| 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. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On August 20 2016 10:55 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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. Yes thats what I said. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 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. What's there to discuss? White privilege is how other people treat white people. It's not like it's exclusive to white people treating white people nicer than others either. Go to any south asian country as a white person and you're treated almost like royalty. Even if you can convince people white privilege helps them in their day to day life, there's not much they themselves can do to change that. So no, it's not something that you'd accomplish much by discussing. Besides, white and black aren't the only two races. Plenty of other races are treated better than blacks as well. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 20 2016 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: I wonder how the group who answered 'made things worse' would answer how Obama's handling of any issue changed that issue. To be honest I suspect the same respondents would be rather negative across the board.  Well he's been such a bad president that the issues where he's been involved have run counter to an improving society. I say that with a smile. It's heavily cloaked in ideology (or political philosophy). Hell, his approval rating among blacks versus amongst whites has a heavy racial bias just like we'd expect for job performance. Call it the everlasting battle between progressivism and conservatism/constitutionalism, started sometime in the late 1800s and weaving through many different variations. It's just political theater to claim these people just hate the man and consider not his policy and it's done often. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 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? We're skirting close to there is only one nonracist position on blacks Mexicans and immigration laws which is active government program intervention, balkanized laws, and an open border de-facto or otherwise. Hyperpartisanship demands the view that the GOP hates blacks Mexicans and immigrants and fashions its platform off of it. | ||
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
And yet in exchange for folding his losing hand he forced Iran to abandon their nuclear program and created a new worldwide coalition which agreed to slam all the sanctions back on together if Iran deviated from their promises. And the American concessions in the deal basically consist of allowing Iran to undermine OPEC, bankrupt Saudi Arabia and Russia and paying them off with their own money which they already were able to get back anyway. Given the current conservative spokesman does nothing but attack the bad deals and talk about how he is able to get the best deals, and given that the previous foreign policy failures have been paid for largely with American lives and increasing budget deficits, isn't this pretty much the dream? We sold Iran a bunch of things that they were getting either way and got what we wanted in return, plus a bunch of allies returning to our anti-Iran coalition, plus Russia is paying for it. Had Trump taken over and done that we'd all be waiting for a new ghostwritten edition of 'Art of the Deal 2: Art of the President' to explain how he negotiated it. It's very difficult for me to see it as anything other than partisan politics. It's not like the right are opposed to any part of that on principle, Trump has been very vocal in his opposition to the interventionist mistakes of Bush Jr, the price in American lives and deficits etc and even the need to depose Saddam Hussein in the first place. Kerry's diplomatic coup over Iran is more or less what Trump says he would have done in Iraq in place of the invasion. And shit like holding up the $400,000,000 until Americans were returned was 110% a Trump play. And yeah the timing makes it extremely obvious what was going on but of course they weren't gonna return the prisoners first as a good faith gesture, the money had already been promised to them and then we went back on that deal, returned to the table and asked for extra prisoners. We'd already undermined the good faith by negotiating a deal in good faith and then changing the terms for them to get their money back once they were already locked into the deal. Obama saw a chance to leverage the strength of his position to change the terms of a done deal further in his favour and he took it because wtf was Iran going to do, say they didn't want the money anymore. I just don't see how this can possibly be the policy, given the candidate the right is currently supporting and given the criticism they levy at Bush. The policy is fine, it's the person behind it they don't like. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On August 20 2016 14:37 KwarK wrote: With something like the Iran "ransom" or the deal I just don't understand how conservatives can be against all that if not through a lens of universal opposition to the man behind it. The US position on Iran was really, really weak. When Obama took office there was a big Middle East power vacuum, the planned Iraqi proxy was imploding, Saudi Arabia was being really shitty and America no longer had the diplomatic clout to maintain widespread sanctions on Iran. While America could keep her own sanctions in place indefinitely they would be toothless unless all the other major powers stayed on board and the will to keep singing the American tune in the Middle East was completely gone. Obama had literally no cards on that one. And yet in exchange for folding his losing hand he forced Iran to abandon their nuclear program and created a new worldwide coalition which agreed to slam all the sanctions back on together if Iran deviated from their promises. And the American concessions in the deal basically consist of allowing Iran to undermine OPEC, bankrupt Saudi Arabia and Russia and paying them off with their own money which they already were able to get back anyway. Given the current conservative spokesman does nothing but attack the bad deals and talk about how he is able to get the best deals, and given that the previous foreign policy failures have been paid for largely with American lives and increasing budget deficits, isn't this pretty much the dream? We sold Iran a bunch of things that they were getting either way and got what we wanted in return, plus a bunch of allies returning to our anti-Iran coalition, plus Russia is paying for it. Had Trump taken over and done that we'd all be waiting for a new ghostwritten edition of 'Art of the Deal 2: Art of the President' to explain how he negotiated it. It's very difficult for me to see it as anything other than partisan politics. It's not like the right are opposed to any part of that on principle, Trump has been very vocal in his opposition to the interventionist mistakes of Bush Jr, the price in American lives and deficits etc and even the need to depose Saddam Hussein in the first place. Kerry's diplomatic coup over Iran is more or less what Trump says he would have done in Iraq in place of the invasion. And shit like holding up the $400,000,000 until Americans were returned was 110% a Trump play. And yeah the timing makes it extremely obvious what was going on but of course they weren't gonna return the prisoners first as a good faith gesture, the money had already been promised to them and then we went back on that deal, returned to the table and asked for extra prisoners. We'd already undermined the good faith by negotiating a deal in good faith and then changing the terms for them to get their money back once they were already locked into the deal. Obama saw a chance to leverage the strength of his position to change the terms of a done deal further in his favour and he took it because wtf was Iran going to do, say they didn't want the money anymore. I just don't see how this can possibly be the policy, given the candidate the right is currently supporting and given the criticism they levy at Bush. The policy is fine, it's the person behind it they don't like. That is a very nicely written and concise overview of the topic. The problem that I have, is what is stopping conservative people, to just butt in with something like "of course you like it, because it comforts your own biased world view! the thread has just gone liberal echo chamber again." or the likes. And I don't mean in the sense that moderation should stop them, I mean in the sense that how do you show it to them, that in fact, they are the overly biased ones in this particular topic? | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On August 20 2016 14:02 Danglars wrote: We're skirting close to there is only one nonracist position on blacks Mexicans and immigration laws which is active government program intervention, balkanized laws, and an open border de-facto or otherwise. Hyperpartisanship demands the view that the GOP hates blacks Mexicans and immigrants and fashions its platform off of it. Let me be blunted then. What party platform does the GOP have that is directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities? Not "all Americans" and not "everyone" but specifically minorities. Where in their party is it? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 20 2016 14:37 KwarK wrote: With something like the Iran "ransom" or the deal I just don't understand how conservatives can be against all that if not through a lens of universal opposition to the man behind it. The US position on Iran was really, really weak. When Obama took office there was a big Middle East power vacuum, the planned Iraqi proxy was imploding, Saudi Arabia was being really shitty and America no longer had the diplomatic clout to maintain widespread sanctions on Iran. While America could keep her own sanctions in place indefinitely they would be toothless unless all the other major powers stayed on board and the will to keep singing the American tune in the Middle East was completely gone. Obama had literally no cards on that one. And yet in exchange for folding his losing hand he forced Iran to abandon their nuclear program and created a new worldwide coalition which agreed to slam all the sanctions back on together if Iran deviated from their promises. And the American concessions in the deal basically consist of allowing Iran to undermine OPEC, bankrupt Saudi Arabia and Russia and paying them off with their own money which they already were able to get back anyway. Given the current conservative spokesman does nothing but attack the bad deals and talk about how he is able to get the best deals, and given that the previous foreign policy failures have been paid for largely with American lives and increasing budget deficits, isn't this pretty much the dream? We sold Iran a bunch of things that they were getting either way and got what we wanted in return, plus a bunch of allies returning to our anti-Iran coalition, plus Russia is paying for it. Had Trump taken over and done that we'd all be waiting for a new ghostwritten edition of 'Art of the Deal 2: Art of the President' to explain how he negotiated it. It's very difficult for me to see it as anything other than partisan politics. It's not like the right are opposed to any part of that on principle, Trump has been very vocal in his opposition to the interventionist mistakes of Bush Jr, the price in American lives and deficits etc and even the need to depose Saddam Hussein in the first place. Kerry's diplomatic coup over Iran is more or less what Trump says he would have done in Iraq in place of the invasion. And shit like holding up the $400,000,000 until Americans were returned was 110% a Trump play. And yeah the timing makes it extremely obvious what was going on but of course they weren't gonna return the prisoners first as a good faith gesture, the money had already been promised to them and then we went back on that deal, returned to the table and asked for extra prisoners. We'd already undermined the good faith by negotiating a deal in good faith and then changing the terms for them to get their money back once they were already locked into the deal. Obama saw a chance to leverage the strength of his position to change the terms of a done deal further in his favour and he took it because wtf was Iran going to do, say they didn't want the money anymore. I just don't see how this can possibly be the policy, given the candidate the right is currently supporting and given the criticism they levy at Bush. The policy is fine, it's the person behind it they don't like. I think even underneath it all you simply disagree with the thinking of conservatives and anti-Iran deal folks. When it comes to state sponsors of terrorism, and I'll have to generalize for to keep it brief-ish, the idea was to keep sanctions and increase sanctions. Continue to not make deals with Iran that they will violate and will only serve to weaken America's position if ever they stop support Hezbollah and dead Israeli citizens. Now we'll disagree with "When Obama took office there was a big Middle East power vacuum" until the cows come home. Bush had a status of forces agreement, another president might have established a more permanent peacekeeping presence. Saudi Arabia too, a "good enough" ally in the region, an important check against varieties of Islamic extremism that actively kills Americans (even as some Saudi citizens send their money for that purpose). You say America's will was gone, but in the wake of opposition to Bush's democracy project, nobody prominent made the case repeatedly and forcefully to rally opinion to a lasting presence. This is the middle east. It's not India suddenly becoming a failed state, it's a region with a history of war and bloodshed. Americans can get behind anti terrorism enduring activities and it was never really tried. Conservatives will say Iran has not been forced to abandon their nuclear program, the inspection provisions are weak and subject to double dealing, and in effect the plan promised results it had no hope of achieving. Sidenote: Obama could have supported student revolutions against the ruling faction when it was a current event but did not, prompting what conservatives would call deserved criticism. We also learn that the plan itself included provisions to prevent disclosure on how well or poorly Iran was complying with inspections (available on google). Similarly, if Obama had managed a full stop on all uranium enrichment and centrifuge tech, that deal would be worth discussing what America could give. You're being deliberately provocative calling Trump the "current conservative spokesman," after his storied rejection of the conservative message and deliberate wooing of Bernie Sanders voters. I wonder how much you intend this post as a mix of trolling and real analysis. Of course, with the Republican candidate doing his blowhard schtick, it's harder to see what movement conservatives think about things and would act about things. I'll defend Trump when it's undeserved criticism from a corrupt media, or the quaint liberal attacks where you could rewind the tape and hear the same said about Romney. I won't try to defend him as some conservative because he isn't and anyone with eyes to see will acknowledge it. The conservative movement's not in the best place right now with the Trump train scooping up Fox, and conservatives-gone-rogue publications more dedicated to opposing Trump than combating a liberal agenda. You won't see the ideas articulated loud and proud by a conservative presidential candidate because we lost this round. But you're misjudging and perhaps deliberately misjudging the ideological divide between American liberalism and conservatism. We'll oppose the march on social issues and foreign policy and government's role no matter the current standard bearer. You'll call us daft or whatever with no real reason to believe it was irrational hatred or racism of the man at the helm. Hell, you'll probably spend many more years on no viable alternative/only attacks/eww obstructionism because delegitimizing competing plans and burying the topic is cooler than renewing discussion. It's a big fucking ideological divide. Slinging the waves of hatred racism sexism homophobia is the sleazy way to push the agenda onto minds. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 20 2016 16:48 TMagpie wrote: Let me be blunted then. What party platform does the GOP have that is directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities? Not "all Americans" and not "everyone" but specifically minorities. Where in their party is it? ...directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities? Not "all Americans" and not "everyone" but specifically minorities. This is in response to my worry that there is only one nonracist position. A position in favor of active government program intervention and balkanized laws. We're officially there. Yes, the only way you may defend GOP does not hate blacks Mexicans and immigrants and fashions its platform off of it and the only nonracist position on blacks Mexicans and immigrations laws is active government program immigration and balkanized laws is by citing programs directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities ... not all Americans and not everyone but specifically minorities. I'm blunt; repeatedly demanding this framing of the debate is exactly what I find wrong. | ||
|
Archeon
3251 Posts
On August 20 2016 16:51 Danglars wrote: ... Now we'll disagree with "When Obama took office there was a big Middle East power vacuum" until the cows come home. Bush had a status of forces agreement, another president might have established a more permanent peacekeeping presence. Saudi Arabia too, a "good enough" ally in the region, an important check against varieties of Islamic extremism that actively kills Americans (even as some Saudi citizens send their money for that purpose). You say America's will was gone, but in the wake of opposition to Bush's democracy project, nobody prominent made the case repeatedly and forcefully to rally opinion to a lasting presence. This is the middle east. It's not India suddenly becoming a failed state, it's a region with a history of war and bloodshed. Americans can get behind anti terrorism enduring activities and it was never really tried. Wait, wasn't Saudi Arabia financially supporting Al Quaeda and now is supporting IS? How are they a check for Islamic extremism if they are the #1 supporter of it? Their state religion/sect, which their laws are based on is the same ISIS pushes. I mean hey, Iran had presidents like Ahmadinejad, but at least they are Shia. They seem to be content in pushing their terrorist sects in neighbor-countries only. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On August 20 2016 17:14 Danglars wrote: This is in response to my worry that there is only one nonracist position. A position in favor of active government program intervention and balkanized laws. We're officially there. Yes, the only way you may defend GOP does not hate blacks Mexicans and immigrants and fashions its platform off of it and the only nonracist position on blacks Mexicans and immigrations laws is active government program immigration and balkanized laws is by citing programs directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities ... not all Americans and not everyone but specifically minorities. I'm blunt; repeatedly demanding this framing of the debate is exactly what I find wrong. Those lazy black people should just bootstrap themselfs up on a basis of individual responsibility in an environment that treats them systemically unfair and is utterly unreliable to work for them in a way it does for white males. | ||
|
Archeon
3251 Posts
On August 20 2016 19:11 puerk wrote: Those lazy black people should just bootstrap themselfs up on a basis of individual responsibility in an environment that treats them systemically unfair and is utterly unreliable to work for them in a way it does for white males. I don't like a lot of the conservatives position, but the main reason African Americans have shitty job perspectives on average is because they are poor to begin with. People like Obama show that skin color doesn't stop them from getting into high positions and there's already a lot of government programs running that benefit black people only. The reason they are doing worse on a lot of points is mainly that a lot of them live in slums with high poverty and as a result high criminal rates and low education. I think that the USA in general has a too large gap between the top and the bottom and a lot of small things (like their education systems with the private schools) keep it the way it is, but numbers don't really confirm the tale that black people with the same social standing and monetary support have large disadvantages. Honestly the democrats are overcompensating because of the entire SJW-thing in their society instead of stabilizing the middle class and increasing the chances for the lower class to rise into the middle class. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On August 20 2016 19:25 Blackfeather wrote: I don't like a lot of the conservatives position, but the main reason African Americans have shitty job perspectives on average is because they are poor to begin with. People like Obama show that skin color doesn't stop them from getting into high positions and there's already a lot of government programs running that benefit black people only. The reason they are doing worse on a lot of points is mainly that a lot of them live in slums with high poverty and as a result high criminal rates and low education. I think that the USA in general has a too large gap between the top and the bottom and a lot of small things (like their education systems with the private schools) keep it the way it is, but numbers don't really confirm the tale that black people with the same social standing and monetary support have large disadvantages. Honestly the democrats are overcompensating because of the entire SJW-thing in their society instead of stabilizing the middle class and increasing the chances for the lower class to rise into the middle class. What about these numbers? They seem to confirm just that. In a whole lot of different ways. see here: | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On August 20 2016 13:58 Danglars wrote: Well he's been such a bad president that the issues where he's been involved have run counter to an improving society. I say that with a smile. It's heavily cloaked in ideology (or political philosophy). Hell, his approval rating among blacks versus amongst whites has a heavy racial bias just like we'd expect for job performance. Call it the everlasting battle between progressivism and conservatism/constitutionalism, started sometime in the late 1800s and weaving through many different variations. It's just political theater to claim these people just hate the man and consider not his policy and it's done often. You're saying that Obama's black supporters are showing a heavy racial bias because they approve of his job, but then say that it's political theater to claim that conservatives who dislike the job Obama is doing are being racist? So, basically, black liberals are racist but white conservatives are not? | ||
|
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
Given Saudi Arabia's ongoing funding of radical Islam across the world, the established links to Al Qaeda and a deliberate policy of exporting Wahhabism I'm not sure how Iran is getting so much hate. Yes, Iran sponsors Hezbollah as a Shi'a proxy and I disapprove of that but the United States itself has a long history of funding and supporting shitty proxies, a good number of which turned out to be worse than Hezbollah and one of which turned out to be Iran. In material terms their support of Hezbollah right now amounts to equipping them to fight ISIS which it's very hard to get upset about, even if I quite like it when both sides suffer casualties. You may think the nuclear inspection provisions are weak or they're not. My understanding is that there is constant access and surveillance to the Natanz facility which is the home of the Iranian nuclear program but for places where they're not currently doing nuclear research there isn't constant access so if they started doing nuclear stuff elsewhere then there might be a delay. Some talking heads said this makes the entire deal questionable, others argued that if Iran tried to assemble a nuclear program, make progress and then dismantle and cover up the evidence of that progress in <24 days then we'd notice that in the inspections. Either way though, without a deal Iran was going to get a bomb. That's the benchmark for failure that we need to be measuring this against. Even if they subsequently develop a bomb during the deal they'll be doing so without 97% of their enriched uranium (which they can't fake surrendering) and 70% of their centrifuges (95% if you assume the Natanz ones can't be used). If you believe Iran was inevitably going to get a bomb then firstly, if the deal prevents that then that's a fucking amazing deal and secondly, if the deal creates a coalition to deal with that outcome, it's still a good deal. The deal commits Russia and China, along with America's traditional allies, to sanctions should Iran fail to comply whereas before those sanctions were unsustainable. If they still try to get a bomb and the deal doesn't prevent them then the world in which they complete a bomb is a far better world for the United States for the deal existing, even though the primary goal failed. Lastly, Iran is a sovereign state that was building a bomb, in my opinion largely as a guarantee of their national sovereignty against the Bush doctrine which specifically named them as a target. Our rhetoric towards Iran is only a little short of what North Korea constantly threatens us with and given the actual invasions of two of her neighbours already I absolutely refuse to fault them for seeking the weapon which traditionally serves as the guarantee of national sovereignty. I'd rather they didn't have a bomb but in terms of whether or not they need one, they do. There is a power hostile to them engaging in extremely hostile rhetoric that has a proven recent history of military intervention in the region. The United States created a situation in which for Iran enduring sanctions was the lesser of two evils, both of which were American creations. And even if you don't see it that way, China and Russia clearly did and wanted to neuter the sanctions. Either the United States decides that Iran is intolerable and engages in another pre-emptive attack in the region or it makes a deal that accepts the existence of Iran. A middle ground like halfheartedly supporting student protests only to do nothing when Tienanmen plays out again does nothing but continue to reinforce the need for a bomb without doing anything to slow them down or build a coalition should they get one anyway. The hand was horribly, horribly misplayed by Bush and was lost before Obama took office. China and Russia were hugely sympathetic to the Iranian situation, they have nukes for the exact same reason Iran wants them. Bush's combination of combative rhetoric and erosion of international support broke the sanctions and left unilateral military action as the only real way of stopping Iran externally. Obama had to fold the hand or see it timeout anyway, that he was able to extract commitments not just from Iran but also from Russia and China in exchange for doing nothing but accepting the status quo is a huge diplomatic coup. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On August 20 2016 17:14 Danglars wrote: This is in response to my worry that there is only one nonracist position. A position in favor of active government program intervention and balkanized laws. We're officially there. Yes, the only way you may defend GOP does not hate blacks Mexicans and immigrants and fashions its platform off of it and the only nonracist position on blacks Mexicans and immigrations laws is active government program immigration and balkanized laws is by citing programs directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities ... not all Americans and not everyone but specifically minorities. I'm blunt; repeatedly demanding this framing of the debate is exactly what I find wrong. Let's dig deeper then. Do you believe minorities are discriminated against? If you think they are--shouldn't we help them? If you think that minorities aren't--then it explains why you think you do. The DEMs as a platform believe minorities are being discriminated. As such, it's part of their platform. The GOP don't have minorities as something they find important on their platform. Literal unborn humans have more rights on the GOP platform than minorities. In the GOP platform right now, the possibility of a fucked woman being pregnant has more rights than suffering minorities. So please, what is your opinion on this? | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
![[image loading]](http://media.salon.com/2016/08/pew-study.png) http://www.salon.com/2016/08/19/pew-poll-majority-of-american-men-63-percent-of-republicans-believe-sexism-is-over/ Whatever discrimination we're talking, non-concerned people are always more prone to minimize or deny the issues that concerned people are facing. And non-concerned people (typically (old) white males) hold most of the positions of responsibilities, so... | ||
|
KwarK
United States41983 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1351 Posts
Guess its to late now though to turn the tide. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21362 Posts
On August 21 2016 01:24 pmh wrote: Manafort gone,well better late the never. Never will understand why trump hired him in the first place. Guess its to late now though to turn the tide. If Trump wanted to turn the tide he wouldn't have hired a Breitbart CEO to replace him. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g12370 Grubby9675 sgares2207 Dendi1683 hungrybox1198 shahzam1142 Sick148 Maynarde112 UpATreeSC103 SteadfastSC46 JuggernautJason22 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
PiGStarcraft301
OSC
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Creator vs MaxPax
Rogue vs Creator
MaxPax vs Rogue
Spirit vs Creator
Spirit vs Rogue
Spirit vs MaxPax
Code For Giants Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Jumy vs Zoun
Clem vs Jumy
ByuN vs Zoun
Clem vs Zoun
ByuN vs Jumy
ByuN vs Clem
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
