EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4786
| 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
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 20 2016 08:38 Plansix wrote: What one group calls "identity politics" is another's "relevant issues we are facing at this time." I think the two are not the same On August 20 2016 08:43 Nyxisto wrote: identity politics is only a new problem for conservatives because they're losing the battle. I mean it wasn't problematic to discriminate whatever subgroup was considered to be undesirable so what's the big deal now? Surprised that the targets of discrimination have had enough? Great example of shutting down the discussion - just accuse an entire ideology of being racist and okay with discrimination of minorities because they don't belong to your group Isn't that literally the logic used by the actual racists you are so opposed to begin with? | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On August 20 2016 08:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I think the two are not the same Great example of shutting down the discussion - just accuse an entire ideology of being racist and okay with discrimination of minorities because they don't belong to your group Isn't that literally the logic used by the actual racists you are so opposed to begin with? Are you suggesting that the GOP are actively helping black movements, Mexican rights, and are actively easing immigration laws to allow more people of color into the US? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On August 20 2016 08:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I think the two are not the same Great example of shutting down the discussion - just accuse an entire ideology of being racist and okay with discrimination of minorities because they don't belong to your group Isn't that literally the logic used by the actual racists you are so opposed to begin with? Yes, that was my point, why are these people upset now. They've been grouping people together for decades. Now these marginalized groups organize and collectively despise them. You reap what you sow | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9251 Posts
On August 20 2016 07:34 oBlade wrote: You misunderstand. Having well-defined foreign policy goals is not "selfish." The point is there are valid contexts for going to war, for occupying countries, for just about any action. Eschewing something on principle isn't a viable way to be successful. A well defined (albeit poorly considered) fp goal is exactly what created this issue, there is no sane reason to assume that repeating the war and occupation part would solve the issue rather than again simply delay it for that duration if whoever you leave in charge again doesn't have the logistical capabillities of controlling that territory War with ISIS may not be a very hard sell to voters, but it inevitably brings you to the same conundrum. And paying for the reconstruction of the infrastructure vital to keeping the power from fractionalizing after you leave, and arming, training and propping up the replacement more 'friendly' tyrant(s) and his army which you have to hold your fingers crossed that will do as expected, those are not only a much more difficult sell to voters, but also a long shot at creating stability. That is why 'we get containment' instead of something more decisive. There is no decisive long-term solution that doesn't have all of these issues: high risk of failure/backfiring, much more expensive than just a war, very tough sell with your own people. It's not robust foreign policy to invade Syria, push ISIS back, then give the reigns to Assad or a rebel faction and tell them have fun with the next wave. It's also not robust foreign policy to invade Syria, push ISIS back, then stay there for xx years until people back home urge you to retreat, and it's left for the wolves again. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 20 2016 08:48 TMagpie wrote: Are you suggesting that the GOP are actively helping black movements, Mexican rights, and are actively easing immigration laws to allow more people of color into the US? Black movements? Mexican rights? Easing immigration laws? What? You're going to have to be more specific here. If you're asking me if the DNC is more sensitive towards protection of minorities than the GOP then I'd agree with that. The GOP definitely needs some work on that front and I don't feel like I have to defend them at all over this criticism. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 20 2016 08:56 Plansix wrote: Templar, what the democrats and Obama are doing is not racist or putting "identity politics before national identity". Listening to minorities and their concerns is no different than listening to potato farmers or doctors. The article you posted bemoans the fact that the government is addressing demographics and their concerns, rather than just treating all Americans as "equal" by ignoring minority demographics and maintaining the status quo. See no one here is criticizing that underlined portion. As I said before, I adhere to the philosophy of perspectivism so I completely understand the difference. I do not believe that subjectivism necessarily leads to relativism, and that relativism is the valid criticism of this 'everyone is special, multiculturalism hoorah!' movement from this article that you seem to be denying exists. It's complicated because it is intertwined with the positive 'listening to concerns of minorities' movement, but you're taking the good from your side while ignoring the bad. This article is a criticism of the bad, not the good, and you are confusing the two resulting in the strawmans, misunderstandings, and talking over each other rather than to each other I'm a firm supporter of being able to reach middle-ground compromises in most situations and it just appears you're painting the issue as 'right vs wrong, good vs evil, regress vs progress' when all I see is you advocating the moderate incarnation of your beliefs against a straw-man of the opposition while ignoring that they have any valid concerns. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
But then there is this: The Green Party calls for a complete, thorough, impartial, and independent investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the role of the administration of George W, Bush, various U.S. based corporations and interests, and other nations and third parties. http://www.gp.org/democracy_2016#demDomesticSecurity Are they going after the Truthers here? Or was the 9/11 Commission insufficient? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
the 9/11 commission did a good and thorough job iirc; then its recommendations were promptly ignored. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
Personally, I don't see why any politician courts the votes of the conspiracy theorists, both on the left and the right. Like, what does giving those people a voice even accomplish when the only message they have is total nonsensical paranoia? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14215 Posts
On August 20 2016 09:19 Plansix wrote: So you agree that white privilege is something that should be discussed if we ever hope to deal with systematic racism? Because that is a major concern for blacks in the US. The problem with making a statement like this ignore the inherent problems with "white privilege". Telling someone that they're racist isn't a good way to start the conversation and thats what comes up every time someone says "white privilege". A better way is to frame that the whole system is explaining structural instead of systemic racism. That people are made unconsciously racist because of the world they live in. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9251 Posts
On August 20 2016 09:55 TheYango wrote: It's a recurring theme with the Green Party platform. Decent enough foundation, but just enough insane to turn off most reasonable people. Personally, I don't see why any politician courts the votes of the conspiracy theorists, both on the left and the right. Like, what does giving those people a voice even accomplish when the only message they have is total nonsensical paranoia? I don't understand this either, pandering to fringe conspiracy theorists and pseudo-science aficionados is alienating a lot of undecided folk that otherwise agree with much of their platform. It doesn't seem a sound strategy to limit the party's appeal like that to maintain a tiny crazy base that hasn't gotten them even close to 1% in the last 3 elections. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 20 2016 10:23 Nyxisto wrote: I just don't get this third party thing in principle. They'll honestly never win an election and you have much, much better chances if you try to work yourself up in the established parties and change them from within. I don't know why anybody is pouring money and energy into this. The Fabians figured this stuff out 80 years ago. they might just be too incompatible with the major parties. Even with big tent parties; some people are just far enough away that they can't be catered to without alienating a larger, more important group. and even a small fringe group is likely to want to be thrown a few bones now and then. maybe also some good camaraderie and us against the world feelings. also likely to be strong ideologues; and hence not caring that it's not gonna work in practice. and re: yango votes. they court the conspiracy theorists for votes; cuz they have votes just like everyone else. the challenge is to court them in ways that don't alienate other people too much. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 20 2016 10:23 Nyxisto wrote: I just don't get this third party thing in principle. They'll honestly never win an election and you have much, much better chances if you try to work yourself up in the established parties and change them from within. I don't know why anybody is pouring money and energy into this. The Fabians figured this stuff out 80 years ago. It makes sense in democratic systems where third parties can actually get seats, and thus some actual official standing. Even if it's not power, in most governments having a single seat will at least get your voice heard. In the US, for at least the current 3rd parties, it seems like they're the crazies who were too crazy for even the main parties to put up with. (as an aside, I eagerly await GH's post pushing the need for more consensus on 9/11) | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 20 2016 10:01 Sermokala wrote: The problem with making a statement like this ignore the inherent problems with "white privilege". Telling someone that they're racist isn't a good way to start the conversation and thats what comes up every time someone says "white privilege". A better way is to frame that the whole system is explaining structural instead of systemic racism. That people are made unconsciously racist because of the world they live in. The concept of white privilege doesn't automatically state that all white people are racist, at least not beyond the inherent racial bias that's pretty well documented in all individuals. | ||
| ||
