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 July 27 2016 09:58 FiWiFaKi wrote: The speeches today have been very painful for me to watch, hence I've been trying to stay out of this thread.
I'm just so increasingly disappointed with how little substance there is. Every speech is, we are equal and stronger together... Reminds me of that Family Guy episode where they say "9/11 was bad", and everyone cheers and claps.
95% of speakers said nothing (couple exceptions like Michelle)... But wtf, how do people eat this up? The mentality is just let's push all our problems away and like everyone and it'll be great. So idealist and so little perspective.
Too bad, truly out of touch with reality. It's so easy to like the democrats at first since everything said here is so easy to like on the surface, but not when you look at it in practice.
well, the convention is all about talking to activists in your own party; as such very little need be truly said, as for the most part you're all in agreement on the issues, and it's just a cheerleading rally. but cheerleading rallies are useful to have occasionally. morale matters after all.
Hmm, I was under the impression that it's also a good time to make a powerful impression as everyone is watching.
I would think the RNC made some people choose Trump, but I haven't seen much here from the Hillary camp that'd make me want to join in. I'm probably just seeing it through tinted lens as I've been getting increasingly frustrated with some of the supporters on the left, but I dunno... I just expected more, as I always somewhat believed the Republicans being the party of lunatics and the Democrats the party of reason, but everything has been emotional thus far.
Not sure what y'all expect. Conventions blow and 95% of what happens and is said doesn't matter. All that will really matter at this convention (aside from the Wikileaks mess) is what happens on the final night.
On July 27 2016 04:43 VayneAuthority wrote: [quote]
No it doesn't. No one uses the hard R word in any context except one.
Yeah it does, sorry. The N-bomb means different things depending on who says it to whom. White as the driven snow guys like me don’t get to use it.
I've never found a compelling rational argument for this phenomenon whenever people try to explain it to me it just seems driven purely by emotions.
Either a word is offensive and shouldn't be used, or it isn't.
The very idea that certain skin colors should be able to say or do certain things that others can't is inherently racist
We're now arguing it's racist to say white people shouldn't use the N bomb?
I'm saying if a word is culturally decided to be a racial slur that ought not be used, then no one should use it.
It's irrational to advocate the position 'oh this is a racial slur but it's only bad if white people say it. it's okay for black people to say it'
It's just a single word being used with multiple meanings. Black people don't use it to insult.
So you're saying black people are capable of using the word in a non-insulting manner
and that white people are incapable of doing this, based purely on the fact that they are white and not black?
Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word they intend when they use it.
Pretty stupid point. When you're using 'nigger' instead of 'the n word' you're clearly overstepping an existing social taboo and are clearly signifying that. The words don't contain the same meaning just because they're referring to the same word in the dictionary, that's not how communication works
I think the point is that the social taboo is unnecessary and stupid.
On July 27 2016 10:01 pmh wrote: Happy feel good show for the next 2 days and then pray it is enough. Ignoring more or less all the problems that people are worry about. Boring now till the debates begin,unless more dirt keeps coming out left or right which is very well possible.
The Clinton trump debates,that will be epic.
Ignoring all the problems? Haven't they been talking about the struggles that blacks, Hispanics, women, and gays face? And I know that yesterday they touched upon education policies, minimum wage, and some other more universal issues that aren't only directed at minorities. I think the only thing left that they need to cover is the Middle East/ foreign policy, right?
On July 27 2016 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote: "Love trumps hate" has got to be the single dumbest slogan ever.
Why? It's a play-on words of Trump and sends the message that his campaign has been one of hate.
The play on words implication of 'Love Trump' is counterproductive to what you want from a slogan against your opponent
You're kidding right? Purposely ignoring the third word and misreading the second word?
Come on now, it's not rocket science lol.
Or maybe the slogan is "love Trump's hate."
I actually read it like that the first time and I was thinking whaaaa? Then I realized no apostrophe, therefore trumps, not Trump. But it reads kinda funny.
Pretty stupid point. When you're using 'nigger' instead of 'the n word' you're clearly overstepping an existing social taboo and are clearly signifying that. The words don't contain the same meaning just because they're referring to the same word in the dictionary, that's not how communication works
The point was that it wasn't being used in a racial context by Louis C.K., despite doodsmack's insistence that a white person could only ever say the word if they're being insulting/racist about it.
On July 27 2016 10:04 xDaunt wrote: Not sure what y'all expect. Conventions blow and 95% of what happens and is said doesn't matter. All that will really matter at this convention (aside from the Wikileaks mess) is what happens on the final night.
I mostly watch to see who the next big players in the party will be. I hear the names of the convention speakers often in the years to come.
2012 in particular showed me how fucked the Dems were for fielding a good candidate for 2016.
On July 27 2016 10:04 xDaunt wrote: Not sure what y'all expect. Conventions blow and 95% of what happens and is said doesn't matter. All that will really matter at this convention (aside from the Wikileaks mess) is what happens on the final night.
It's my first time watching a convention, this is very, very different from french politics.
On July 27 2016 10:04 xDaunt wrote: Not sure what y'all expect. Conventions blow and 95% of what happens and is said doesn't matter. All that will really matter at this convention (aside from the Wikileaks mess) is what happens on the final night.
I mostly watch to see who the next big players in the party will be. I hear the names of the convention speakers often in the years to come.
2012 in particular showed me how fucked the Dems were for fielding a good candidate for 2016.
Im not good with remembering names, but the last 6-8 speakers of the night that were politicians looked well spoken and like good choices. Might be that the dirt didn't come out yet, but surely theyd make better candidates.
On July 27 2016 09:58 FiWiFaKi wrote: The speeches today have been very painful for me to watch, hence I've been trying to stay out of this thread.
I'm just so increasingly disappointed with how little substance there is. Every speech is, we are equal and stronger together... Reminds me of that Family Guy episode where they say "9/11 was bad", and everyone cheers and claps.
95% of speakers said nothing (couple exceptions like Michelle)... But wtf, how do people eat this up? The mentality is just let's push all our problems away and like everyone and it'll be great. So idealist and so little perspective.
Too bad, truly out of touch with reality. It's so easy to like the democrats at first since everything said here is so easy to like on the surface, but not when you look at it in practice.
well, the convention is all about talking to activists in your own party; as such very little need be truly said, as for the most part you're all in agreement on the issues, and it's just a cheerleading rally. but cheerleading rallies are useful to have occasionally. morale matters after all.
Hmm, I was under the impression that it's also a good time to make a powerful impression as everyone is watching.
I would think the RNC made some people choose Trump, but I haven't seen much here from the Hillary camp that'd make me want to join in. I'm probably just seeing it through tinted lens as I've been getting increasingly frustrated with some of the supporters on the left, but I dunno... I just expected more, as I always somewhat believed the Republicans being the party of lunatics and the Democrats the party of reason, but everything has been emotional thus far.
most people ignore the conventions except for when the candidate themselves speak, and maybe a couple other of the most famous headliners. Mostly it's just party activists (and politics lovers) watching though. Actual idea stuff may be discussed in the platform committee discussions, but I'm not sure that part is televised, though a few votes from it might be.
mass emotionality is to be expected for the conventions; the ideas are mostly discussed in other venues, and they've generally settled on their ideas by the time of the convention, so they can put on a good theater piece.
On July 27 2016 10:04 xDaunt wrote: Not sure what y'all expect. Conventions blow and 95% of what happens and is said doesn't matter. All that will really matter at this convention (aside from the Wikileaks mess) is what happens on the final night.
I'm expecting it to close with thunderous boos with Hillary supporters mic'd to try to drown it out.
On July 27 2016 04:45 Plansix wrote: [quote] Yeah it does, sorry. The N-bomb means different things depending on who says it to whom. White as the driven snow guys like me don’t get to use it.
I've never found a compelling rational argument for this phenomenon whenever people try to explain it to me it just seems driven purely by emotions.
Either a word is offensive and shouldn't be used, or it isn't.
The very idea that certain skin colors should be able to say or do certain things that others can't is inherently racist
We're now arguing it's racist to say white people shouldn't use the N bomb?
I'm saying if a word is culturally decided to be a racial slur that ought not be used, then no one should use it.
It's irrational to advocate the position 'oh this is a racial slur but it's only bad if white people say it. it's okay for black people to say it'
It's just a single word being used with multiple meanings. Black people don't use it to insult.
So you're saying black people are capable of using the word in a non-insulting manner
and that white people are incapable of doing this, based purely on the fact that they are white and not black?
Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word they intend when they use it.
Pretty stupid point. When you're using 'nigger' instead of 'the n word' you're clearly overstepping an existing social taboo and are clearly signifying that. The words don't contain the same meaning just because they're referring to the same word in the dictionary, that's not how communication works
The point was that it wasn't being used in a racial context by Louis C.K., despite doodsmack's insistence that a white person could only ever say the word if they're being insulting/racist about it.
the word is always used in a racial context given how charged it is. Even if the context is just, like in Louis C.K. case to point out that he doesn't care about using racially charged words. But you can't just simply make up your own language and assume that everybody around you is overly sensitive. I can't walk into a church and say "fuck jesus" because just I have decided that I like to express my general frustration that way.
I think it's smart of the Dems to have these police speakers and acknowledgements soon after the mothers of black victims, to show that they don't want to send the message that only black lives matter or that they don't also recognize the majority of great law enforcement officers.
On July 27 2016 10:04 xDaunt wrote: Not sure what y'all expect. Conventions blow and 95% of what happens and is said doesn't matter. All that will really matter at this convention (aside from the Wikileaks mess) is what happens on the final night.
I mostly watch to see who the next big players in the party will be. I hear the names of the convention speakers often in the years to come.
2012 in particular showed me how fucked the Dems were for fielding a good candidate for 2016.
Im not good with remembering names, but the last 6-8 speakers of the night that were politicians looked well spoken and like good choices. Might be that the dirt didn't come out yet, but surely theyd make better candidates.
hard to say; I would have liked to have more people in the primary. It is pretty common that the reason some people look good is because noone is attacking them. I mean, some people have extremely high approval ratings, because they're not in a position of actual power so noone has a reason to attack them. Or because all they do is very unobjectionable things. e.g. first ladies usually have much higher approval ratings than the president; because they're attacked less and usually all their activism is put on something unobjectionable. That doesn't mean they're much better people or more qualified for the job.
Pretty stupid point. When you're using 'nigger' instead of 'the n word' you're clearly overstepping an existing social taboo and are clearly signifying that. The words don't contain the same meaning just because they're referring to the same word in the dictionary, that's not how communication works
The point was that it wasn't being used in a racial context by Louis C.K., despite doodsmack's insistence that a white person could only ever say the word if they're being insulting/racist about it.
the word is always used in a racial context given how charged it is. Even if the context is just, like in Louis C.K. case to point out that he doesn't care about using racially charged words. But you can't just simply make up your own language and assume that everybody around you is overly sensitive. I can't walk into a church and say "fuck jesus" because just I have decided that I like to express my general frustration that way.
Louis C.K. is also the guy who says "If someone says you hurt them, you don't get to tell them you didn't," when it comes to saying things that offend people. And that people shouldn't take life advice from comedians.
Pretty stupid point. When you're using 'nigger' instead of 'the n word' you're clearly overstepping an existing social taboo and are clearly signifying that. The words don't contain the same meaning just because they're referring to the same word in the dictionary, that's not how communication works
The point was that it wasn't being used in a racial context by Louis C.K., despite doodsmack's insistence that a white person could only ever say the word if they're being insulting/racist about it.
the word is always used in a racial context given how charged it is. Even if the context is just, like in Louis C.K. case to point out that he doesn't care about using racially charged words. But you can't just simply make up your own language and assume that everybody around you is overly sensitive. I can't walk into a church and say "fuck jesus" because just I have decided that I like to express my general frustration that way.
There is a difference between saying
Louis C.K. said that word in a racist, insulting way
and
Louis C.K. said that word in a way that is racially charged
Read the parent quotes of what I was responding to from Doodsmack before continuing to argue against a position I don't hold
edit: I will say I disagree with your underlined point though. I think it's easily possible to say it in a way that isn't racial
EPT
