What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Danusha Goska: Why I am no longer a leftist (1 Viewer)

I think watching the selective outrage and hatred he describes towards people of a bizarrely-defined "privileged" class will go a long way into shaping one's feelings about communitarian and social politics. If you realize there's a large block of people that hate you because of deeply-held opinions or immutable characteristics, you're more likely to value certain rights that are, as they would say, not up for voting upon or debating about.

I think it happens on both sides, as many people have pointed out.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Right. I think the conclusion is not that leftism is ideologically wrong, necessarily, but that most hardcore leftists are hypocritical jerks.

The same can no doubt be said about hardcore conservatives.
So hypocritical jerks often have hardcore positions? Is that news? I mean, is someone surprised by that?

 
If you don't cry while watching "America: Imagine the World Without Her," I don't want to know you. "America: Imagine the World Without Her" is a slickly produced and entertaining documentary that attempts to fill a need in the US for a counter to hegemonic anti-American voices on the left in academia and media. It's a sober, responsible, and fact-based documentary, not at all sensationalistic or exaggerated. If anything, it is more low-key than it should be. It could have used more fireworks.

"America" features dramatic reenactments of historic personages and events. In this respect it is more like a feature film and less like a documentary. Much of the time you are not watching talking heads; you are watching fully costumed actors and fully realized sets.
That must have been the day someone told her movies weren't real.

 
Just skimmed the article, but the Cliff Notes seem to be that she grew up a Communist but then later realized that her views had more in common with Republicans and is now voting GOP. Makes perfect sense to me.

 
Just skimmed the article, but the Cliff Notes seem to be that she grew up a Communist but then later realized that her views had more in common with Republicans and is now voting GOP. Makes perfect sense to me.
Perfect illustration of point 5.

 
I agree with almost all of this. (except the god crap) I also would agree with 10 points about Rightests.

We need a real 3rd party in this country.

 
I agree with almost all of this. (except the god crap) I also would agree with 10 points about Rightests.

We need a real 3rd party in this country.
Oh #### no. We have enough bickering without getting another party into it.

 
AhrnCityPahnder said:
I think that there's a lot of worthwhile points here, but it's interesting that few (any?) of the points are actually about idealogical positions. It's more about douchebaggy people.

And the left does not have a monopoly on douchebags.
True, but the leftist douchebags tend to read Salon and Paul Krugman columns.
What do the rightist douchebags read?
 
AhrnCityPahnder said:
I think that there's a lot of worthwhile points here, but it's interesting that few (any?) of the points are actually about idealogical positions. It's more about douchebaggy people.

And the left does not have a monopoly on douchebags.
True, but the leftist douchebags tend to read Salon and Paul Krugman columns.
What do the rightist douchebags read?
The "I HATE OBAMACARE FOR UNSPECIFIED REASONS" thread.

 
Funny how 92.7 percent of the d-baggery on this forum is from the left.
:link:
Open any religious thread, those really bring out the best of the left. Of course you are oblivious to just how prevalent it is here and can be a contributor to it.
:lmao:

I don't think I've ever posted in any "religious thread." But I just wanted to know where you got that 92.7% figure from. My estimate that 100% of you rightwing nutjobs are rightwing nutjobs is far better-supported.

 
Funny how 92.7 percent of the d-baggery on this forum is from the left.
:link:
Open any religious thread, those really bring out the best of the left. Of course you are oblivious to just how prevalent it is here and can be a contributor to it.
:lmao:

I don't think I've ever posted in any "religious thread." But I just wanted to know where you got that 92.7% figure from. My estimate that 100% of you rightwing nutjobs are rightwing nutjobs is far better-supported.
It is funny that people consider me a right wing nut job. I usually stake out moderate positions and can rationally defend them. But then my positions get completely misreprented and are attacked using the strawman tactic. It a very common approach to debate from the lefties on this forum of putting words in my mouth which I never said or perhaps was just being sarcastic usually to try to illustrate a point.

 
Funny how 92.7 percent of the d-baggery on this forum is from the left.
:link:
Open any religious thread, those really bring out the best of the left. Of course you are oblivious to just how prevalent it is here and can be a contributor to it.
:lmao:

I don't think I've ever posted in any "religious thread." But I just wanted to know where you got that 92.7% figure from. My estimate that 100% of you rightwing nutjobs are rightwing nutjobs is far better-supported.
It is funny that people consider me a right wing nut job. I usually stake out moderate positions and can rationally defend them.
:lol: I actually like you a lot and you don't offend me in the slightest, unlike most of the nutjob cons on the board (Max Threshold, etc.), but moderate? COME ON NOW

I really have never intended to put words in your mouth in any discussion, either, so apologies if I did in fact do just that.

 
I have no issue with the article from the perspective of calling out the crapbags that exist on the left. I know plenty of people like the ones she discusses (I went to Ann Arbor for grad school) and can't freaking stand being around them.

But to use it as a reason of why she has swung all the way to vote for establishment Republicans seems a little silly. You could write the same article about the far right.

The one point that I do encounter pretty routinely is the religion one. I'm a practicing Catholic and consider myself a pretty moderate person politically. But to many of my Catholic friends and family members I might as well register for the Socialist party.

 
Giving Goska the benefit of the doubt, I went to her blog, which link to this recent piece she wrote about Kaci Hickox.

A small excerpt from the linked piece:

Shelby Steele talks about this in White Guilt. Some whites chose to be part of black liberation because being part of black liberation elevated their status.

I don't know Kaci Hickox, but I do see her behavior.

She insists that she can break rules that lesser mortals must follow. She insists that she can break those rules because her thought processes are superior to ours. She is guided by SCIENCE she insists, while the rest of us act on FEAR and IGNORANCE and POLITICS. I'm using all caps in an attempt to mirror, on the page, her stridency.

Her arrogance is a horrific public example. Would you want everyone in America to make similar decisions? "I am smarter and better; others are stupider and worse; therefore, I need not follow the rules that the little people must follow."

Maybe Hickox is correct. If she is, there are avenues she can follow to change rules. She could approach leaders respectfully. She has fame on her side. Even from quarantine, she could have been interviewed by CNN. That's not what she chose to do.

But Hickox is not correct. It's not just that Hickox refuses to follow rules the rest of us must follow. It's that she is also wrong. The quarantine is reasonable. Hickox says that only symptomatic people need quarantine themselves. In fact people can be symptomatic and make bad decisions, as did the nurse Amber Vinson, who developed a fever and then got on a plane. In fact hospital staff can make bad decisions about symptomatic people, as happened with Thomas Eric Duncan. He reported a fever and travel in Africa and was sent home. In fact people can rapidly become symptomatic after appearing to be asymptomatic. Craig Spencer, the doctor who went bowling and used the subway, became symptomatic shortly after his public peregrinations. There is no guarantee that Ebola sufferers can quarantine themselves rapidly after becoming symptomatic. If Spencer had started vomiting on the subway, which easily could have happened, more lives would have been at risk. In fact people can take antipyretics and disguise symptoms. In other words, yes, there are good reasons for the quarantine. And, no, Kaci Hickox, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes science. Or, as you would say it, SCIENCE. And, no, we are not all ignorant peasants over whom you can reign.

And, no, Kaci Hickox, your service does not make you better than I or anyone else.

I served in Africa, too. I served about two hundred miles from the Ebola River. I almost died twice when I was a Peace Corps Volunteer, and I've had some health problems since directly related to my Peace Corps service.

And I never, ever, felt that my service, my near fatal experiences, or my continued health challenges made me better than anyone.

It isn't your service that makes you different from me, Kaci Hickox. It is, rather, your arrogance, and your eagerness to exploit your contact with Africans to make you better than Americans.
Oooof. No wonder she voted Romney. She's a moron.
:shrug:

I don't see anything wrong with that

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny how 92.7 percent of the d-baggery on this forum is from the left.
:link:
Open any religious thread, those really bring out the best of the left. Of course you are oblivious to just how prevalent it is here and can be a contributor to it.
:lmao:

I don't think I've ever posted in any "religious thread." But I just wanted to know where you got that 92.7% figure from. My estimate that 100% of you rightwing nutjobs are rightwing nutjobs is far better-supported.
It is funny that people consider me a right wing nut job. I usually stake out moderate positions and can rationally defend them.
:lol: I actually like you a lot and you don't offend me in the slightest, unlike most of the nutjob cons on the board (Max Threshold, etc.), but moderate? COME ON NOW

I really have never intended to put words in your mouth in any discussion, either, so apologies if I did in fact do just that.
By moderate I did not intent to imply moderate from an entire population perspective, but moderate from the population of conservatives, which I was unsuccessfully tried to convey with the last phrase.

 
Just skimmed the article, but the Cliff Notes seem to be that she grew up a Communist but then later realized that her views had more in common with Republicans and is now voting GOP. Makes perfect sense to me.
Authority loving totalitarians usually recognize each other.

 
How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying “Eat the Rich.” To me it wasn’t a metaphor.
None of these things make a person a leftist.

 
The problem with stuff like this is that they always concentrate on the most extreme elements of the side they don't like. She could have written, just as easily: "I used to be a conservative until I discovered that they were all racists!"
Says the guy who blames all the wrongness in the world on the Tea Party?

 
fwiw, the vast majority of my friends are on the left and occupy positions in the public sector and academia (including my wife), and none of them are anything like what she describes.
I know hundreds of left-leaning people in academia, and she is spot on about the "microagression" thing and how lots of people actively go looking for things to be offended about.

 
1) Hate.

If hate were the only reason, I’d stop being a leftist for this reason alone.

Almost twenty years ago, when I could not conceive of ever being anything but a leftist, I joined a left-wing online discussion forum.

Before that I’d had twenty years of face-to-face participation in leftist politics: marching, organizing, socializing.

In this online forum, suddenly my only contact with others was the words those others typed onto a screen. That limited and focused means of contact revealed something.

If you took all the words typed into the forum every day and arranged them according to what part of speech they were, you’d quickly notice that nouns expressing the emotions of anger, aggression, and disgust, and verbs speaking of destruction, punishing, and wreaking vengeance, outnumbered any other class of words.

One topic thread was entitled “What do you view as disgusting about modern America?” The thread was begun in 2002. Almost eight thousand posts later, the thread was still going strong in June, 2014.

Those posting messages in this left-wing forumpublicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace. Thus, when Obama bombed, you didn’t hold any anti-war rally, because you didn’t hate Obama.

I experienced powerful cognitive dissonance when I recognized the hate. The rightest of my right-wing acquaintances — I had no right-wing friends — expressed nothing like this. My right-wing acquaintances talked about loving: God, their family, their community. I’m not saying that the right-wingers I knew were better people; I don’t know that they were. I’m speaking here, merely, about language.

In 1995 I developed a crippling illness. I couldn’t work, lost my life savings, and traveled through three states, from surgery to surgery.

A left-wing friend, Pete, sent me emails raging against Republicans like George Bush, whom he referred to as “Bu####ler.” The Republicans were to blame because they opposed socialized medicine. In fact it’s not at all certain that socialized medicine would have helped; the condition I had is not common and there was no guaranteed treatment.

I visited online discussion forums for others with the same affliction. One of my fellow sufferers, who identified himself as a successful corporate executive in New Jersey, publicly announced that the symptoms were so hideous, and his helpless slide into poverty was so much not what his wife had bargained for when she married him, that he planned to take his own life. He stopped posting after that announcement, though I responded to his post and requested a reply. It is possible that he committed suicide, exactly as he said he would — car exhaust in the garage. I suddenly realized that my “eat the rich” lapel button was a sin premised on a lie.

In any case, at the time I was diagnosed, Bush wasn’t president; Clinton was. And, as I pointed out to Pete, his unceasing and vehement expressions of hatred against Republicans did nothing for me.
It would be trivially easy to pick out half a dozen right-wing posters on this forum who exhibit the exact same sort of behavior with regards to Obama and Democrats in general. And this is a relatively good corner of the internet. I'm sure there are scuzzy right-wing forums out there that are no better than the left-wing ones that the author describes.

She's absolutely right that a large number of people are motivated less by pure ideology and more by hating the other side. That's not just a left-wing issue.

 
She's absolutely right that a large number of people are motivated less by pure ideology and more by hating the other side. That's not just a left-wing issue.
Right, that's true of almost everything in the article. If people on both sides are doing the same annoying stuff, why would it cause her to switch her beliefs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She's absolutely right that a large number of people are motivated less by pure ideology and more by hating the other side. That's not just a left-wing issue.
Right, that's true of almost everything in the article. If people on both sides are doing the same annoying stuff, why would it cause her to switch her beliefs?
She's become a "bizarro-idealogue", and now only recognizes horrid behavior by her own team?

 
She's absolutely right that a large number of people are motivated less by pure ideology and more by hating the other side. That's not just a left-wing issue.
Right, that's true of almost everything in the article. If people on both sides are doing the same annoying stuff, why would it cause her to switch her beliefs?
Kind of like some who have religion feed to them when they were little, go off to college and start to see the other side abandon all their beliefs and in some cases turn into the biggest anti-religious d-bags full of hatred for all things religion.

 
She's absolutely right that a large number of people are motivated less by pure ideology and more by hating the other side. That's not just a left-wing issue.
Right, that's true of almost everything in the article. If people on both sides are doing the same annoying stuff, why would it cause her to switch her beliefs?
Kind of like some who have religion feed to them when they were little, go off to college and start to see the other side abandon all their beliefs and in some cases turn into the biggest anti-religious d-bags full of hatred for all things religion.
you mad, bro?

 
If the lefties ever find themselves holding the reins of power they're gonna be surprised and disappointed to learn that a lot of people they thought were on their side turned out actually to be just anti-authoritarians.

 
If the lefties ever find themselves holding the reins of power they're gonna be surprised and disappointed to learn that a lot of people they thought were on their side turned out actually to be just anti-authoritarians.
I think you'd find the same on the right within academia, at least from my experience. In retrospect, it seems like one must have some sort of anti-authoritarian streak to survive as anywhere near a self-declared rightist in academics right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the lefties ever find themselves holding the reins of power they're gonna be surprised and disappointed to learn that a lot of people they thought were on their side turned out actually to be just anti-authoritarians.
She doesn't represent the majority of those on the left. She was as far left as any far right person. To the point where there is very little difference between the two. And I really hate the term leftist. What even is that? I am a liberal. I am not a communist. There is a huge range on the left. From center left to someone like she claims she was.

 
Had this thread not been started I doubt I would ever have heard of her. When this thread drops from the from page I will not give her a second thought. I wonder if she will be able to parlay her moment here into something more permanent. Is this how one auditions for Fox news?

 
If the lefties ever find themselves holding the reins of power they're gonna be surprised and disappointed to learn that a lot of people they thought were on their side turned out actually to be just anti-authoritarians.
She doesn't represent the majority of those on the left. She was as far left as any far right person. To the point where there is very little difference between the two. And I really hate the term leftist. What even is that? I am a liberal. I am not a communist. There is a huge range on the left. From center left to someone like she claims she was.
I still don't see anything in her essay I can point to as evidence she was ever really a "leftist." I think she's just making that claim to give her viewpoint legitimacy it wouldn't have otherwise. Not that it really worked anyway.

 
If the lefties ever find themselves holding the reins of power they're gonna be surprised and disappointed to learn that a lot of people they thought were on their side turned out actually to be just anti-authoritarians.
She doesn't represent the majority of those on the left. She was as far left as any far right person. To the point where there is very little difference between the two. And I really hate the term leftist. What even is that? I am a liberal. I am not a communist. There is a huge range on the left. From center left to someone like she claims she was.
I still don't see anything in her essay I can point to as evidence she was ever really a "leftist." I think she's just making that claim to give her viewpoint legitimacy it wouldn't have otherwise. Not that it really worked anyway.
Certainly some truth to that.

 
If the lefties ever find themselves holding the reins of power they're gonna be surprised and disappointed to learn that a lot of people they thought were on their side turned out actually to be just anti-authoritarians.
She doesn't represent the majority of those on the left. She was as far left as any far right person. To the point where there is very little difference between the two. And I really hate the term leftist. What even is that? I am a liberal. I am not a communist. There is a huge range on the left. From center left to someone like she claims she was.
I'd think that "common usage" would define the term "leftist" as someone toward the extreme, far-left end of the scale.

 
If the lefties ever find themselves holding the reins of power they're gonna be surprised and disappointed to learn that a lot of people they thought were on their side turned out actually to be just anti-authoritarians.
She doesn't represent the majority of those on the left. She was as far left as any far right person. To the point where there is very little difference between the two. And I really hate the term leftist. What even is that? I am a liberal. I am not a communist. There is a huge range on the left. From center left to someone like she claims she was.
I think Bottomfeeder Sports and I are pinkos. We like lots of commie-type crap.

 
6) I believe in God.

Read Marx and discover a mythology that is irreconcilable with any other narrative, including the Bible. Hang out in leftist internet environments, and you will discover a toxic bath of irrational hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition. You will discover an alternate vocabulary in which Jesus is a “dead Jew on a stick” or a “zombie” and any belief is an arbitrary sham, the equivalent of a recently invented “flying spaghetti monster.” You will discover historical revisionism that posits Nazism as a Christian denomination. You will discover a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization and American concepts of individual rights and law. You will discover a nihilist void, the kind of vacuum of meaning that nature abhors and that, all too often, history fills with the worst totalitarian nightmares, the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem.
This is dead on accurate.No room for Christian liberals unless you want a lifetime of mockery.
That is asinine.
Sorry, I should have been more concise. By Christian I meant active, practicing evangelical type Christians. I'm sure anyone can keep their beliefs to themselves and not have a problem.

 
Some very predictable comments in here:

- she's too wordy, too stupid, its poorly written

- the other side does it, too

- she never really was a leftist

- :lmao:

So now that we have all of those out of the way, anyone want a real discussion? :popcorn:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top