|
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 06 2016 10:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? Are you related to this woman by any chance? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyHc5ZNkfs Ah, we did miss an appearance from the guy claiming that the left is the one to blame for Trump's success. I'm not too surprised that you're more comfortable posting youtube videos for cheap shots than responding to my rebuttal of your ludicrous assertion. Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:07 Toadesstern wrote:
I don't see this going anywhere though with you getting over terminology. He's apparently misusing the word "institutional racism" and refuses to use it the way it's usually used. Because he refuses to do that (for whatever reason) he comes to another conclusion.
Imo you either ignore that (and him on that topic) or get beyond terminology and argue the issues without using that word because clearly that's getting in the way of understanding each other. He is defining "institutional racism" as "laws explicitly stating that black people have to be oppressed/put in jail", and denying the existence of institutional racism on that basis. It's a completely inane position to hold, and he's refusing to accept that his definition is not how institutional racism is understood by virtually everyone else.
yes. But I don't think he's using his different definition of it to talk about how the actual thing of it isn't happening in the US. Just that the thing that results out of his altered version isn't happening in the US anymore.
I don't know why he is using it differently but he is and he's apparently not willing to change on that for whatever reason. So like I said, either ignore him on the topic or talk about the issues themselves rather than hanging up on terminology.
I would still like to hear his thoughts on the ferguson investigations and all. If his stance is that that's systematic racism of some sorts (because clearly large groups of people did that), just not institutional racism then fine, the guy misuses the word. Whatever. If he however thinks that ferguson stuff isn't something that needs addressing at all and is fine "as long as you're just smart and behave" that's a whole different problem we're talking here.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's just a case of the guy not being very sharp and failing to spot a weakness/deficiency of one's own argument. if you are in a tutoring mood go for it but otherwise it's just not going to be productive.
|
On March 06 2016 10:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? Are you related to this woman by any chance? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyHc5ZNkfs Ah, we did miss an appearance from the guy claiming that the left is the one to blame for Trump's success. I'm not too surprised that you're more comfortable posting youtube videos for cheap shots than responding to my rebuttal of your ludicrous assertion.
Well i have already explained how current US growth is reliant on exponential debt growth.As someone who approved of Obamas stimulus package maybe you could explain to me how the solution to a debt problem (which is what the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in 2008 was) is to create even more debt?
Heck, i've told you that the interest on the national debt was 223 billion last year, thats with interest rates at record lows.Not like you could have spent that on infrastructure though right?? Interest on debt is wasted money.
As for the PC stuff it's been getting worse for years.The left has ceased debating ideas on merit and now debates them on the race, gender, sexuality and ableness of the speaker.It's called progressive stack and it's getting more prevalent - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWs
So yeah, basically the left needs to go back to debating ideas on merit instead of calling people racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or whatever other buzzword they have to shut down conversation.Mansplain and whitesplain are a couple of more recent examples.
|
Canada11370 Posts
I doubt there's any chance of people d-escalating... this thread mirrors actual US politics to a depressing degree.
But it would be helpful if people checked each others meaning a little more often... and also substantiate claims rather than just throw out a claim with nothing backing it up. I notice Zenith tends towards this: "Yeah institutional racism exists but not for black people" ...and the follow up post is a more literate version of 'u mad bro?'
On the otherhand, it seems what we have a disagreement in terms, but we only came about it in a round about way. Six posts later, we find what he means is
there are no law that specifically bar black peeps from anything.
Therefore no institutionalized racism.
Whereas, that is not at all what GH, kwizach, et all mean when they say institutional racism. In that line, it was helpful for kwizach to link sources... to a degree. It turns out there is an accessibility problem, plus I rather dislike link war- styled debates, the counter-argument is to tell someone to read entire books or hours of videos before replying. Is it so hard to draw out a few examples and expand upon them? I think giving several examples would a) substantially increase the level of discussion and b) possibly increase the likelihood of someone desiring to dig into the sources linked. I don't believe Zenith's definition of institutional racism is adequate, and I find his posting method abrasive, but I don't think most people contradicting him have done themselves many favours.
If one side is consistently thoughtful and substantiates their claims, it is far easier to remove someone who simply counters with 'you're just mad.' But when it's largely claim vs claim, it's just an unpleasant thread to read, and it's hard to determine fault because it's just a thread full of snippy people, posting dismissive, passive-aggressive pot-shots.
|
On March 06 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:51 biology]major wrote:On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? you ask for the mods to intervene when all that's happened is someone disagreed with you, lol I consider denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans more than "someone disagreeing with me". It is a slap in the face of African Americans. He was also being willfully ignorant, since he repeatedly refused to acknowledge the evidence that was presented to him rebutting his point. It wouldn't be a big deal on a different topic, but on something as fundamental as the existence of racism that is a little harder to find excuses for. In any case, feel free to PM if you'd like to discuss the issue since we've been told to bring up matters like this in the website feedback forum and not in the thread.
So because someone thinks that U.S. current costumes do not sistematically discriminate against black people they should get warned? How about woman? What about "white trash"? People from the south? (I've seen some very offensive comments towards them in this same thread)
How about people who feel that traditions should not be fixed trough the law, unless extreme circumstances, and that "affirmative action" is a form of discrimination? (and against the principle that all individuals are equal to the law)
Should I get a warning aswell? (Last statement was my position)
|
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states.
|
On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states.
I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in.
|
On March 06 2016 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states. I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in.
Cruz is a terrible choice, but it might be too late before people realize it
|
On March 06 2016 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states. I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in.
It depends upon what you're looking for. Any real conservative who is concerned about enacting conservative policy is going to prefer Cruz to Trump.
|
On March 06 2016 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states. I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in.
does "I think Cruz is slightly more of a walkover than Trump in the general" count as a good point Cruz has?
|
On March 06 2016 10:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 10:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? Are you related to this woman by any chance? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyHc5ZNkfs Ah, we did miss an appearance from the guy claiming that the left is the one to blame for Trump's success. I'm not too surprised that you're more comfortable posting youtube videos for cheap shots than responding to my rebuttal of your ludicrous assertion. Well i have already explained how current US growth is reliant on exponential debt growth.As someone who approved of Obamas stimulus package maybe you could explain to me how the solution to a debt problem (which is what the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in 2008 was) is to create even more debt? Heck, i've told you that the interest on the national debt was 223 billion last year, thats with interest rates at record lows.Not like you could have spent that on infrastructure though right?? Interest on debt is wasted money.
Uh, none of what you just posted is relevant to my response to your claim that the left is responsible for Trump's rise. Also, the 2008 financial crisis had absolutely nothing to do with federal debt.
On March 06 2016 10:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:As for the PC stuff it's been getting worse for years.The left has ceased debating ideas on merit and now debates them on the race, gender, sexuality and ableness of the speaker.It's called progressive stack and it's getting more prevalent - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWsSo yeah, basically the left needs to go back to debating ideas on merit instead of calling people racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or whatever other buzzword they have to shut down conversation.Mansplain and whitesplain are a couple of more recent examples.
I answered all of that in my original post.
|
On March 06 2016 10:40 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states. I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in. does "I think Cruz is slightly more of a walkover than Trump in the general" count as a good point Cruz has?
Exactly this. His predictability coupled with his lack of moderate\populist views makes him much easier to beat. His entire stance is that he is principled. He has no room to move to the middle.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
don't really care if cruz is a weaker candidate come general election time. i just don't want to see him. that's the hidden cost here, more cruz airtime.
think about that
|
On March 06 2016 10:35 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:51 biology]major wrote:On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? you ask for the mods to intervene when all that's happened is someone disagreed with you, lol I consider denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans more than "someone disagreeing with me". It is a slap in the face of African Americans. He was also being willfully ignorant, since he repeatedly refused to acknowledge the evidence that was presented to him rebutting his point. It wouldn't be a big deal on a different topic, but on something as fundamental as the existence of racism that is a little harder to find excuses for. In any case, feel free to PM if you'd like to discuss the issue since we've been told to bring up matters like this in the website feedback forum and not in the thread. So because someone thinks that U.S. current costumes do not sistematically discriminate against black people they should get warned? How about woman? What about "white trash"? People from the south? (I've seen some very offensive comments towards them in this same thread) How about people who feel that traditions should not be fixed trough the law, unless extreme circumstances, and that "affirmative action" is a form of discrimination? (and against the principle that all individuals are equal to the law) Should I get a warning aswell? (Last statement was my position)
I'm not sure what "U.S. current costumes" is supposed to be referring to. I made my case in the comment you replied to. I don't see why the opinion that affirmative action is a form of discrimination should warrant a warning. It's a completely different position to hold than "institutional racism does not exist", and it doesn't inherently mean you will refuse to acknowledge contradictory evidence.
|
On March 06 2016 10:46 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:40 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states. I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in. does "I think Cruz is slightly more of a walkover than Trump in the general" count as a good point Cruz has? Exactly this. His predictability coupled with his lack of moderate\populist views makes him much easier to beat. His entire stance is that he is principled. He has no room to move to the middle.
Yes, Ted Cruz would be the worst nominee for the future of the Republican party.
|
On March 06 2016 10:29 Falling wrote:I doubt there's any chance of people d-escalating... this thread mirrors actual US politics to a depressing degree. But it would be helpful if people checked each others meaning a little more often... and also substantiate claims rather than just throw out a claim with nothing backing it up. I notice Zenith tends towards this: "Yeah institutional racism exists but not for black people" ...and the follow up post is a more literate version of 'u mad bro?' On the otherhand, it seems what we have a disagreement in terms, but we only came about it in a round about way. Six posts later, we find what he means is Show nested quote + there are no law that specifically bar black peeps from anything.
Therefore no institutionalized racism. Whereas, that is not at all what GH, kwizach, et all mean when they say institutional racism. In that line, it was helpful for kwizach to link sources... to a degree. It turns out there is an accessibility problem, plus I rather dislike link war- styled debates, the counter-argument is to tell someone to read entire books or hours of videos before replying. Is it so hard to draw out a few examples and expand upon them? I think giving several examples would a) substantially increase the level of discussion and b) possibly increase the likelihood of someone desiring to dig into the sources linked. I don't believe Zenith's definition of institutional racism is adequate, and I find his posting method abrasive, but I don't think most people contradicting him have done themselves many favours. If one side is consistently thoughtful and substantiates their claims, it is far easier to remove someone who simply counters with 'you're just mad.' But when it's largely claim vs claim, it's just an unpleasant thread to read, and it's hard to determine fault because it's just a thread full of snippy people, posting dismissive, passive-aggressive pot-shots.
Nobody argued that he should read entire books before replying. The point was that there was an ocean of research that he could turn to if he was genuinely open to thinking about the existence of institutional racism. He was also provided with the wikipedia page dealing with that very topic, and not only did he completely ignore it, but he actually plagiarized a sentence while deliberately leaving out the rest of the paragraph, which refuted his stance. The wikipedia article literally has seven examples of domains in which institutional racism can be observed. From the start, he was not interested in actually discussing the issue, only in claiming African Americans do not face institutional racism. It's the combination of his stance and his willful and systematic ignoring of contradictory evidence and arguments which I find despicable.
|
Is there some sort of wild "Rubio can technically win if_" situation, or is this just the awkward moment before his concession speech?
|
On March 06 2016 10:55 Mohdoo wrote:
Is there some sort of wild "Rubio can technically win if_" situation, or is this just the awkward moment before his concession speech?
They may still need him for Florida but it looks like Cruz might have a better shot there at this point.
|
On March 06 2016 09:50 oBlade wrote:The creation of this thought experiment shows a misunderstanding of the nihilism of ISIS... they want to restore a caliphate. There is no notion of surrender. Remember The Dark Knight? Some men just want to watch the world burn? That kind of psychopathy does exist in reality.
Regarding the rest of your post, as far as I can tell you were responding tangentially to my points, and clarifying would take more time than I am willing to continue spending on this topic.
However, as for the part I quoted. I believe that you are correct that there is no notion of surrender, but you are the one showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what a caliphate is. A caliphate is an Islamic state that exists in accordance with Sharia law. It is very explicitly neither nihilistic nor psychopathic. ISIS does not want to watch the world burn. They want to conquer it by converting everyone who lives in the world to Islam (at sword point if necessary) or killing them, after which I guess they think they will have some sort of utopia where everyone lives in harmony in accordance with their god's commandments. There's also a bunch of specific requirements like needing to have claimed territory, not maintaining a peace treaty with another nation for more than a year, needing to constantly expand its territory that a government must meet to actually qualify as a caliphate.
So anyway, people fighting for ISIS are not all nihilistic psychopaths. They are also people who believe that they are making the world a better place by claiming it for their religion. Some of them might be psychopaths, though. Statistically, some ISIS fighters are psychopathic. Dismissing every single one of them as psychopaths who just want to watch the world burn is absurd, though.
|
On March 06 2016 10:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 10:46 On_Slaught wrote:On March 06 2016 10:40 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2016 10:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Man, this thread is looking more and more like a Republican "debate."
Oh well, at least not Trump is winning at least 2 of tonight's states. I don't think anyone around here sees Cruz as better than Trump. Trump defended diplomacy and planned parenthood in recent debates. Let that sink in. does "I think Cruz is slightly more of a walkover than Trump in the general" count as a good point Cruz has? Exactly this. His predictability coupled with his lack of moderate\populist views makes him much easier to beat. His entire stance is that he is principled. He has no room to move to the middle. Yes, Ted Cruz would be the worst nominee for the future of the Republican party.
You would think he nails all the Christian demo because he is the one who would genuinely fight hard for a lot of those social issues. I guess the fact he was branded as an assholes who is unlikeable got to him or that people don't care as much about social issues (which mostly don't affect them).
There are a lot of very conservative people in my family: in 3 pastors but none of them liked Cruz. The most enthusiasm I heard was for Rand and a bit for Carson from 1 person. They all universally thought Trump was horrible though. That was a while back so I dunno if all the debates would change much (it definitely wouldn't the those who liked Paul). Either way they will vote and they will just vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination because they think Clinton is sleezy and sanders is crazy because socialism.
I really wonder if any of them have warmed up to Trump. Personally I like the Ohio governor the most and I wouldn't mind voting for him but in this day and age being reasonable won't cut it when running...which only enables the candidateS moving to further extremes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
