|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 11 2018 04:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 04:37 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 04:18 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
[quote]
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade  and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Listen, you've just doubled down to prove the point I said. More succinctly stated: On March 11 2018 03:08 Orome wrote:
Yeah let's not pretend that comparison is anything but monumentally stupid. The word literally may have lost much of its actual meaning, but come the fuck on. He's absolutely right that ridicule is the appropriate response to something so monumentally stupid. Why do you persist to claim otherwise? I didn't even say it wasn't stupid. Why bother posting on a forum if you're knly going to discuss with imaginary versions of people? You criticized the guy that sent flippant ridicule his way instead of the one that wrote 'literally Hitler.' You're very much caught dead to rights here. So why persist? Seriously, why? I don't know what ensnares the kind of mind that descends to cautioning not to misunderstand 'literally Hitler.' Is it Trump or do you have a lot of friends that call people Hitler all the times and are wounded when their comments get misconstrued?
"Caught dead to rights?" What am I even accused of? Your argument is weirdly reminiscent of when you were being criticized for criticizing liberals freaking about Charlottesville instead of criticizing the neo-Nazis at Charlottesville. Except the people I'm "defending" aren't genocidal.
Just to recap, I was responding to this:
Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho.
in response to (I believe) Excludos saying he thinks Trump is "literally Hitler." Gotunk! went on to assume that meant he thought that Trump wants to build concentration camps and round up millions of blacks and Jews. Excludos never said he thinks that. His belief may still be worthy of ridicule – you can take that up with him – but if you're going to ridicule him for his beliefs, figure out what they are first.
Of course, then you had to come in and clutch your pearls about me defending people who think Trump is literally Hitler, and proceed to attempt to prosecute me for thinking Trump is literally Hitler, or at least thinking that's not a stupid thing to think. But I was very clear from the beginning that I don't believe the comparison is apt. My point was if you're going to criticize those who do then get their position correct.
Let's put it another way: I think the belief that Donald Trump should be President, or that he's a good President, is a very stupid belief. But if someone tries to dunk on Trump supporters saying "if you think literally every problem in America can be blamed on Mexicans and Muslims you're a psycho," I'd criticize that person. Trump supporters believe many things that I do not, but if they haven't claimed that every problem in America can be blamed on Mexicans and Muslims, then attacking that position as a way to criticize them is a dumb criticism.
|
On March 11 2018 05:26 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 03:17 zlefin wrote:On March 11 2018 02:49 micronesia wrote:Of some note, President Trump's second pardon was of Navy sailor Kristian Saucier, who took unauthorized photos inside classified sections of a nuclear powered submarine. Saucier's lawyer argue for leniency by comparing the defendent's crimes to that of Hillary Clinton in her mishandling of classified information a couple of years ago. Ultimately, Saucier completed his 12 month sentence before being pardoned, despite Trump discussing the possibility of pardoning him much sooner. The sentence length was probably driven more by Saucier's attempts to destroy the evidence than the initial offense of taking the photos. I really don't get why Trump wanted to pardon this guy so badly but at least he waited until after the sentence. Apparently, the guy has more job opportunities now and can lose the ankle bracelet which doesn't really bother me. http://time.com/5194347/trump-pardons-navy-sailor/ what's not to get? it seems like it's a straightforward case of "but her emails", so he's doing it to play to his base by using it as a talking point, as he has been doing for quite some time. The talking point just doesn't make sense to me. I totally understand the tendency to circle back to "but her e-mails," but not pardoning someone for getting punished for mishandling classified information. Is the message that people shouldn't be expected to follow the law, or that if Hillary broke the law and got away with it then that means everyone else should be able to get away with it too? Neither of these statements seem like something the Trump administration would support. I guess it's just cursorily related to the Hillary e-mail "scandal" and so any opportunity to bring up "but her e-mails," even if it doesn't make logical sense, is still catering to the base, as you said. Which is nuts.
It looks like you have it right in your last sentences; it may be odd, but messaging patterns are often odd and contrary to logic/reason.
the pattern seems clear: trump has only pardoned 2 people; and in each case it was someone he has a history of using as a political prop.
the message is simply "boo hillary, hillary sucks." maybe with a bit of military cheerleading as well. there might arguably be some more complicated message; but that one seems sufficient on its own to account for it all.
trump doing something tha'ts nuts shouldn't be surprising.
remember - it's not about truth, reason, or policy; it's about emotion.
and it's not like the other guy that was pardoned aways back remotely deserved pardoning. he was complete scum.
|
On March 11 2018 05:26 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 03:17 zlefin wrote:On March 11 2018 02:49 micronesia wrote:Of some note, President Trump's second pardon was of Navy sailor Kristian Saucier, who took unauthorized photos inside classified sections of a nuclear powered submarine. Saucier's lawyer argue for leniency by comparing the defendent's crimes to that of Hillary Clinton in her mishandling of classified information a couple of years ago. Ultimately, Saucier completed his 12 month sentence before being pardoned, despite Trump discussing the possibility of pardoning him much sooner. The sentence length was probably driven more by Saucier's attempts to destroy the evidence than the initial offense of taking the photos. I really don't get why Trump wanted to pardon this guy so badly but at least he waited until after the sentence. Apparently, the guy has more job opportunities now and can lose the ankle bracelet which doesn't really bother me. http://time.com/5194347/trump-pardons-navy-sailor/ what's not to get? it seems like it's a straightforward case of "but her emails", so he's doing it to play to his base by using it as a talking point, as he has been doing for quite some time. The talking point just doesn't make sense to me. I totally understand the tendency to circle back to "but her e-mails," but not pardoning someone for getting punished for mishandling classified information. Is the message that people shouldn't be expected to follow the law, or that if Hillary broke the law and got away with it then that means everyone else should be able to get away with it too? Neither of these statements seem like something the Trump administration would support. I guess it's just cursorily related to the Hillary e-mail "scandal" and so any opportunity to bring up "but her e-mails," even if it doesn't make logical sense, is still catering to the base, as you said. Which is nuts.
The attorney was on Fox and Friends and Trump was watching tv. You're trying to find logic and reason where there is none.
|
The Commander in Chief has made it clear to everyone in the chain of command that mishandling classified information is A-Okay if you say "but her emails" and get your attorney on FOXNFRIENDS.
|
|
|
I'm amazed people rose to Danglars' bait on this one.
|
“Maybe they’re not even Russians,” said Putin. “Maybe they’re Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, just with Russian citizenship, even that needs to be checked.”
Doesn't sound like "outing someone as public enemy". Exaggerations like yours or those from the article make it harder to convince people who "think that Putin is fine" that he isn't actually fine.
|
On March 11 2018 06:23 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +“Maybe they’re not even Russians,” said Putin. “Maybe they’re Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, just with Russian citizenship, even that needs to be checked.” Doesn't sound like "outing someone as public enemy". Exaggerations like yours or those from the article make it harder to convince people who "think that Putin is fine" that he isn't actually fine.
I said "potentially outed", along side Ukrainians (Who they already have a bad relationship for obvious reasons) and Tatars.. I don't see how this is an exaggeration? This is an incredibly dangerous path to walk down, and ignoring it because I happen to not include the other two he also outed in the same sentence isn't healthy.
|
I think people who look up to Putin won't be phased by someone mentioning the J-word.
On March 11 2018 06:23 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +“Maybe they’re not even Russians,” said Putin. “Maybe they’re Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, just with Russian citizenship, even that needs to be checked.” Doesn't sound like "outing someone as public enemy". Exaggerations like yours or those from the article make it harder to convince people who "think that Putin is fine" that he isn't actually fine.
Glad you said it so I won't have to. It's like we're of the same mind, you and I.
|
I would like for you to point out exactly where my exaggeration was. He literally (and I use that word correctly) blamed "The Jews", "Ukrainians" and "Tatars" for having meddled in the US election, and me stated that he "outed them" as "potential public enemies" is somehow an exaggeration..?
|
On March 11 2018 06:28 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 06:23 Sent. wrote:“Maybe they’re not even Russians,” said Putin. “Maybe they’re Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, just with Russian citizenship, even that needs to be checked.” Doesn't sound like "outing someone as public enemy". Exaggerations like yours or those from the article make it harder to convince people who "think that Putin is fine" that he isn't actually fine. I said "potentially outed", along side Ukrainians (Who they already have a bad relationship for obvious reasons) and Tatars.. I don't see how this is an exaggeration? This is an incredibly dangerous path to walk down, and ignoring it because I happen to not include the other two he also outed in the same sentence isn't healthy.
He just said those guys do not represent the interests of the Russian state and might not even be Russian. There is nothing in that statement that makes it look like Putin was outing The Jews as potential public enemies like an actual anti-semite would.
Saying that he did and backing that up with an article titled "Putin: Jews might have been behind U.S. election interference" with statements like "This is the worst form of antisemitism, [Putin’s] comments demonstrate that nothing has changed in the perception of Jews as those responsible for the ‘world’s evil" is, at least in my opinion, a harmful exaggeration.
On March 11 2018 06:31 a_flayer wrote:
Glad you said it so I won't have to. It's like we're of the same mind, you and I.
Yeah, it happens quite often recently.
|
On March 11 2018 06:28 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 06:23 Sent. wrote:“Maybe they’re not even Russians,” said Putin. “Maybe they’re Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, just with Russian citizenship, even that needs to be checked.” Doesn't sound like "outing someone as public enemy". Exaggerations like yours or those from the article make it harder to convince people who "think that Putin is fine" that he isn't actually fine. I said "potentially outed", along side Ukrainians (Who they already have a bad relationship for obvious reasons) and Tatars.. I don't see how this is an exaggeration? This is an incredibly dangerous path to walk down, and ignoring it because I happen to not include the other two he also outed in the same sentence isn't healthy.
You specifically said he outed "The Jews" knowing full well that implies. Putin was bullshitting to distance himself from those indicted by the Mueller investigation, suggesting that even if they are Russian citizens there is the possibility that they may not be Russian ethnics, which he somehow suggests absolves him of responsibility. It's inane at every level but he wasn't alluding to some conspiracy about "The Jews".
|
My mind is blown here guys. As repeated from an earlier edit: He literally (and I use that word correctly) blamed "The Jews", "Ukrainians" and "Tatars" for having meddled in the US election, and me stated that he "outed them" as "potential public enemies" is somehow an exaggeration..? What in the absolute fuck. I guess it's just fine to lay blame on minorities in your country for international crises. I can't think of a single time in history where this has ended badly before
|
On March 11 2018 06:31 a_flayer wrote:
... the J-word.
What the heck is the J-word? Jews? It's neither a swear nor does TL prohibit swears. Or is this a meme?
|
On March 11 2018 06:52 Excludos wrote:
My mind is blown here guys. As repeated from an earlier edit: He literally (and I use that word correctly) blamed "The Jews", "Ukrainians" and "Tatars" for having meddled in the US election, and me stated that he "outed them" as "potential public enemies" is somehow an exaggeration..? What in the absolute fuck. I guess it's just fine to lay blame on minorities in your country for international crises. I can't think of a single time in history where this has ended badly before
I'm not into these semantic games, this comment is as deep as I'm willing to go in this whirlpool.
Omitting the context and adding the bolded parts of "The Jews " yourself suggested as blatantly as possible the connotation that Putin was referring to the age-old conspiracy theory that Jews are trying to control the world from the shadows. Even after backtracking and putting Ukranians and Tatars in quotes you forgot to add 'the' in front of them.
And no, not appreciating the disingenuous title of that article or your improvements to it doesn't mean what Putin actually said was fine by me. The main issue with what he said was the implication that he thinks of himself as the leader of Russian ethnics rather than the leader of Russian citizens. Not that it's surprising.
|
|
|
On March 11 2018 07:20 Gahlo wrote:Literally Hitler.
Putin is one of those people I'm pretty sure would be "literally Hitler" if the world hadn't learned from their mistakes and put in checks to make sure a "literal Hitler" wouldn't be possible again. There is no way a genocide in Russia wouldn't be met with closed borders followed by an immediate economic breakdown. That said the man is a psychopath for sure, and has no qualms about murdering his enemies or fellow politicians to gain power
|
Not to sound like a xeno myself, but this is actually very standard language, as I've seen it, from Muscovians or patriotic-minded Russians. This is bread-and-butter talk.
Like, if you ask them if they have Jewish lineage, their actual response is: "No, I'm a real Russian." It's a distinction I've personally heard numerous times. Make of it what you will, I find it extremely creepy, how casual the racism.
edit: If you want to explore this yourselves, you need go no further than Russian Twitch chat. From what I've seen browsing, making fun of Jews is like the standard thing. Their Kappa is a Hasidic Jew (with the hat and curls). They don't like Jews. It's a bit "Borat".
Implicit is the word I was looking for. Russia has, dare I say, a level of implicit bigotry. Jews and homosexuals need not really apply in Moscow. Their very existence is considered legally-questionable.
|
On March 11 2018 05:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 05:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 11 2018 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho.
Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things". I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists. Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though. Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try. So it's wrong to compare Trump and Hitler, but it's correct to compare SJWs and fascists? You can compare Trump to Hitler, but its pointless. He isn't like Hitler. A much more interesting comparison is John I of England. He was petty and nasty, treated powerful barons with disrespect constantly, pissed everyone off, as well as having a ridiculously unhealthy diet. He did some stuff right, but failed alot too. That's all fine but I'm much more interested in the fact that GoTunk thinks comparing Trump and Hitler is awful and evidence of idiocy but at the same time comparing SJWs and fascists is all the rage.
I never said such thing.
What I said is you can certainly call people who organize to violently shut down lectures of people who disagree with them, fascist. Wether they call themselves "SJW", freedom fighters, or christian templars is irrelevant to the act.
|
This just in, The Sons of Liberty: also facists. Because they totally burned down a lot of homes of people who thought the crown was great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
