On the Tyranny of the Majority in posting on a Left-leaning forum:

[cytg111]

I give up:

The Camel's Nose In The Tent !​

One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

If I cared but I dont, cause, witchcraft is not a real thing.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I was replying to the statement: "There is no "genetic ideal of the specie", our variation is a strength, not a weakness."

My aim was simply to point out that evolution can favor the continuances of genetic sameness where environmental influences remain in stasis. It is only when selective pressures favor genetic variations in isolated or semi isolated populations that variations in genetic material become important in adapting to those changes. Owing to rates of random mutations, perhaps also favored by evolution in some parts of the genome over others, some degree of genetic changes over long time periods are to be expected. Morphologically, however, if two living examples could somehow be had, I'd wager that a modern and an ancient Coelacanth, side by side, would present as the same species.

Coelacanth Genes Mapped, "Living Fossil" Evolved Slowly

Scientists have mapped the coelacanth genome and found that the ancient fish's genes evolved more slowly than those of other animals.

www.nationalgeographic.com

This is a sister taxon to the extant Latimerioidei.

A fork-tailed coelacanth, Rebellatrix divaricerca, gen. et sp. nov. (Actinistia, Rebellatricidae, fam. nov.), from the Lower Triassic of Western Canada

An unusual fork-tailed coelacanth from the Lower Triassic Sulphur Mountain Formation of British Columbia, Canada, marks the first considerable departure in actinistian body form since the Mississi...

www.tandfonline.com

“An unusual fork-tailed coelacanth from the Lower Triassic Sulphur Mountain Formation of British Columbia, Canada, marks the first considerable departure in actinistian body form since the Mississippian Period. Rebellatrix divaricerca, gen. et sp. nov., is unique among coelacanths in its possession of a bifurcated caudal fin, reduced segmentation of fin rays, and fusion of caudal fin elements. Parsimony analysis of a character-taxon matrix of 109 characters and 29 taxa recovered R. divaricerca as sister taxon to Latimerioidei. The family Rebellatricidae is erected to include only R. divaricerca. This novel body shape of the new coelacanth raises questions about the idea that coelacanths were morphologically static following the Mississippian. Rebellatrix divaricerca also emphasizes the morphological diversity of coelacanths during the Early Triassic, a time when species diversity of coelacanths was also highest. The slender, fork-tailed body form suggests fast swimming and an active lifestyle, unique among known fossil and extant coelacanths.”

 

[Moonbeam]

@Amused:

Dear Amused,

Social rejection is not authoritarian and yes I am socially rejecting your stupendous upside down thinking.

I am not advocated jailing you for being racist, sexist or bigoted.

You're not oppressed. You're are obsessed by a childish need to dominate the conditions of our conversation and so be prepared to be rejected in the free market we have in this forum for counterpoint ideas.

This is what happened when you sought to hold up Stockholm Syndrome symptom conversion mentality by oppressing those who see as victims, yourself actually from any light source that casts into conscious awareness of that which you stand in terror of seeing.

"Authoritarianism is the manifestation of the aforementioned Stockholm Syndrome, the needd to surrender to authority and to support it with slavish devotion, of rejection of political plurality that threatens the power and status of your own, the use of community of Stockholm sufferers as a central power to preserve the your own political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law civil discourse to present opposing points of view, the repression of heretical free speech."

Let me repeat: You are advocating all of this and expecially the collection of Knowingness clones collecting here as a majority on the authoritarian, who seek to ban/control behaviors with mass psychosis mod conformistic rule rather than the FREE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.)

People like myself who are calling you out and holding you socially accountable for unpopular racist, sexist and bigoted ideology are not being authoritarian. They are upholding their own personal values.

Yes, the far left wing CAN be authoritarian but that is irrelevant to the case at hand where when we speak of an authoritarian left we refer to the terror of allowing alternative views into the market place.

I repeat. You're not oppressed and your social rejection is NOT "tyranny, but based on, well lets call it what you call it in your stick fugure diagram, the fact that you are an asshole.

 

[Moonbeam]

If I cared but I dont, cause, witchcraft is not a real thing.

There is no witchcraft more remarkable than Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Amused]

@Amused:

Dear Amused,

Social rejection is not authoritarian and yes I am socially rejecting your stupendous upside down thinking.

I am not advocated jailing you for being racist, sexist or bigoted.

You're not oppressed. You're are obsessed by a childish need to dominate the conditions of our conversation and so be prepared to be rejected in the free market we have in this forum for counterpoint ideas.

This is what happened when you sought to hold up Stockholm Syndrome symptom conversion mentality by oppressing those who see as victims, yourself actually from any light source that casts into conscious awareness of that which you stand in terror of seeing.

"Authoritarianism is the manifestation of the aforementioned Stockholm Syndrome, the needd to surrender to authority and to support it with slavish devotion, of rejection of political plurality that threatens the power and status of your own, the use of community of Stockholm sufferers as a central power to preserve the your own political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law civil discourse to present opposing points of view, the repression of heretical free speech."

Let me repeat: You are advocating all of this and expecially the collection of Knowingness clones collecting here as a majority on the authoritarian, who seek to ban/control behaviors with mass psychosis mod conformistic rule rather than the FREE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.)

People like myself who are calling you out and holding you socially accountable for unpopular racist, sexist and bigoted ideology are not being authoritarian. They are upholding their own personal values.

Yes, the far left wing CAN be authoritarian but that is irrelevant to the case at hand where when we speak of an authoritarian left we refer to the terror of allowing alternative views into the market place.

I repeat. You're not oppressed and your social rejection is NOT "tyranny, but based on, well lets call it what you call it in your stick fugure diagram, the fact that you are an asshole.

Goodness. That's a lot of words for a childish "I know you are, but what am I."

Criticism is not oppression.

But OK. Nanny-nanny boo-boo to you too.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a sister taxon to the extant Latimerioidei.

A fork-tailed coelacanth, Rebellatrix divaricerca, gen. et sp. nov. (Actinistia, Rebellatricidae, fam. nov.), from the Lower Triassic of Western Canada

An unusual fork-tailed coelacanth from the Lower Triassic Sulphur Mountain Formation of British Columbia, Canada, marks the first considerable departure in actinistian body form since the Mississi...

www.tandfonline.com

“An unusual fork-tailed coelacanth from the Lower Triassic Sulphur Mountain Formation of British Columbia, Canada, marks the first considerable departure in actinistian body form since the Mississippian Period. Rebellatrix divaricerca, gen. et sp. nov., is unique among coelacanths in its possession of a bifurcated caudal fin, reduced segmentation of fin rays, and fusion of caudal fin elements. Parsimony analysis of a character-taxon matrix of 109 characters and 29 taxa recovered R. divaricerca as sister taxon to Latimerioidei. The family Rebellatricidae is erected to include only R. divaricerca. This novel body shape of the new coelacanth raises questions about the idea that coelacanths were morphologically static following the Mississippian. Rebellatrix divaricerca also emphasizes the morphological diversity of coelacanths during the Early Triassic, a time when species diversity of coelacanths was also highest. The slender, fork-tailed body form suggests fast swimming and an active lifestyle, unique among known fossil and extant coelacanths.”

The argument is not about Coelacanths but about the idea that survival of species over time isn't just a function of genetic variability. I just threw that in there despite the fact that, in my opinion, DigDog's bias against gender identity variation is rubbish.

 

[Moonbeam]

Goodness. That's a lot of words for a childish "I know you are, but what am I."

Criticism is not oppression.

But OK. Nanny-nanny boo-boo to you too.

Better, much better. But just remember that for people who hate themselves criticism that should be taken constructively will instead be taken as a massive attack on the ego.

 

[Moonbeam]

If I cared but I dont, cause, witchcraft is not a real thing.

Where's the witchcraft in the Arab story? Don't you mean you don't care that because you failed to understand my first mention of a camel you failed to get what I was saying and used your own withcraft Knowingness to try to make of it something not intended and now that has become more than obvious, you no longer care? I am sure others can as easily see through you as I can but they hesitate to turn on a fellow authoritarian.

 

[Moonbeam]

Victim hood. So much in common with JP. Whom "they" "tyrants" "authoritarians" on the extreme left is also trying to cancel.
Find another idol. In fact, dont find one at all.

I am now making it clear for the 3rd time that I went into this knowing full well that those of you suffering from feeling victimized by being identifies as left of center authoritarians would feel victimized by exposing that fact and that you would project that feeling onto me. Personally, I am amused by all the bellyaching about me. It just supports the contention I wanted to express. You poor poor babies act like cockroaches in a flash light beam. Run for the hills!

No really, I understand you can't help yourselves. I know you because I know me.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Woke" is the new dog whistle for racists and bigots.

History of Southern Strategy/Alt-Right dog whistles:

President Barack Obama is a secret Muslim!
Sharia law!
Politically correct!
Ghetto thugs! (Or just Thugs)
Crack babies!
Activist judges!
Welfare queens!
Inner city
Cancel Culture!
Socialism!
Communist!
Critical Race Theory!
State's Rights! (to what?)
School Choice
Real Americans
Law and Order (for who?)
Looters/rioters (vs protesters)
"Take Back"
Shithole Countries
Chinese Virus
Make America Great Again
Cuck
Voter fraud
Voter ID
Great Replacement
White genocide
Reverse Racism
Demographic change

And let's not forget all the code words and phrases for Jews.
Globalists
Global special interests
Rothschilds (never mind that none of them are even in the top 500 richest anymore)
Soros
(((echo)))
Dual loyalty
Cabal
Illuminati
New World Order
Zionist
Zionist Occupied Government
International bankers

And this is just a short list

Only one side is using these dog whistles.

This is excellent but the important point is missing in my opinion. We know this is how they are. The question is why are they that way and can anything in understanding why be useful in bringing them to self awareness and some form of organic shame for being that way. Is there a cure for bigotry? I think there is. I am not fully comfortable with total social rejection because every person, in my opinion, is what the real meaning of 'we are created in the image of God' actually refers to, something that classical liberals, I think, understood.

 

[fskimospy]

Better, much better. But just remember that for people who hate themselves criticism that should be taken constructively will instead be taken as a massive attack on the ego.

You say everyone hates themselves so that’s true for everyone.

I think you should take the criticism from this thread and evaluate how you approach the world.

 

[Moonbeam]

You say everyone hates themselves so that’s true for everyone.

I think you should take the criticism from this thread and evaluate how you approach the world.

I am not accustomed to see your posts lacking in perspicacity. I have stated with great regularity, owing to the constant charges of my God level lack of humility to remind others that what I can see of truth in others if accurate, I can only see because I am aware of those faults in myself. I differ only in the need for denial. Everything I feared happened to me. 100% to the root, however, I think not.

But at the level of culture we find ourselves in, yes, everybody hates themselves. The important thing though, is that we aren’t inherently worthless. It is just our most hidden belief. The progressive deepening of that realization is very much facilitated by recognizing that worthless is exactly how we feel.

 

[Roger Wilco]

The argument is not about Coelacanths but about the idea that survival of species over time isn't just a function of genetic variability. I just threw that in there despite the fact that, in my opinion, DigDog's bias against gender identity variation is rubbish.

My argument is that it seems entirely plausible that Coelacanths would be fully extinct were it not for genetic variation.

Is it so hard to imagine multiple species of Coelacanth coexisting within their respective niches?

They have been around 400 millions years, with only ~100 fossils described. And even within that tiny sample set, significant morphological variation has been observed.

 

[woolfe9998]

Look, my intention in this thread was to demonstrate that in my opinion the sort of delusional partisan madness we see on the right, born of ignorance and fear, has seeped across party lines and become quite noticeable on the left. I do so in the hope that pointing that out might stimulate a modicum of self reflection, while knowing as I do the hopeless nature of such an endeavor. Fear generates fear and fear is the mind killer. And what we fear is self awareness, that we will become conscious of what we feel, that we will reexperience being made to feel worthless as children.

You're not wrong about this particular point. What is going on with the right these past 6 or so years has created fear on the left, which has caused an extreme reaction from some people. Political extremism on one end tends to breed political extremism on the other. And you're not wrong that any form of political extremism correlates with authoritarian attitudes.

On the left, these attitudes have to do with social control rather than something like installing a charismatic dictator. Social control, as in the most extreme manifestations of "cancel culture," and also social control through education and these days, especially through popular culture. There is an idea among the academic left that we are born as blank slates, with little to no contribution from biology. From that idea comes the notion that we can socially engineer a utopian society.

But the only real threat to democracy right now is on the right. My main concern about left wing extremism is the extent to which it can, as it already has, cost the democratic party at the ballot box. Because we cannot afford to lose elections right now.

I'm at a loss for solutions, except to agree that some self-reflection is in order. Beyond that, I've got a feeling that things will not calm down on the left until they first calm down on the right.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're not wrong about this particular point. What is going on with the right these past 6 or so years has created fear on the left, which has caused an extreme reaction from some people. Political extremism on one end tends to breed political extremism on the other. And you're not wrong that any form of political extremism correlates with authoritarian attitudes.

On the left, these attitudes have to do with social control rather than something like installing a charismatic dictator. Social control, as in the most extreme manifestations of "cancel culture," and also social control through education and these days, especially through popular culture. There is an idea among the academic left that we are born as blank slates, with little to no contribution from biology. From that idea comes the notion that we can socially engineer a utopian society.

But the only real threat to democracy right now is on the right. My main concern about left wing extremism is the extent to which it can, as it already has, cost the democratic party at the ballot box. Because we cannot afford to lose elections right now.

I'm at a loss for solutions, except to agree that some self-reflection is in order. Beyond that, I've got a feeling that things will not calm down on the left until they first calm down on the right.

Thank you for this post. I think you have nailed the issue. I have tried to suggest my vision on how the left should not go about calming down the right and how instead they are contributing to making things worse.

This relates to my belief that we create what we fear, a phenomenon I have recently come to describe by the suggestive name of a novel, the left hand of darkness. This is meant to describe what I believe is an observable fact that we tend to unconsciously act in ways that create what we fear.

What we fear, in my opinion is that what we unconsciously feel and do not know that we do, that we are actually worthless and unlovable, we avoid feeling in ways that make us contemptible in other people's eyes.

By this I mean that our need to deny is motivated by desperation and terror and will express itself in all manner of viciousness and evil. It is this that creates the deplorable right.

All of this ties back in to 2016 where the term deplorable became popular and Clinton lost the election. The right is out to get even. I would rather tell them what their psychological condition is, that what they fear happened long ago and that they need to work on acquiring real self respect because they deserve it. We all live in the prison of self hate and that is what hell is. Try not to pass it on.

Enter the disgusted and horrified left, certain of the ugliness they see and convinced of the righteousness of any contempt that can be lain at their feet with the result that the right cries out, we are unjustly the victims of leftist hate.

In this way we create a Karmic cycle. The more terrifying the insanity on the right, the more contempt dumped on them from the left driving them to greater levels of insanity.

But there is nothing wrong with any of us except we don't believe it. The result is that each side wants the other side to feel as worthless as they do instead of trying to manifesting sympathy and love. Why would you want to hate a person infected with the notion they are worthless when the more worthless you try to make them feel the more horrible the actions they will take to protect themselves from their own interior negative feelings.

So since neither side can escape this cosmic wheel created by the belief in good and evil, all that one can do is to make an appeal. As with you who I think proves my point, there is far more chance of dawning understanding on the left than on the right. Also, on a personal level, the only effect on the world I have is the few people here who read what I post here. I am a nobody and will die that way but who knows what will become of others who post here.

 

[Moonbeam]

My argument is that it seems entirely plausible that Coelacanths would be fully extinct were it not for genetic variation.

Is it so hard to imagine multiple species of Coelacanth coexisting within their respective niches?

They have been around 400 millions years, with only ~100 fossils described. And even within that tiny sample set, significant morphological variation has been observed.

Look, I only mentioned Coelocanths for the fact they are commonly considered a species in which evolution has led to little change compared to the time span of their fossil record. I had not intended to get into a debate about the accuracy of that belief. It's good enough for government work in my opinion, but I do enjoy science in general and am attracted to the speculations you present.

So the hell with my original point. I find this to be something I would like to discuss:

I have a problem with your first statement: "....it seems entirely plausible that Coelacanths would be fully extinct were it not for genetic variation." This is a hypothesis that can't be tested, for one thing, because we can't prevent genetic mutations so we can have no genetically species level animal group that will not over time undergo random mutations. Thus something that is impossible in nature can't be said to automatically go extinct. Also, if one were able to go back in time and bring a sufficient number of ancient fish into the present to form a breeding population, I would hazard the guess that if they were introduced into a niche sufficiently similar to their original habitat, they would do just fine. This would imply that if there were no change at all they might still survive in an environment present on earth 400 million years ago to the present. The only factor I can think of that might be a problem is the amount of salt in the sea then and now. As I recall, the amount of salt in human blood is about what is predicted to have been in the ancient sea our ancestors crawled from.

There are god knows how many other climate differences that might be between an ancient and modern sea, because, well climate can be anything, and I am sure not to be able to think of them all.

 

[cytg111]

There is no witchcraft more remarkable than Stockholm Syndrome.

What is impressive is you are both the perpetrator and victim, some solid self gaslighting it is.

 

[cytg111]

Where's the witchcraft in the Arab story? Don't you mean you don't care that because you failed to understand my first mention of a camel you failed to get what I was saying and used your own withcraft Knowingness to try to make of it something not intended and now that has become more than obvious, you no longer care? I am sure others can as easily see through you as I can but they hesitate to turn on a fellow authoritarian.

No. I did not fail, cause I never tried, didnt, dont care… whatever metaphysical points there may be in the arab story is utterly corrupted once moonie wraps it up as a doll and starts poking needles in it.

 

[Moonbeam]

No. I did not fail, cause I never tried, didnt, dont care… whatever metaphysical points there may be in the arab story is utterly corrupted once moonie wraps it up as a doll and starts poking needles in it.

Of course you fear that humility is a sign of weakness will turn this all for you into a contest which you didn't fail but the fact remains that you took a post in which I made an allusion to a story into some bull shit of your own creation. If you don't know the story there would be no reason you would catch my meaning and that's not a biggie. But when you feel the need to pretend that what I said was an opportunity to cast aspersions on me for stuff you invented out of thin air I think it's fair to point that out to others. Like a camel unopposed I don't want your ass in my tent as well as your nose. I charge rent and every chance you get you are willing to pay.

 

[cytg111]

Of course you fear that humility is a sign of weakness will turn this all for you into a contest which you didn't fail but the fact remains that you took a post in which I made an allusion to a story into some bull shit of your own creation. If you don't know the story there would be no reason you would catch my meaning and that's not a biggie. But when you feel the need to pretend that what I said was an opportunity to cast aspersions on me for stuff you invented out of thin air I think it's fair to point that out to others. Like a camel unopposed I don't want your ass in my tent as well as your nose. I charge rent and every chance you get you are willing to pay.

No. I skip it. Like i skipped the Fry thread. Cause I remembered I dont care. Yet, from time to time your patronizing bullshit draws me to waste time again.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is impressive is you are both the perpetrator and victim, some solid self gaslighting it is.

You are a Fuufulflicker clearly blocked at the second Chalkra. I recommend moonstone, pumpkin pie, and a trip to IKEA, perhaps a new futon.

No. I skip it. Like i skipped the Fry thread. Cause I remembered I dont care. Yet, from time to time your patronizing bullshit draws me to waste time again.

Me, I have no idea what I don't care about because I don't care about it. And talk about patronizing, I try never to think that talking to you is a waste of my time because, well, you know, you were created in the image of somebody whose value is inestimable. Everybody has God within. It would be nice to know it.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Look, I only mentioned Coelocanths for the fact they are commonly considered a species in which evolution has led to little change compared to the time span of their fossil record. I had not intended to get into a debate about the accuracy of that belief. It's good enough for government work in my opinion, but I do enjoy science in general and am attracted to the speculations you present.

So the hell with my original point. I find this to be something I would like to discuss:

I have a problem with your first statement: "....it seems entirely plausible that Coelacanths would be fully extinct were it not for genetic variation." This is a hypothesis that can't be tested, for one thing, because we can't prevent genetic mutations so we can have no genetically species level animal group that will not over time undergo random mutations. Thus something that is impossible in nature can't be said to automatically go extinct. Also, if one were able to go back in time and bring a sufficient number of ancient fish into the present to form a breeding population, I would hazard the guess that if they were introduced into a niche sufficiently similar to their original habitat, they would do just fine. This would imply that if there were no change at all they might still survive in an environment present on earth 400 million years ago to the present. The only factor I can think of that might be a problem is the amount of salt in the sea then and now. As I recall, the amount of salt in human blood is about what is predicted to have been in the ancient sea our ancestors crawled from.

There are god knows how many other climate differences that might be between an ancient and modern sea, because, well climate can be anything, and I am sure not to be able to think of them all.

What I am saying is that what is “commonly considered” is likely very wrong.

“Probably the most widely held belief about coelacanths is that, even if they are genetically different, they look exactly the same now as they did millions of years ago. This belief is mistaken. No fossils are known for either species of surviving coelacanth or even for members of its genus, Latimeria. This suggests that the scientists responsible for classifying the fossil and living species consider the morphological differences so great the they should be placed in widely separated groups. In fact, there are significant differences in the body shape and structure of modern and extinct coelacanth species. These include changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology. The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma, to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments. Lastly, there are substantial differences in size, with modern coelacanths being three and a half times larger than their closest extinct relative (one and a half vs half a metre).”

Coelacanths are not living fossils

The term ‘living fossil’ is often misleadingly used in the popular press to describe species which have, supposedly, stopped evolving. Commonly cited examples include horseshoe crabs, G…

ecologicablog.wordpress.com

We have very few fossils of Coelacanths, and the ones we do have suggest significant morphological variation.

 

[Moonbeam]

What I am saying is that what is “commonly considered” is likely very wrong.

“Probably the most widely held belief about coelacanths is that, even if they are genetically different, they look exactly the same now as they did millions of years ago. This belief is mistaken. No fossils are known for either species of surviving coelacanth or even for members of its genus, Latimeria. This suggests that the scientists responsible for classifying the fossil and living species consider the morphological differences so great the they should be placed in widely separated groups. In fact, there are significant differences in the body shape and structure of modern and extinct coelacanth species. These include changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology. The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma, to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments. Lastly, there are substantial differences in size, with modern coelacanths being three and a half times larger than their closest extinct relative (one and a half vs half a metre).”

Coelacanths are not living fossils

The term ‘living fossil’ is often misleadingly used in the popular press to describe species which have, supposedly, stopped evolving. Commonly cited examples include horseshoe crabs, G…

ecologicablog.wordpress.com

We have very few fossils of Coelacanths, and the ones we do have suggest significant morphological variation.
View attachment 67536

Still, even if we consider that coelacanth evolution may have acquired certain myths of inaccuracies suggestion stagnation of evolutionary change, it is believed that fish left the waters some 500 million years ago and the oldest known coelacanth fossil is some 410 million years old. That would imply that with just a 90 million year head start, a common ancestor of coelacanths evolved into us. That would suggest to me that the morphological changes that led to us were far more pronounced than those on the coelacanth lineage giving the myth some sense of rational appeal.

 

[cytg111]

Lol you dont see your problem do you? Try taking on being wrong. Maybe the universe wont implode? Who the fuck knows… Go for it.

 

[pmv]

Didn't see this thread till I purged my ignore list.

Original Post is far too unreadable a wall-of-text to bother with, but just the title is absurd. This is not a 'left-leaning' forum - it's centrist, even moderately right-wing. OP doesn't know what 'left' means.