do more harm than good.

      Delete
    2. I think this idea of ascribing the word "evil" to "policy disagreements" that you have mentioned time and again is ignorant. Left wingers usually focus on culture and values, while right wingers are more worried about policy. A policy's impact on people's values, freedoms and culture can be designated as "evil" depending on what it is and how harmful its ramifications are. Nothing wrong with that especially considering that most right wing policies are ill informed at the very least.

      Delete
    3. It's the intent behind using the word "evil" that is at question. I say, safer not to use it if you think the person has good intentions that >you believe< will lead to bad outcomes through fuzzy thinking. It's too loaded a word to encourage honest debate.

      Delete
    4. I think you are making an argument too specific. In common parlance, we often use catch all terms like "evil" or "racist" etc.,

      Delete
    5. I'm just saying that if you call a policy I am promoting as evil and racist, you've started the discussion in the toilet.

      Delete
    6. I dont think every argument starts that way though to be fair.

      Delete
    7. I hope not. My observation is a distressing number do, and directed from the left to the right in large part, hence my post.

      Delete
    8. The problem is your observations are not generalizable. You don't interact with a random sample of people on either side. Worse, those you interact with on the right could act completely differently with left-leaning people than they act with you since you and they agree. I'm sure your observations are real but basically all you are doing is stereotyping millions based on your personal experience.

      Delete
    9. I couched my proposition carefully in the second paragraph to by no means apply universally. It's something I, and many other conservatives, have noticed as a distressing trend, and I think many of the comments here prove it as well, even from folks who believe themselves to be moderate.

      Delete
    10. I didn't suggest you argued it was universal. But clearly you are arguing that the right is less judgemental than the left, in general. Afterall, your closing argument to be 'be nice' is aimed at those on the left specifically.

      I also get that your experience and associations reinforce your perspective. The problem is your perspective is limited. You don't see how conservatives treat liberals in online discussions, for example. Nor do you see how liberals treat liberals. You only see how some liberals treat some conservatives and how you treat each other. Of course other conservatives agree with you. But they too have the same limitations.

      It reminds of me listening to sports fans. Each fan base will swear that they are nice to visiting fan but that other team's fans are rude and obnoxious. That's what's happening here. You, and other like-minded members of your tribe, are stereotyping the other tribe.

      I agree that polarization and vitriol online are distressing. But they occur on both sides and stereotyping those you disagree with actual only contributes to the problem by suggesting the other side is in someway inferior to yours.

      Delete
    11. I was making an observation of this one thing, not making the broad claims you seem to imagine. And yes, it is a proclivity of the left to be more emotional and confuse policy criticism with ill motives, more so than the right, broadly speaking.

      Here's some data from Axios: "By the numbers: 5% of Republicans said they wouldn't be friends with someone from the opposite party, compared to 37% of Democrats." (https://www.axios.com/poll-political-polarization-students-a31e9888-9987-4715-9a2e-b5c448ed3e5a.html)

      Delete
    12. "I was making an observation of this one thing, not making the broad claims you seem to imagine. And yes, it is a proclivity of the left to be more emotional and confuse policy criticism with ill motives, more so than the right, broadly speaking."


      This is an interesting paragraph as the first sentence directly contradicts the second. Any claim refering to the "left" is a broad generalization.

      Now, as to your poll. We can start with the fact that it is just college studens and not representive of the broader population of partisans. Additionally, it only measures the extent to which college students would associate with others of a different party. Let's look at data that's a bit more directly related to your question.

      This polls finds that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to see the other party as enemies rather than political opposition (see questions 29 and 30).

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JKFdSt9MyiAFjiF8EKx5XYEa8yBfYfV-/preview

      This poll, from Pew, who I know you like, shows that where Democrats tend to view Republicans as close-minded, Republicans are more likely to vew Democrats as unpatriotic, lazy, and immoral.

      https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/10/how-partisans-view-each-other/

      Finally, let's get a bit more rigorous and academic. This study shows that both sides have negative, dehumanizing perceptions of each other.

      https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14864

      Members of each party have biases, though their stereotypes differ. The further right or left the members are, the larger the bias tends to be.

      Delete
    13. You don't seem to understand that a "tendency" does not mean there do not exist counter examples and examples on the other side as well. My observation is that the attitude I write about extends to the average Dem. you acknowledge it happens, so join me in condemning it, as I do condemn any on the right who do the same.

      Delete

  15. I found this video where David gives you the punishment you deserve.
    You didn't tell us that you have such a big mature butt and, above all, a little greedy stomach.
    I really like the way you go off to the corner at the end and how David makes you spread your legs wide open.

    https://www.spankingtube.com/video/113877/miss-bright-very-first-time-2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's a bit chubby, and the humiliation is even worse as a result?!?

      Delete
  16. The USA has almost 10 times the number of people as Canada. I think that if we were talking about 1/10th of the problem the conversation would be a bit different. The numbers are staggering especially concerning things like poverty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think of us like states 51-60.

      Delete
    2. Last time I looked, Canada and NY had about the same population. (I looked quite a while ago)

      Delete
    3. Yeah, but how many Rhode Islands are we, huh?

      Delete
    4. Blue state republican here, and we'll take British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta but you hosers can keep the rest. You know what they have in common? They all give more to the Canadian federal government than they take in taxes.

      That's the maddening thing about American conservativism-- almost all of our red states also take more money from the federal government than they do contribute. To that point, since Rhode Island is one of the blue states that's a net taker-- we don't need anymore of you freeloaders, thanks.

      Delete
  17. I think you and I need an in-person discussion with a paddle and strap. I am unhappy that you tell me and other Americans that we shouldn't have single-payer medical care when you have it in Canada. If you don't like it, talk to your fellow Canadians, not people in a country where you don't live.

    I don't think you are evil. I think you are smart but lack empathy. For example, I believe every woman has the right to decide whether or not to have a baby. The government shouldn't force women to bear children they don't want. The guys who wrote "Freakonomics" cited statistics that showed the crime rate in NYC went down drastically 15 years after Roe V Wade (AMERICAN Supreme Court). Why? Because poor women could abort if they didn't want to bear children. The number of neglected, delinquent kids went down.

    I believe that we AMERICANS deserve medical care regardless of income. People in CANADA have that. I know the air quality here is much better now that we don't burn coal and cars have cleaner exhaust. We hope that our neighbors to the north will also work toward avoiding emitting dirty air that blows south.

    My biggest point is that your blog is mostly read by AMERICANS. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but trying to convince citizens of another country is wrong. How would you like Russians blasting hate across your border?

    The United States needs to heal. We need to find middle ground that for consensus. We don't need foreigners further polarizing us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have empathy for the 8 month about-to-be-born baby, and empathy if the Mom would die in delivery, and empathy for the Dad of the about-to-be-born baby, but much less empathy for a 12-week-old fetus. You seem to only have empathy for one player in that, no matter how irresponsible or reprehensible her conduct. Who has more empathy again?

      Your view on abortion and crime rates, especially with regards to poor black women who abort at 4x the rate, fall right in line with Margaret Sanger's views. Maybe a better solution would be to promote birth control and family values universally? What happened to the safe, legal, and rare standard, as opposed to activist celebrating their multiple abortions.

      I think all people deserve GOOD medical care, which many have in the US and few do in Canada. Where is your empathy for the thousands waiting in line for years for basic and life-altering medical care in Canada?

      I applaud all clean air initiatives. Do you think I don't???? I just don't demonize CO2 emissions, and despise the confused thinking that goes into believing windmills and solar planets can replace fossil fuels in Canada. Have YOU no empathy for the millions of poor people faced with triple-sized bills just to heat their homes this winter????

      Do you see how that empathy thing can be turned around?

      You are exactly guilty of ascribing bad intentions to me by saying I have no empathy. Cut it out with that bull crap. The correct framing from you should be, "I believe you have good intentions and a lot of empathy, but I think the policies you support would lead to bad outcomes". Despite the above, that is how I think of you.

      The issues I deal with are pretty much universal across Canada and the US. Even the American Presidency effects us almost as much as it does you. Flaky leftists know no borders. Covid craziness knows no borders, gun control knows no borders, judicial activism knows no borders, inflation knows no borders, and so on.

      Delete
    2. I dont think Julie lacks empathy. She lacks lived experience and assumes "how it must be" for POCs and other marginalized groups and backs it up with "statistics" (from right wing sources that are biased). Like Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics!

      Delete
    3. Thank you. And I believe that many that think as you do ignore all facts and statistics, and base their thinking purely on what makes them feel good. So we can agree to disagree, while assuming we each have good intentions.

      Delete
    4. Julie, when it comes to abortion, like you, I find it very hard to accept for the very reasons you state. I agree that better and more pervasive birth control is much better than waiting until after becoming pregnant. I also think that unrestricted abortion (obviously not until the 8th month) is important to avoid bringing children into the world who are destined to be unloved and miserable.

      You bring up an interesting point. Is it better to have good healthcare for people who can afford it, than to have mediocre care for all. Obviously, the optimum solution is good healthcare for all. I imagine that Canadians who can afford it, find a way to get surgery without waiting. Even for those who can't, care will arrive eventually. That's not true here. Our social support network is spotty at best. If you happen to live here (Seattle area), support is very good.

      My vision is severely compromised. I developed glaucoma. I can't drive anymore. Our county has a service that offers door-to-door transportation to people like me for just $1.75 a trip (income doesn't matter; just the need). If I didn't have Mrs. Lion, or if she is unavailable, I can get to a doctor, supermarket, movie, casino, etc. This is unusual. Try to find that in Mississippi.

      I understand that you see our apparently-superior medical care as better than what you have. It isn't. Just ask the over-50-million people who can't get any care. The US infant mortality rate is behind yours. Neither of our countries are doing that well.

      It isn't surprising that the people who want to protect what they have are the ones who fight hardest against helping those who have nothing. No, I'm not a socialist or communist. I am someone who believes that in the twenty-first century we need to offer all of our citizens basic help. I promise you that our poor people would be more than happy with what you consider inferior Canadian healthcare.

      Responsible stewardship of our planet isn't a leftist hobby. It's just good thinking. As science learns more about what works and doesn't work, we have an obligation to use that knowledge to preserve our world. Even if you believe that CO2 isn't going to eventually destroy the earth, you have to agree that as levels rise in the atmosphere, our weather gets warmer and storms are fiercer.

      The reason I suggest you might have an empathy deficiency is because you keep looking at things at a macro level. From 50,000 feet you can't see the dispair of a 15-year-old girl who is poor and pregnant. You can't see the 40-year-old man who can't get a job and has cancer. All you can see is societal trends and statistical analysis of social systems.

      I think the biggest difference between left and right is that the left focuses on individuals and the effect law and economics has on us one at a time. The left tends to look at what *is*.

      The right focuses on what *should be*. I often agree with those positions, but I can't support them because of the pain implementing them will cause. How does preventing that girl from aborting improve her life?

      I know you empathize with the individual case, but argue from a statistical platform. We both know that numbers are easy to manipulate. Spend a few hours in a poor neighborhood's soup kitchen. That experience trumps all the statistical evidence in the world.

      Delete
    5. To many activists and even lawmakers, "unrestricted abortion" definitely includes 8 months plus.

      I never said that the US healthcare is better than Canada. They each have their problems. Single payer is not a panacea. The US system is totally fucked up as it's based on crony capitalism and insurance scams.

      While I agree the earth has been warming since 1980, I do not agree that CO2 caused most of this warming, and I do not agree that more CO2 will result in future catastrophic warming, all things considered; and even the IPCC agrees that more extreme weather is not caused by or even correlated with more CO2. We do agree on clean air and clean water to the max.

      I can absolutely empathize with the plight of individuals, but you need to helicopter up to make sure you will not cause more harm than good.

      A good example is allowing illegal migrants in. Yes, I feel empathy for the migrant turned back at the border, but a policy of allowing all in leads to more and more and more people making dangerous journeys, being taken advantage of by organized crime, raped, trafficked, and so on. And then when they arrive, a spotty situation as a semi-legal.

      I don't generally share what I do in real life on this platform, but I have done a lot of work with drug abusers, young women, illegals in many cases, and it's one thing to help those you see, and quite a different thing to advocate for macro level policies that help the problem at its roots.

      Delete
    6. I think statistics have their place. But I think we all make arguments based on how we feel. Human beings are first and foremost sentimental creatures. We look for evidence to support our beliefs not the other way around usually. Most if not all political beliefs are confirmation biases anyway.

      Delete
    7. I think you're overstating that. Absolutely it's a tendency that needs to be assiduously guarded against, and we do all fall victim to it. However, the best thinkers amongst us do less of it, and we should all strive to improve our critical thinking along those lines, not just throw up our hands and give up on critical thinking.

      Delete
    8. FYI, prior times of global warming (long before humans arrived) were accompanied by elevated CO2. I don't have time to look it up. Sorry. I worked with a geologist who studied this stuff. He discovered how the dinosaurs went extinct. He told me that for the vast majority of time that life has been on earth, the oceans had no currents because the poles melted.

      BTW, the poles are melting.

      Delete
    9. There is no great correlation between CO2 and global temp in the paleo-climate record, and when they do move together, CO2 lags temperatures.

      And the poles were melting in 1940 also, and the poles have been gaining ice over the past 10 years, but regardless, a warming earth does not prove CO2 is causing it or that banning fossil fuels will reverse it.

      Delete
    10. A d the poles did not melt in the distance past, Antarctic and Arctic only ever gained ice and this was caused by orbital and declination shifts, not by CO2 or lack of it.

      Delete
    11. Julie, aren't you in your 40s without children? This is the worst part about the abortion discussion: geriatrics weigh in as if their opinion should matter.

      In the US, the abortion rate is currently the lowest its ever been. Not because of some "success in pro-life teaching", but simply because young people don't have a cash flow to get married and start families.

      Canadian and US population pyramids both show a ridiculously high dependency rate on the senior side. Your concern shouldn't be abortion as an issue, but how to get cash flow to young people who can even have kids. Anything else is literally a waste of your time and a cost you'll have to pay in the future.

      If you're embarrassed to get fucked in the ass today, imagine what it'll be like to get fucked in the ass in 20 years, when your entire savings will leak out through the gaping hole that is a 1st world labor shortage.

      Delete
    12. Am not saying give up on critical thinking. But rarely do even scientists stay objective in my opinion. You have a belief and you go about trying to find data and evidence to support it is how I have seen most people work.

      Delete
    13. Re abortion rate, great! You kids will be replaced by robots, I'm not worried ;-)

      It's hard to stay objective, but there's a golden period when your mind is not yet made up and you are most receptive. Good science strives for that.

      Delete
    14. If you're suggesting you want a robot to fuck you in your ass, I'd read that post.

      Delete
    15. I'd give it a try, if it's a nice robot.

      Delete
  18. I expect it’s because of history. The right is seen by the left as willing to assume power at any cost thereby putting less value on democracy and moving closer to authoritarianism. History suggests authoritarian regimes tend to evil. I’m not sure that’s fair as having right wing views does not necessarily equate to being against democracy - but I’m attempting to answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Modern events make it look like the left are the authoritarians and want to grab power by any means. Russiagate. Mandates. Censorship.

      Delete
    2. Democrats are not the "left".

      Delete
    3. They are the left of Center party in the US, and include even the nutty progressives, so yes, they are the left.

      Delete
    4. They are not left of center either. Democrats and Republicans - the mainstream ones that get voted in, are all right wing. Sure they have progressives, but they make up a small proportion. But a small proportion of nutty progressives are better than a large proportion of nutty alt righters in the republican party.

      Delete
    5. I think you're using your own definitions, so have fun talking to yourself and confusing everybody else.

      Delete
    6. Not really. If you think Obama, Hillary or Biden are "left wing", then you just have the wrong assumption/understanding politics.

      Delete
    7. I think Democrats have long abandoned (starting under Obama) any pretence to being centrists or liberals and have drifted further and further left. Sure Biden is not anything at all, but the major forces in the Democrat party are now the "progressive" left.

      Delete
    8. Absolutely not true and it is either a misunderstanding of politics or you've bought in to media defined definition of right and left. Obama, Hillary, Biden etc are all right wing. They are infact more right wing than Trump. Less authoritarian, but more right wing. The Dems today are just moderate overall.

      Delete
    9. Merriam-Webster Definition of the Left
      1 : political groups who favor sharing money and property more equally among the members of a society : political groups who support liberal or socialist policies

      Delete
    10. Great. And the dems aren't it.

      Delete
  19. Simple. The right flirts with fascism (evil) is fucking our climate (evil) opposes universal health care (evil) and loves tax cuts for rich (evil). The list goes on. We’re the goodies and you’re the baddies. Hence we hate your guts. Get used to it bitch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love it when commenters make my point for me. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. If your point was "boohoo people are calling a spade a spade", then I guess, thank you?

      Delete
    3. Thank you again! The gift that just keeps on giving...

      Delete
  20. Just some humor, do you like the right cheek spanked or the left cheek spanked? Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both equally, and a few right down the middle!

      Delete
  21. Ok I will take a shot at answering the question Why the left ( me ) thinks the right are evil. I see kleptocracy as evil. I see mistreatment of immigrants as evil. I see authoritarianism as evil. I see racism as evil.
    Canada has less than half the poverty of the USA with 3% Black and 2% Latino with 10% of the population of the USA, you live in a spacious roomy all white bubble where you see and feel less than half of the effects of right wing views among less than one fifth of the human beings they tend to wreak havoc upon.
    Try to imagine if every one person you saw were 10 people and if every one African American person you saw were 3 people and if every impoverished person you saw were 3 people AND you're rent was doubled and your health care costs were quadrupled, your roads were crumbling and every time a politician tried to fix something, another politician said " No 2% of the people who benefit from that cheat or use drugs so NO NO NO, we keep the money to the rich and we want less people to vote. Then after that wait 5 or 6 hours in line to vote on anything while you see homeless people on the corner of every city every day. After that you might see things differently.
    I also don't think that a spectrum with evil on one end and crazy on the other is beneficial and that most likely the framing of this article is , well ,in the scheme of the blog , spank worthy. It's mischief at the least and passive aggressive at best and not leisure or entertainment or sexy and makes us all tense and upset, I think a blister paddle would change the subject and the level of empathy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We ALL see those things as evil. As you have not addressed any specific mainstream right policy, I cannot say more to rebut what must be in your head.

      I think you have the "grass is greener" complex. I live in a big city with a lot of racial and cultural diversity, and a lot of poverty and homelessness and mental health and drug issues also. We also have a North I visit frequently where some folks are desperately poor, but get along.

      It's ironic that you question the premise of this blog post, and yet acknowledge yourself as being on the left and conform precisely to the behaviour I am criticizing.

      Delete
    2. You are absolutely right Anon. Like I said in a previous post of mine, Julie lacks lived experience. She has no idea how it was to live under the Trump administration - the chaos, the fear amongst immigrants, the confusion etc.,She has no idea of the impact of right wing BS as in Canada we have more of a let us get along mentality and divisive political opinions are not as loud (we only hear of it in the media). There is a world of difference between the experience of living in the US and Canada even though people think Canada is an extension of the US - it so is not. I know, as I lived in both places and am so glad to be in Canada.

      And yes, as it is typically Canadian, this article is passive aggressive. lol

      Delete
    3. You're describing what it was like living in TDS-deranged-Democrat-head during Trump. Oh the horror! Us in the real-world were just fine and business a bit better than usual

      Delete
    4. Nothing to do with the dems. The Trump administrations time was truly terrible - for POCs and immigrants. The only good thing Trump did was reduce my income taxes. I could save a bit more before moving to Canada.

      Delete
    5. I was a legal immigrant under the Trump administration. No we weren't fine. I explained this in a lengthy post in a different blog post of yours. Racism was at an all time high during the Trump administration to the extent that many POC friends of mine being racially abused and what not because they felt empowered by Trumps election to office. His administration was a shit show and all of those things about low unemployment were just a continuing effect of Obama era policies - nothing specific to Trump. HBCUs and opportunity zones - not really effective. Infact white people benefited from opportunity zones than black people.

      Delete
    6. You were the H1B visa guy, right? Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare all right, and I understand Trump admin did make it more difficult to apply and stay, but it is a temporary program, and if the US govt wants to reduce the numbers, they certainly can. But I get why you personally, on the bad end of this policy, would advocate against it.

      As to the rest, you'll have to be a bit more specific about the "racial abuse" encouraged by the Trump admin. I'm sure there is, and always has been, racial abuse, and it's heinous, but if you're arguing it was worse because of Trump (and now presumably magically better again under Biden?) you'll have to do more than just say so to convince me or anyone.

      Delete
    7. As I said, yes the govt has a right to decide how many people they admit into the country. But they dont have the right to uppend people's lives by doing things for inexplicable reasons. And it isn't just bureaucracy. It was a conscious, coordinated and malicious attempt to fuck immigrants over per official policy.

      And yes racial abuse is just one example, and it was worse during the Trump administration particularly right after he got elected because all the racists felt like it was a big fuck you to the left that had kept them down all this time. So they cut loose. And no one needs to convince anybody, these are anecdotal, so take it or leave it. Whether or not you believe it, it is the truth - ask people who were on the receiving end of it. I dont know how it is now though, hope it is better.

      https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/12/19/most-americans-say-trumps-election-has-led-to-worse-race-relations-in-the-u-s/

      Delete
    8. "All the racists" - who in particular are you referring to?
      And of course public perception of race relations got worse, but I would blame the media, the Democrats and their violent racist fund-raising arms, BLM and Antifa sidekicks.

      Delete
    9. I am referring to racists whoever they are. Media, BLM etc were only expressing current state of affairs, but they didn't cause the current state of affairs themselves.

      Delete
    10. Sure they did. They are the ones responsible for driving the wedge. It's a Democrat go-to move, especially in election years. So eager to push the Jussie Smollet hoax (when it was OBVIOUSLY a hoax), and push so many other race-baiting stories that were known hoaxes from the start (fine people hoax, Covington kid hoax, Kyle hoax, hands up don't shoot hoax, and the list goes on and on).

      Delete
    11. I dont know about half these hoaxes you are referring to, but no one I knew either in the media or elsewhere pushed Jussie Smollet's hoax. I only heard critiicism. But then again I dont really partake in politics that much at all. All that said there is no smoke without a fire. Certain BLM members methods may not be correct, but the conversation they have started is absolutely essential to be had. It sure rubs some people the wrong way, but that is just an opportunity for them to introspect and correct themselves if they need to.

      Delete
    12. Hmmmm... you seem willfully blind to the false narrative pushed relentlessly from the left. The fine people hoax featured prominently in every Biden stump speech, for example. And when Jussie first broke, mainstream media fell for it hook line and sinker.

      BLM protests accomplished nothing except defunding police, which lead to more crime, and now even Democrats calling to re-fund the police!

      Delete
    13. I dont care about what narrative politicians and political parties push as I dont really listen to them (I dont really watch the news lol). Like I said I didn't really see anyone fall for Jussie Smollet's lies. I only saw that the media reported it. And then he was caught lying pretty quick and everyone condemned it. So didn't see anything unfair there.

      BLM protests accomplished a lot in terms of people becoming aware of racism, systemic racism, police brutality, changed police procedures and most importantly made them accountable. I mean the police should be afraid of citizens, not the other way around. We PAY them. Defunding the police in certain areas was actually the right thing to do. The police were becoming more and more militarized and I even saw a video where there was a curfew imposed, and people standing on their porches were hit with non lethal rounds, to make them go inside. THEY WERE ON THEIR PORCH!!. Also I think "crime" is overstated in the US and that also leads to politicians overreacting when they try to fix it. Hence why you have so much prosecutorial overreach and a punitive legal system as opposed to one that should focus on rehabilitation. But thats a different conversation I guess.

      Delete
    14. Careful about out of context videos.
      I do think the justice system is fucked up with prosecutors and plea bargains, and I think the hard working cops are blamed for a lot of shit, and take a lot of shit (and of course there are bad cops also, and a bad culture of protecting them). But there was no nuance in the BLM protests, only vitriol against all cops.

      Delete
    15. The video wasn't out of context. It was a family on their porch filming the armored personnel carrier on the street, and they fired non lethal paint rounds at them because it was a curfew.

      Cops suck. They are neither physically fit and trained, nor emotionally equipped to deal with volatile situations. A lot of them cant even hit a paper target properly. They are also pretty corrupt, commit a lot of human rights violations, use excessive force, resort to torture etc., not just in the US, but all over the world. In my opinion a lot of them are glorified thugs who are consistently hero worshipped, especially in the US.

      Delete
    16. The broader context is who imposed the curfew, and why was a curfew required, and why were they on the porch instead of inside at a volatile time, and what were they doing on their porch moments before, and what had others done from their porches earlier. I'd like to know all of that before passing judgment. And yes, there are bad apples amongst cops too.

      You obviously don't know any cops personally. I do. It's a tough and thank,Ed's job, and without them there would be anarchy, but maybe that's what you want?

      Delete
    17. It was during the George Floyd protests. Although that was a volatile time, these folks werent doing anything. They were just looking. The officer must have walked up to them asked them to politely go inside. Instead...Here is the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esyMFOu8ZFE. This should bother every American.

      I am an anarchist, but not the lawless kind. I just want professional cops who shouldn't expect any thanks. I mean do we thank ER doctors who save lives? No we dont, so we dont have to thank cops who are just expected to do their jobs (but often times dont).

      Delete
    18. Ha ha! Well I feel much better about it now. A bunch of entitled white kids, larping in Antifa gear, ordered multiple times to go inside, disobeying these orders, and getting paint balled for their troubles. Good!

      Delete
    19. Its ignorant to call them Antifa because they were wearing masks and black clothing. They were just a family that had nothing to do with antifa. Also, they were on THEIR property. And no one has the right to order you around on your property. This deference to people in uniform, and the general authoritarianism they promote is exactly why cops are considered glorified thugs.

      Delete
    20. Who the fuck are the police to give them orders when they are on their property just watching? They have no right. And black pullovers are not "antifa" clothing. Id have to throw out my entire wardrobe in that case.

      Delete
    21. We'll suggest you don't walk around a violent protest where Antifa are attacking the cops, cause you might just get mistaken for being one. 😂

      Delete
    22. Cops are the ones that attack peaceful civilians btw. Like they did when Trump had to walk to that church and hold up a bible lol.

      Delete
    23. The Church they tried to burn down? That one? "Peaceful civilians"? Sure.

      Delete
    24. They didn't try to burn down anything. They were literally sitting on the ground when the cops came over to beat them up so trump could walk his fat ass to the church and hold his bible up.

      Delete
    25. Fake news.
      - Prior to that the rioters were looting and burning, including that church.
      - Authorities had decided to clear out the square, independent of Trump, days before
      - Trump spontaneously decided to take that walk, surprising everybody, after the way was clear

      There was an Inspector General report that looked into the whole thing: "The review ultimately found park police had been planning to clear the area for days to install anti-scale fencing and that the decisions on the ground were not changed because of the president or White House's plans."

      Do other people you talk to let you get away with spewing such bs fake news?

      Delete
    26. Just because rioters were looting and burning the church, doesn't mean the protesters that were beat up did that. They were peaceful and just sitting there. It was excessive force. And you mean the inspector general who is a trump crony appointed to his position by trump himself didn't find any wrong doing?

      Delete
    27. Ah, your story about Trump is changing now? Does truth not matter at all to you? It's like playing whack-a-mole with you.

      The police had just cause and all necessary legal authorization to clear that area, the protesters did not follow lawful orders and thus non-lethal force was used to clear them.

      "The investigation released by the Interior Department inspector general states the U.S. Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service concluded it was necessary to remove protestors from the park on June 1 in order to install anti-scale fencing. The decision was reached after at least 49 U.S. Park Police (USPP) were injured while policing the protests that took place from May 30 - 31."

      Delete
    28. What story have I changed? The protesters who were sitting there, and the rioters are not the same people, or atleast there is no proof they are. Which is fact. Beating up peaceful protestors is like punishing someone for a crime someone else committed. So when someone is peacefully protesting, the police using tear gas and beating them up, is excessive force. Having "legal authorization" doesn't justify excessive force.

      Also, I dont trust a single report put out by the corrupt Trump administration or any of their cronies.

      Delete
    29. Your first story was that Trump had it cleared for a photo op. When I called you on that you shifted to "they were just peaceful protesters that were gassed by Trump" without even acknowledging your first position was utter BS.

      Of course, true to form, your second assertion is also utter BS:

      Authorities decided to erect fencing because over the past couple of days over 150 cops (including 40+ fed park police) were injured by rioters mixed in with protesters, and they set fire to things, including a historic church (asshat move). Next day, police asked "protesters" to move back, and used a show of force to do that. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Subsequently it has emerged that no federal police authorized the use of tear gas but it was in fact the super Democrat black mayor of DC, Bowser, who authorized it for her police force a block away. Here is the full debunk of your fake news: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/09/debunking-the-photo-op-myth-inspector-general-investigation-refutes-media-account-on-the-clearing-of-lafayette-park/

      You are being super naive to repeatedly fall for the fake narratives foisted on you as anti-Trump propaganda. Do some critical research before mouthing off and passing more fake news.

      Delete
    30. Different person here. Just reading this I have a different take on violence in general. I do think violence is justified in certain scenarios. Many people criticize violence during protests, but if it wasn't for the violence, there would have been no conversation to begin with. What does that say about us and our political system?

      Delete
  22. julie - This comment is off-topic for this blog post - however, I wanted to ensure you and your readers saw this.

    In a recent post ( https://strictjuliespanks.blogspot.com/2021/12/spanked-for-being-sharp-toungued-little.html ), you reported that - as part of your punishment - you were forced to sit at your desk chair NAKED from the waist down until he permitted you to put on your panties and pants.

    Of course, you being you, YOU diddled yourself DURING part of your time being punished. I personally believe that is INAPPROPRIATE behavior, and I sense you do, too. After all, you've written at least a couple times that you do NOT like your punishment when it is going on, yet you masturbate after it is over while reliving your punishment. Punishment is PUNISHMENT, and you should not like even a part of it!

    Since you and David were going shopping for a cock cage for him, I believe YOU should also buy a chastity belt for YOURSELF. Here's one to consider:

    https://lovegasm.co/collections/female-chastity-belt/products/fealty-enforcer-female-chastity-belt

    Having David lock you in a chastity belt - or, better yet, making YOU lock yourself in and give him the key - would prevent you from masturbating DURING a punishment, and would treat you and David equally in that respect. After all, turn about IS fair play!

    Best,
    T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh T, how silly. Part of being a GIRL is you get to diddle yourself whenever and wherever it pleases you. Even while standing nose in corner. With boys I agree, lock 'em up those incipient rapists! ;-)

      Delete
    2. julie - Dare I point out the double standard between locking up the genitals of boys and girls in your answer, and the (implicit, if not explicit) double standard in this blog post between the left and the right?

      ;-)

      I still believe Miss Puss Puss should be OUT OF BOUNDS while you're in Time Out or otherwise being punished! In fact, I hope David reads this and implements my recommendation to buy, and put you into, a chastity belt!

      Back at ya, girl!!

      Best,
      -T.

      Delete
    3. I think anon is right. A good spanking punishment and put in chastity belt for a week. That should teach you a lesson. A PROPER punishment.

      Delete
    4. In matters of sex, girls decide!

      Delete
    5. When you are being punished, its David that decides. Of course you will get sex - you should be made to use your mouth to serve David, but no orgasms for you at all.

      Delete
    6. Yes, he decides because I've given myself to him, but he would never abuse that trust by locking my pretty pussy away!

      Delete
    7. Its not abuse. Its punishment!

      Delete
    8. Nice try.

      Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

      Delete
    9. julie - looks like at least another person agrees with my point of view.

      I'd also contend Miss Puss Puss is the ROOT CAUSE of many - if not all - your misbehaviors. After all, I bet you got WET as you wrote disrespectful replies to your readers' comments. Am I right, young lady?

      Bottom Line - SHE and you should BOTH be punished when you misbehave.

      -T.

      Delete
  23. The question contains an invalid assumption. There is nothing evil about "being towards the left part of the spectrum", or "being towards the right part of the spectrum". As with "evil", there is also nothing inherently "good", "intelligent", "ignorant", and so on.

    One way to slightly expand the appreciation of the 1-dimensional "left vs. right" nonsense is to add a second dimension, commonly done by adding a measure of authoritarian vs. libertarian. As a starting point, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass

    Generally, most people hate authoritarianism, yet most people (once in power) are authoritarian. Weird, eh? Old saying: "Power corrupts" (etc.)

    But your question about "evil" is interesting, in that what I consider to be "evil" in politics is when people use power (or seek to use power) to cause harm. I'm OK with good people on the left in government, and I'm OK (and I prefer) good people on the right in government. What I, and most Americans, are not OK with is performative cruelty in government; _that_ is evil.

    That's why I stopped watching Fox News years ago: It was all about cruelty, fear, and anger. That's also why I could not support Trump; purposefully (and gleefully) hurting other people to win political points is evil.

    I know that your POV differs, but I also know that you are absolutely on "the wrong side" of this one, because I have witnessed first hand the effects on people from this cruelty, this anger, and this nastiness. I don't want to be on the side that does evil; that doesn't mean that I'm "the left"; it just means that I refuse to help those who would do evil, who (somehow) have convinced (gullible?) people that they are representing "the right".

    https://www.oklahoman.com/article/feed/8350589/angry-at-shutdown-trump-supporter-says-hes-not-hurting-the-people-he-needs-to-be-hurting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No invalid assumption. We agree that the attitude from the left towards the right, that they are evil because they are on the right, is deeply flawed.

      There are degrees of how authoritarian folks go. The Democrats have crossed a lot of those lines since getting in (lockdowns, mandates, political persecution, identity politics, cancel culture, censorship). The Trump Republicans before them, not so much.

      Trump tended to only hit people who hit him first. Outside of those cases (which I applaud), what "cruelty, anger, nastiness" are you referring to? Can you give your best example of this (just one we can discuss)? The story you link to is a really BAD example because he did not say what the article accuses him of saying, a fact you can ascertain just by following the links. I fear you are overly influenced by the media, and are not bothering to dig into the actual in context statements.

      Delete
    2. No one ever said " they are evil because they are on the right" that's ridiculous stop watching Fox news.

      Delete
    3. The tone of your replies are EXACTLY what you were spanked for a week ago, this is your way of getting the paddle, There is absolutely NO WAY David is going to read your replies here and see them all as having the level of respectful discourse that you promised him you would maintain. I think you are in big trouble for these replies and that is what you were after all along

      Delete
    4. Well let's hope he doesn't come to read these comments then :-)

      Delete
  24. I don't think I understand why you talk about politics on a spanking blog. Most of the audience is the same as people who would buy your erotica books, no? Doesn't really mix with politics.

    I'm just looking at some of these awful comments and thinking how effortless it would be for you to avoid them by simply not posting this here. Like, if you want to express yourself politically, why not start another Anonymous blog just for that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not here to sell books. My books were an outgrowth of this blog. I reported in detail on how little I make from them, and all the revenue is donated. Labour of love.

      I have a good audience I can interact with here, and I don't mind hateful comments, I feel no pain from them. I blog about what's top of mind, which is distressingly often spanking, but not always!

      Also, most political blogs get quickly bubbled, so you are only talking to your own side. The folks coming here for the spankings are of all political stripes, and it makes the conversation more interesting and we all learn more and are exposed to others ideas more efficiently. And the spanking lovers who hate politics don't need to read these political posts, they're easy to spot from the title!

      Delete
  25. Among all the many reasons the left considers the right as evil the cool one would be a matter of perception. Since this country has a good guy/bad guy mentality, and the Democrats associate themselves with being left, the only way they can define themselves is by having an opponent. One that seems rigid and locked in some unchanging course in contrast to their appearance has being the underdog forces of change.

    It is a myth I have known from them for my entire life. The myth presented to every Black American over the past several decades. One I am very proud to say that we are successfully debunking especially under the current presidency.

    The real question that should be posted is why does the left believe themselves be the good guys when under their watch in the past 10 months alone they have create and support it policies and actions that would make a dictator blush. And all of them the very thing they accused the right of doing. You would think this country would be tired of hypocrites.

    Now I'm quite certain that some you really replied in a negative manner too Julie's post will find something to say against my reply. Probably going far has to find other Black Kinksters to swear up and down on how wonderful the left is. Of course these are the same ones who ignored the fact that Biden has a proven anti-black track record and help elect him despite getting nothing but grief in return.

    Well as a Black Man who has always been a critical thinker, you can do the attempt but if you do so bring some facts that shows the beneficial treatment the left has given Black Americans up to present day.

    In the meantime understand that the left was never the friends of Black America. Definitely not our allies. Of course the majority responders here don't share my skin color nor what we have gone through and continue to go through as a result of the left. The right has their issues but at least they're up front about it. The left has become the masters of hypocrisy to hide all the bull they promote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your perspective. Well said.

      Delete
  26. It's quite simple really. The right is interested in personal rights, the left is interested in community responsibility. Around the centre there is a balance between the two with most people wanting freedom, but realising there is aresponsibility that goes with it. When society moves to the right, the rich and powerful leave the poor and vulnerable behind, but when society moves to the left the economy starts to waver, the gap between rich and poor is less, but the "average" life style is a bit lower.
    (Un fortunately with a so-called left wing society, there will still be powerful and corrupt people to benefit beyond the possible expectations of the person in the street.)
    So, with a Right wing society, the few rich and powerful people are resented by the majority of the population whereas in a left wing society, everyone is in the same boat.
    So, at the moment, our society is somewhere around the centre (slightly to the right at the moment.
    But what is really needed is for the politicians and power brokers to all have a good spanking until they learn the effects of their actions!

    ReplyDelete
  27. There is always manipulation of facts on both sides to make the other look bad. But as a left winger, I whole heartedly agree with painting the right as bad (which they are in many cases), not so much to get back at people for having a different opinion, but as a political strategy to delegitimize right wing politics. I have to say its kinda sorta successful for now. No guarantees for the future though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, you're right, and it may be good strategy (see Alinsky Rules for Radicals), but it's a shitty was to proceed and guarantees no progress.

      Delete
  28. Hey guys - topping out near the limits of blogger, and my friend Paula is due any moment now, so I anticipate (fingers crossed!) having several days worse of material soon to blog about. Yay!

    Will shut down comments on this post - thank you for your input!

    ReplyDelete