EPTAnd the 60s was a great time for political activism. We could use a little more of that and less ironic detachment.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4112
| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And the 60s was a great time for political activism. We could use a little more of that and less ironic detachment. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 23 2016 12:03 Danglars wrote: If you think a lot of people in this thread are crazy, the feeling is mutual. It'll sound elite and pompous, but when you cry out that somebody's being disingenuous in a very mild statement of the other side, other people might get a fair idea that you don't want to deal with the issues and only want to spout rhetoric. When you try to rewrite the language of a tame response, saying how he could've phrased it different, it really paints you as a ideological zealot. I kid you not. We've said day in and day out that it's a second amendment issue and gun rights activists have a sincere belief that the government is trying to deprive them of their rights. A simple retelling of the position is not seeking division nor disingenuous. You have a position here and it shows. Many gun owners sensibly believe their gun rights are being stripped from them. This can coexist with your belief that gun control advocates are getting a bad rap. Both sides having an empathetic look at the other side is valuable. I'm very willing to believe many do-gooders that think more gun control will be a net benefit for everyone, even gun owners, and would never intend disenfranchisement of citizen's guaranteed rights. Do-gooders coexist with agenda-driven and ideology-driven campaigns. I can agree with empathy. But don't for a second believe that in a debate thread your posting about "divisive rhetoric" and "you could have said .... something less obviously bad" does anything but muzzle debate at its infancy. You are being unreasonable, defensive without cause, and pedantic. + Show Spoiler [reference] + On June 23 2016 10:35 zlefin wrote: It's too bad the republicans couldn't put up someone more reliable; it's annoying when people miss out on lots of their work. i'd also say that phrasing is a very disingenuous and deceptive way to put the action by the Democratic representatives. On June 23 2016 10:22 Introvert wrote: Rubio's been better since he left the race actually. In terms of the Dems: It's accurate. They are protesting someone's right to have some sort of due process before their gun rights are stripped from them. On June 23 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote: please don't respond to something by editing in an answer in a prior statement; that's possible to miss, and disruptive to the flow of conversation. please keep conversation in order by using replies. and it's quite obviously disingenuous phrasing on that other issue. On June 23 2016 10:47 Introvert wrote: Their own phrasing is disingenuous, I'm just getting to the heart of the matter. They believe, at a fundamental level, that a citizen's 2nd amendment rights are not worthy of due process. They even voted down the two compromise bills the GOP put up that contained some sort of check on the ability to prevent gun sales. I don't have to tow their line and adopt their language. How would you describe what they are doing? On June 23 2016 10:54 zlefin wrote: I'm not sure how I'd describe it without doing a more in-depth analysis; but I think you could have said something like they were "making foolish mistakes in an attempt to save lives" or at any rate something less obviously bad than to imply their goal is to simply remove rights; \something that recognizes they do have a reasonable and understandable motive. On June 23 2016 10:59 Introvert wrote: Now this is being nitpicky. I know the reasons they give, but I don't believe them. Only Feinstein's scary af bill might have had any impact on what happened in Florida. This is pure theater. I don't believe their intentions or motivations are to "save lives." At any rate, everyone here knew what I meant. No one thought it was the democrats stated goal to protest two parts of our bill of rights. Only the honest anti-gun democrats admit that. On June 23 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote: It's the internet, and a lot of people in this thread are crazy; it's hard to tell what people actually mean or not; and at any rate, I'm free to push for less divisive rhetoric; which I did. Nitpickiness matters, because definitions and meaning matter. and if you don't believe their goal is to save lives (even if they're simply wrong about whether it would), then I question your understanding of the gun control advocates position. This is a real issue. Language and goals of legislation. Don't outright dismiss so prejudicially the topic as divisive rhetoric or unseemly behavior. I disagree about it muzzling debate at its infancy; I think it's far easier to debate when we use more mild rhetoric, as it cuts down on the mutually defensive antagonism that so often happens. Otherwise I moderately agree with what you're saying. being pedantic is part of my job. PS I can't read stuff in spoilers; in order to stop the annoying TL voice ads I had to disable a bunch of stuff, so I can't open spoilers or see embedded videos and some other things. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 23 2016 21:36 pmh wrote: Shh it's strong, it's empowering, and it'll really show the Republicans they mean business. You already said it. Bernie voters need attractive options and now candidates for reelection can say they were willing to shut the floor down. They're so anti-corruption and anti-establishment too!!!A sit in. What is this,the sixties? The spirit of Bernie is strong in the democratic party. The government shutdown by the GOP, now that was the clear display of childlike behavior, don't you know. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
 | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote: I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column. Given your emoticon, I'm not sure whether you want an answer to this or not; also the lack of a question mark. Do you want an answer? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the affirmative action program at the University of Texas at Austin, ending a protracted legal battle. It was not immediately clear how far-reaching the ruling will be because of the specifics of the Texas program at issue. A Texas law guarantees admission to the university for students in roughly the top ten percent of the graduating class of any Texas high school. To fill the remaining slots, about one fourth of each entering class, the school considers several other factors, including an applicant's race. That last step was the program under court challenge, upheld by the justices Thursday. Supreme Court upholds Affirmative Action Thank goodness. But seriously, this girl didn't get into her dream school and couldn't get over it in 4 years? Jeez. | ||
KwarK
United States43848 Posts
He added: “I have the right to build thousands of homes on the various properties I own, and I haven’t wanted to build them (yet) because frankly I’ve been busy doing other things, like running for president.” He does know that he doesn't have to build the houses himself, right? Like he can pay people to do those things. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19327 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:27 ticklishmusic wrote: Supreme Court upholds Affirmative Action Thank goodness. But seriously, this girl didn't get into her dream school and couldn't get over it in 4 years? Jeez. Why thank goodness? Maybe affirmative action had its place, but why should race be on any application? The best way to guarantee fair acceptance into a college is based on academic and merit. The reviewer should never have to see, nor consider the race of the applicant. Diversity should be based on the character of the individual and not the color. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:26 zlefin wrote: Given your emoticon, I'm not sure whether you want an answer to this or not; also the lack of a question mark. Do you want an answer? Sure thing. All in good fun though. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:42 BallinWitStalin wrote: 100%, I actually think you're a sociopath (at the least) for advocating those things. I just think he's not very good at predicting the likely outcome of those actions (see here). | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10872 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote: I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column? Sociopathic asshole is the description your searching. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10140 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote: I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column? Not crazy, just a hypocrat. Otherwise you would had been on Iraq or Afghanistan by yourself already instead of armchair talking into shelling nations into extinction for a negligible safety increase (which in reality does not even work that way). | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19327 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:42 BallinWitStalin wrote: 100%, I actually think you're a sociopath (at the least) for advocating those things. When Stalin's ballin friends are calling someone a sociopath, then maybe one should ponder and self reflect for a moment. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Which just seems like an inefficient way to deal with disparate power distributions. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
Thanks, | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:39 BisuDagger wrote: Why thank goodness? Maybe affirmative action had its place, but why should race be on any application? The best way to guarantee fair acceptance into a college is based on academic and merit. The reviewer should never have to see, nor consider the race of the applicant. Diversity should be based on the character of the individual and not the color. This is kind of ignoring the entire reason affirmative action started out. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:24 SolaR- wrote: I wonder if advocating for killing terrorist's families and burning religious books has grouped me under the crazy column? I mean, I don't personally agree or think that it would work out well, but Trump did have at least one important indirect point that he highlighted when making the argument: sometimes you have to play dirty and accept collateral damage when battling terrorism. There are three historically successful means of fighting against a guerilla army: fight for decades until they ultimately wither under constant pressure, bomb aggressively and indiscriminately so that they cannot hide among the populace, and cut them off from all support structures and bleed them dry. Trump is basically advocating for the second one, and while that does not conform well to modern ideas of human rights, it is probably the most feasible way to fight terrorism in the modern era. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 23 2016 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote: I don't think I'll ever be a huge fan of affirmative action based solely upon race. I understand why it can be helpful to discriminate against a group with power, but when implemented in the current way it discriminates the most against the members of that group with the least power (e.g. Tom who is white and grew up in the inner city with a shitty environment might have gotten in if he was black, while Greg who is white and grew up in the suburbs doesn't have his chances changed at all). Which just seems like an inefficient way to deal with disparate power distributions. I basically agree. It's just that this was a really shitty case. The other piece of your point is that wealthy minority kids are the ones who really benefit - like an upper middle class black kid with lawyer parents. The case where there's a poor minority kid who actually gets helped is very rare, and then there are barriers like not being as prepared even though they're smart, having to work a job on the side, etc. | ||
| ||
