EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4065
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:43 Plansix wrote: But the government is bad a things and therefore will screw it up. Better to leave it to the FreeMarketTM to make sure it functions efficiently. Bad actors will be rooted out by the FreeMarketTM and abuse will be prevented through the natural means. We can't have the unnatural government influencing something so sacrosanct at the internet. Petty and petulant. But the police and justice system are fine, perfect systems created by the government. Nothing wrong there. Is it not up to the person saying there is a problem to point out the person, law, or policy that is wrong in intent? I did not imply that it was fine, it's certainly the best we have. But when proposed to make a solution to make it better you bring nothing to the table. Talking points that get easily refuted mean absolutely nothing. Put forward a proposal to get it debated from alternate points of view otherwise you're pointing at a blur and asking everyone to make out what you're seeing. Edit: The internet is fine. Laws can be updated to deal with the growing problem created such a large user base and an high level of effort needed to root out bad actors. I just find the comparison amusing. That the justice system must be fine and doesn't disproportionately punish minority groups. That system created by the government is fine. But heaven forbid the government touch the sacred internet, that might hurt someone. What bad actors in particular? Whom are the worst actors on the internet? What is the single worst thing on the internet that requires immediate government action? We cannot fight ghosts. Nor can we ever work towards a solution if the problem is vaguely defined. Define it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:52 SolaR- wrote: Yeah i get your point already, that is why I linked that book. People only care and empathize with something only as long as it affects their daily life. If it is not a problem that is directly affecting them, they assume it is overblown or non-existent. Out of sight, out of mind. Exactly. When someone looks at a protest or anger in a community that isn't theirs, they say "Why are those people acting so badly?" assuming that the environment is like their own. When in reality the better question is "What happened to make those people so angry?" The resistance to the concepts of systematic racism is rooted in a basic lack of information and context. The conflict arises when others attempt to provide that context and the that person views that as blame or shame for not having the context. On June 16 2016 11:59 oneofthem wrote: yea when you treat everything from a warrant search to content filtered great fire wall style control as 'government control.' it is indeed a problem. People freaking out that another citizen use the court system to your IP to provide your real identity, because that would be terrible abuse of government powers. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote: I just don't know how to make the myopia any more obvious. For those who still can't see it, I don't know what it will take. So why then is it so hard for people to take the next step and say, given that I know this about myself (speaking generically) I'm probably being an idiot when I say something like "racism doesn't exist" or "racism isn't a big problem"? There is many factors involved. People naturally want to trust their own experiences, and their own perspectives over others. You basically have to put "faith" into another person's perspective. People have doubts that the other person's perspective is true and sincere. Also with ego involved, people don't want to put there faith in others, they like to think that they "know better" than them. With that said, I never disagreed with you on systemic racism. I believe it exists, but I think we disagree on how much. I still stand by that I think "generic racism"(meaning the original use of the term, and how most people see it) has lowered substantially to the point of very limited influence. However, I do realize that I am a person and could be flawed in my perspective and reasoning. I am very open on this subject, as I can see both sides to it. Your counter argument to why it does still exist, I do not necessarily disagree with. Maybe it's ego, but I have difficulty relinquishing my own perspective? I don't know, I am trying to be as honest as possible on this. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23460 Posts
When someone looks at a protest or anger in a community that isn't theirs, they say "Why are those people acting so badly?" assuming that the environment is like their own. This... Stop. Doing. This.^ It's not the same. I've been here long enough to know this is true. It's also not fully understandable by you and you have to accept that. Most minorities have no problem accepting that they don't know what it's like to grow up as an affluent white male, why then is it so hard for affluent white males to do the same for other groups? prepost edit: Never mind, I know why... EDIT: *generic "you" btw | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 16 2016 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote: This... Stop. Doing. This.^ It's not the same. I've been here long enough to know this is true. It's also not fully understandable by you and you have to accept that. Most minorities have no problem accepting that they don't know what it's like to grow up as an affluent white male, why then is it so hard for affluent white males to do the same for other groups? prepost edit: Never mind, I know why... EDIT: *generic "you" btw What do you mean by *generic "you"? You mean that only I view it that way or that I am generic? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23460 Posts
On June 16 2016 12:25 SolaR- wrote: What do you mean by *generic "you"? You mean that only I view it that way? No, "you" meaning it should be read as pertaining to themselves but I don't mean it to anyone specifically. But if one's not black and poor, one doesn't fully know what it's like to be someone growing up black and poor. That's not to say one can't know anything about it, for example, poor people of every color share plenty in common, but there are experiences and perceptions that are unique to poor black people, just as there are unique experiences for poor people in the Appalachians. However, there is a long, well documented history, of white supremacy in the US (and many other countries). One of it's legacies is a lingering divergence in experience between black and white people. For a long time, it was, as we've said, "out of sight out of mind", but what's happening now with video evidence of police murdering people and covering it up or things like that, is white society is being confronted with the reality that black people weren't just making it up (This commonly took the form of "We have a black AG, President, slavery was 250 years ago, there's no KKK, racism is over etc...) . Now the conversation has shifted to "it's exaggerated" (looks like what you and xDaunt are saying to one degree or another). What needs to happen, is that white folks accept that they don't know how "bad" it is for people on the receiving end, point blank period. Not get mired down in the how "it's not slavery" type arguments. Once one get's to that point they can ask the question Plansix suggested and it becomes clear why the old question was so silly. Context: + Show Spoiler + "Why are those people acting so badly?" assuming that the environment is like their own. When in reality the better question is "What happened to make those people so angry?" On June 16 2016 12:49 Doodsmack wrote: I Second! | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote: We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote: Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. And the formula for determining if they're a threat should be secret to keep people from exploiting it. And we need to keep the actual list a secret as well. (am i doing this right?) | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 16 2016 09:39 Introvert wrote: When was Gary Johnson added to the thread title photo? Though I feel the chopped look suits him, because in the end he really won't end up with that many votes. Unless Trump continues off the rails. So then again I'm not so confident. I just don't know who he appeals to. Even with two really unpopular candidates, people vote strategically. Plus they aren't serious as a party. I just don't see it... I leave on an ugly picture, read but don't comment for months on a regular picture, return on a stranger picture ... what is this curse? The picture ... it's like Hillary's had an adulterous past and her left hand is trying to bat down or push away a former lover from the picture. He's the colored face (no racism intended) in the otherwise grayscale display. I'm nonplussed. Donald Trump's standing with the American public has worsened significantly over the last month, according to a new survey that finds 70% of Americans viewing him negatively, including 56% who feel "strongly unfavorable." LA TimesHillary Clinton also has more negative impressions among the public than positive ones, the new Washington Post/ABC News poll found, but her problems pale in comparison with Trump's, the survey indicates. Among all American adults surveyed, 55% had a negative view of Clinton, and 43% viewed her positively. Only 29% of adults had a positive view of Trump. Among registered voters, the results were almost the same for both. Trump stood at 69% negative and 31% positive among registered voters, Clinton at 56%-43%. The poll was conducted Wednesday through Sunday -- after Clinton clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, but with most of the interviews conducted before the the terrorist attack in Orlando in which 49 people were killed. The polling came after a week in which Trump received extensive criticism, including from Republican leaders, for his attacks on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. The judge is overseeing a fraud lawsuit brought against the businessman by former students of the now-closed real estate school that he called Trump University; Trump has claimed Curiel is biased because of his Mexican heritage. Through most of the campaign year so far, about six in 10 Americans have held a negative view of Trump. His image worsened this spring, then improved somewhat after he clinched the Republican presidential nomination. The new survey shows it deteriorating again. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote: Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen?  Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Instead walk into a Salon inspired PoC revenge fantasy circlejerk. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote: White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5765 Posts
On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote: No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? | ||
| ||
