• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do a movement's supporters influence the legitimacy of that movement?

Do a movement's supporters influence the legitimacy of that movement?


  • Total voters
    22
You have to consider the source, which does prove that it's hard, if not impossible, to separate a movement from it's participants. And those who don't add flavor to their oatmeal need to be suppressed and eventually wiped out. I will not be made out to be liar.

I agree. Death to bland oatmeal eaters.:roll:
 
I like how not being meek while demanding equal rights makes a person "militant." "Militant" in this context is just the 21st century version of "uppity."
 
I like how not being meek while demanding equal rights makes a person "militant." "Militant" in this context is just the 21st century version of "uppity."
Who, besides you, defined militant as "not being meek while demanding equal rights" in this thread?
 
Do a movement's supporters influence the legitimacy of that movement?

In other words, if you support the principles, ideals and arguments of a movement, but you find the movement's advocates repulsive, does that affect your willingness to support that movement? Similarly, if you support the arguments, et al. of a movement and you love its supports, does that make you fight for it harder? Even further, if you don't agree with the arguments, et al. of a movement, but you admire and respect its advocates, does that admiration and respect make you reconsider your position or support them in spite of your reservations?

Example: You are against same sex marriage morally and you support it politically, but you've interacted primarily with militant gay rights activists who castigate anyone who differs with them even a bit. Do those people reduce your willingness to support gay rights?

Thread inspired, in part, by this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/155307-you-make-so-hard-me-love-you-baby.html

I think there are a lot of factors that go into support or lack of support for a movement. One might not support gay marriage morally or politically but might so abhor the behavior of groups like Westbor baptist they put their wctive opposition to hold out of disdain for and not wanting to be identified with crazies.
 
Who, besides you, defined militant as "not being meek while demanding equal rights" in this thread?

You did. In the OP. You describe someone who is in your face about discrimination, and doesn't sit around, politely asking you not to oppress people, as militant. Somehow the expectation is that oppressed people will just wait for the wisdom of the majority to bless them equality. You get upset that they don't come to you like Oliver Twist, like a child asking an adult, "please sir, I want some more" with deference and humility because they dare to be lesser than you. It's applied to gay activists, to atheists, to people who know better than the complete and utter bull that racism goes away by ignoring it, and to women who want to be masters of their own destinies. When someone dares to stand up demand equality, rather than meekly begging for it, they're labeled as militant. It's nothing more than the 21st century version of "uppity."
 
You did. In the OP. You describe someone who is in your face about discrimination, and doesn't sit around, politely asking you not to oppress people, as militant. Somehow the expectation is that oppressed people will just wait for the wisdom of the majority to bless them equality. You get upset that they don't come to you like Oliver Twist, like a child asking an adult, "please sir, I want some more" with deference and humility because they dare to be lesser than you. It's applied to gay activists, to atheists, to people who know better than the complete and utter bull that racism goes away by ignoring it, and to women who want to be masters of their own destinies. When someone dares to stand up demand equality, rather than meekly begging for it, they're labeled as militant. It's nothing more than the 21st century version of "uppity."
So it's either meek or militant. We can now safely eliminate a whole bunch of pages from the dictionary. Do you have hot and cold running water only where you live? I don't know about you, but around here we can mix the two and actually achieve an infinite number of variations in between those two extremes. Believe it or not, gays, women, atheists, and all the races have access to it here.
 
I actually hadn't thought of PETA which is surprising because it's definitely an organization that hurts the animal rights movement. I'm so turned off by their behavior and by the extremism of many of their arguments as are many others.

Don't even get me started. As an animal lover and something of an activist, PETA makes me want to put my head through a wall.
 
You did. In the OP. You describe someone who is in your face about discrimination, and doesn't sit around, politely asking you not to oppress people, as militant. Somehow the expectation is that oppressed people will just wait for the wisdom of the majority to bless them equality. You get upset that they don't come to you like Oliver Twist, like a child asking an adult, "please sir, I want some more" with deference and humility because they dare to be lesser than you. It's applied to gay activists, to atheists, to people who know better than the complete and utter bull that racism goes away by ignoring it, and to women who want to be masters of their own destinies. When someone dares to stand up demand equality, rather than meekly begging for it, they're labeled as militant. It's nothing more than the 21st century version of "uppity."
Um, you just projected A LOT onto my post - like a WHOLE LOT. I referenced "militant gay rights activists" but I didn't define it so you provided a definition for me based on your own sensitivities. Instead of assuming that I meant all that you assumed I meant by that term, you should have asked me what I meant (hint: nothing even close to what you said). Moreover, considering my history of telling anti-SSM people on DP to shove it when they complain about gay people being "in their face" and having anti-SSM people lose their **** on me because I didn't have any patience for their "but why can't gay people just take civil unions" and "compromise", your comment is laughably inaccurate. I do literally the exact opposite of what you described.

So please, take your presumptuous bull**** the **** out of my face and shove it up your ass and the next time you see someone use a term that makes you emotional, ask the person what they meant by it instead of projecting whatever nonsense you have in your mind about it.
 
You did. In the OP. You describe someone who is in your face about discrimination, and doesn't sit around, politely asking you not to oppress people, as militant. Somehow the expectation is that oppressed people will just wait for the wisdom of the majority to bless them equality. You get upset that they don't come to you like Oliver Twist, like a child asking an adult, "please sir, I want some more" with deference and humility because they dare to be lesser than you. It's applied to gay activists, to atheists, to people who know better than the complete and utter bull that racism goes away by ignoring it, and to women who want to be masters of their own destinies. When someone dares to stand up demand equality, rather than meekly begging for it, they're labeled as militant. It's nothing more than the 21st century version of "uppity."

Epic. Why can't I Like this twice?

I've been called "militant" on several issues simply for being very firm. For simply asserting unapologetically what I believe. I remember one time being called a militant atheist for condemned a bunch of Christians running an atheist out of town. Literally.
 
Absolutely, I support many of the Tea party gripes as do many democrats I know, however, the extreme of either party can erase the total effectiveness of a good idea.
 
Epic. Why can't I Like this twice?

I've been called "militant" on several issues simply for being very firm. For simply asserting unapologetically what I believe. I remember one time being called a militant atheist for condemned a bunch of Christians running an atheist out of town. Literally.
Neither what you wrote here or what Paschendale wrote has anything to do with what I said in my OP. You, like him, need to stop projecting all of your past experiences with the word "militant" onto any use of it that you don't like.
 
Last edited:
Neither what you wrote here or what Paschendale wrote has anything to do with what I said in your OP. You, like him, need to stop projecting all of your past experiences with the word "militant" onto any use of it that you don't like.

I am not necessarily agreeing that you implied that. I am, however, agreeing with how the word "militant" is often used.
 
Definitely.
Exhibit A) Look at the Tea Party. It started as a libertarian minded, grass roots organization that protested all overspending, liberty infringing politicians no matter their party. This is evidenced by the fact that the Tea Party started during Pres Bush the younger's 2nd term, not during Pres Obama's 1st term as is popularly believed. However, as the movement gained momentum, more and more hangers on accumulated. Some examples are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum. All of them gained the "Tea Party" vote or support at one point or another despite the fact that all of them infringe on other's liberty's and/or do not have fiscally conservative roots. This, and some of the racist idiots that show up to the rally's have ruined what began as a peaceful and respectable movement. I still support it because I know what it was and what it still is at it's roots. Plus, I'm not paying to change my username.:2razz:

Exhibit B) Environmental groups in general. I am a nature lover. I hunt, fish, hike, etc with my son all the time. I teach him never to kill an animal (including bugs) unless he plans to eat it, it is a threat to him, or it is destroying property that would not be easily repaired (such as a vehicle or house). I severely frown upon trophy hunting and teach him it's wrong. We recycle everything. We grocery shop with re-usable grocery bags. We use cloth diapers. I could go on and on. But, with groups like Greenpeace and PETA, it sets a generally radical and over reaching precedence for a lot of people. A lot of people, especially in the south, associate the save the earth stuff with idiots like that. They marginalize people like me who are not radical but are simply doing what we believe God intended us to do. Take care of the Earth. Despite what many will say or post, peer pressure and the need to fit in are huge factors in stuff like this. If someone feels they will be lumped in with groups such as these for throwing a save the earth bumper sticker on their vehicle or for being anal about recycling, they won't do it. Thats the superficial nation we live in.

Exhibit C) Christians. Not all of us are gay hating bigots despite the effort to characterize us as such. Do I think gay marriage is right? No. But I don't believe I should force my beliefs upon others through gov't regulation either. I don't hate gay people because they're gay. Gay is not some special sin that is much worse than others. Being gay is a sin (in my opinion) just like any other sin. It doesn't make gay people extra bad people. The fact that I'm not gay doesn't put me in the position to judge someone who is. I do believe a gay person could go to heaven. Anyone, if they honestly ask the Lord for salvation, will be accepted into heaven upon their death. The Bible doesn't say "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life note; except gay people."
Thanks for the thorough examples. When I started the thread, I only had a few examples in mind, but this thread has shed light on how pervasive the reality of a movement's supporters influencing the movement itself is relative to a bunch of political perspectives.

Great thread by the way.
Thanks.
 
The validity of an idea is not affected by the person who holds it. That's basic logic.

Which doesn't alter the fact that we are human, and I think it will impact us. But you are right, it shouldn't. Though I will say it does make me reevaluate, just to make sure. That extremists recognize you as one of them, and believe that you stand with them, should give you pause.
 
Which doesn't alter the fact that we are human, and I think it will impact us. But you are right, it shouldn't. Though I will say it does make me reevaluate, just to make sure. That extremists recognize you as one of them, and believe that you stand with them, should give you pause.

I think that people are cowed by authority figures and makes more of an impression on them.

For an example look at any forum. The members are usually cowed by the forum's moderators as opposed to a normal members without their awesome powers of retaliation, sometimes.
 
I think that people are cowed by authority figures and makes more of an impression on them.

For an example look at any forum. The members are usually cowed by the forum's moderators as opposed to a normal members without their awesome powers of retaliation, sometimes.

meh, but you're also looking at a group that is self-selecting. moderators are usually also among the better posters. But yeah, we humans tend to be herd animals.
 
meh, but you're also looking at a group that is self-selecting. moderators are usually also among the better posters. But yeah, we humans tend to be herd animals.

You prove my point by claiming that mods seem to be among the "better posters". I don't agree with that.:)
 
Are you bucking for a get out of jail card? lulz

Nope. Some of the mods I like, some I think have issues, some I get along with, some I don't. But the fact is that the Admin of a site and then the core moderation staff as a body generally select the moderators and lower-tier personnel (bartenders and the like) from among the better posters who equally demonstrate stable and responsible personalities. Otherwise the site goes all to hell in a handbasket and rapidly dies (which it can do, anyways). This site appears to have some pretty good longevity as well as a solid and fairly wide core of regular posters along with a wider body of occasional-buy-ins, indicating that it is, by and large, fairly well-moderated. You may have had your own issues, but that is likely (given the evidence) to be your problem, not theirs.
 
But what is "the movement?" I claim it is the people of it, not the so-called leaders of it - nor those who try to push everything to compromised middle grounds for correctness or to seem "nice."

In short, a "movement" IS the supporters, therefore the poll question and potential answers are based on a false premise that a "movement" is defined top-down.

So, as example, the gun-rights "movement" is NOT the NRA, it is gun-rights activists. The anti-gun-rights movement is put on the table by Democrats, but they are not "the movement" for gun rights restrictions.
 
Republicans are better at seeing the distinction between "the movement/principles" and the leadership.

Many Republicans had no problem criticizing and even raging against W Bush, McCain and Romney. But few Democrats do so against Obama and either completely reversed their principles/stances or made excuses. FOR OBAMA, most Democrats have either reversed themselves or declared it trivial on:
Drone attacks against other countries, civil rights, the Constitution's Bill of Rights, war, the military, personal privacy issues, corporate welfare, police and government power, transparent government. Israel, and Gitmo - as just some examples.

To understand "conservative" principles you have to look at the people. To understand "liberal" principles (in the USA) you have to see what Democratic leaders are doing or pushing at the moment.
 
Republicans are better at seeing the distinction between "the movement/principles" and the leadership.

Many Republicans had no problem criticizing and even raging against W Bush, McCain and Romney. But few Democrats do so against Obama and either completely reversed their principles/stances or made excuses. FOR OBAMA, most Democrats have either reversed themselves or declared it trivial on:
Drone attacks against other countries, civil rights, the Constitution's Bill of Rights, war, the military, personal privacy issues, corporate welfare, police and government power, transparent government. Israel, and Gitmo - as just some examples.

To understand "conservative" principles you have to look at the people. To understand "liberal" principles (in the USA) you have to see what Democratic leaders are doing or pushing at the moment.

W@hat about Reagan's 11th commandent?
 
There are some people who are so whacked out to their particular extreme, that if they endorse something I have to be immediately suspicious. I have to check it our deeper than I otherwise might.

Sometimes it turns out ok. Sometimes it turns out to be a trojan horse to be avoided.
 
Which doesn't alter the fact that we are human, and I think it will impact us. But you are right, it shouldn't. Though I will say it does make me reevaluate, just to make sure. That extremists recognize you as one of them, and believe that you stand with them, should give you pause.

I was answering the question for myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom