|
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. |
On August 26 2016 06:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it: About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically. The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Trump-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege. Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks 
Thank you for your cited percentages of 10% and 90%. I would add a .5% Pepe somewhere in there to make your statement more factual.
Overall, it is Globalism vs Sovereign State -- similar to brexit.
|
On August 26 2016 07:16 Titan107 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it: About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically. The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Drumpf-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege. Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks Thank you for your cited percentages of 10% and 90%. I would add a .5% Pepe somewhere in there to make your statement more factual. Overall, it is Globalism vs Individual State -- similar to brexit.
He said thats what he came to understand. And asked questions. He wasnt really citing anything as fact.
|
On August 26 2016 07:16 Titan107 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it: About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically. The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Trump-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege. Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks Thank you for your cited percentages of 10% and 90%. I would add a .5% Pepe somewhere in there to make your statement more factual. Overall, it is Globalism vs Individual Sovereign -- similar to brexit.
I obviously just made up the 10% and 90%, but it seems like a very small percentage of them are actually *not* bigots and assholes. I guess it's like if we anthropomorphised Breitbart. If you could provide more clarity, that would be helpful
I don't understand how alt-right is similar to globalism vs. individual sovereign.
|
On August 26 2016 07:11 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 26 2016 06:52 Gorsameth wrote:On August 26 2016 06:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 26 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 26 2016 06:22 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is like listening to people try to justify illegal pirating of digital goods as not being stealing..
The way I see it you should require Voter ID to vote on election day. An electronic system registers your vote so it knows you voted.
The government would provide all citizens with their first ID for free so any complaints about 'defrauding voters' are null and void. Ideally they wouldn't be expensive to replace either.
All problems solved. No one should find this problematic.
Getting to a point where this actually is the functioning system is the only problem.
This is a far better solution than 'oh it doesn't really happen that much and when it does it isn't impactful so let's just ignore it' And that's a fine solution, but the new voter ID laws have been purposely created to disenfranchise certain demographics of people (those who typically vote Democrat- the poor, elderly, and minorities), doing far more damage to the voting process by stopping a large number of voters than by "fixing" the negligible number of actual voter fraud issues in this country. The story that conservatives push- that voter fraud is an issue and that their solution will fix it- is not only silly mathematically, but it's also complete bullshit politically. It's a painfully obvious front to remove Democratic voters, regardless of how sincere it may sound, or else they'd be pushing for more easily attainable and ubiquitous voter IDs, like what you're suggesting. So then stop arguing to 'get rid of voter ID laws' and instead argue for free/affordable government ID for everyone so that the laws cease to be an affront to Democratic voters. Seems like a much more agreeable issue that is going to be much more difficult for opposition to oppose You first have to get rid of the the faulty laws before they actually do impact elections But bravo. You have beautifully steered the discussion away from Drumpfs hilariously bad statements and into the good old basic voter ID discussion. So to remind people who tuned in late, the discussion was not about the merit or implementation of Voter ID laws but about Drumpf's statement that the only way he could lose the election was by rigging and that Drumpf supporters should observe polling stations to prevent fraud from happening. If you've actually read my posts then you would know I'm not defending Drumpf's stance on this I'm not sorry for interrupting your intellectless circlejerk bashing of Drumpf, feel free to go back to it. I've made my point on the actual ideological issue here and we're all in agreement You dont get to define what someone elses discussion is about lol. The premise of the discussion was "Drumpf is claiming that if he loses the election rigging and voter fraud will be a factor." You tried to take it to "Voter ID is bad and we should do something about it." Yes its bad. We should do something about it. + Show Spoiler +But there are only so many things we can do something about right now, this is somewhat lower on the list. And by that I mean like really really low.
I dont like it when peoples dogs poop and they dont scoop it up. Thats literally how much weight voter fraud in its current form has as a problem. Now if we had 30 percent heck even 10 or 5 percent of dogs pooping and no scooping, we gotta do something about it. You feel me ? And in true Drumpf fashion you went and doubled down on it and just insulted the point of their discussion when called out on it. Its been fascinating to read on the commute home lol.
Your reading comprehension is just being very selective here
On August 26 2016 05:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 05:45 oBlade wrote:On August 26 2016 05:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On August 26 2016 05:10 oBlade wrote:On August 26 2016 04:58 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On August 26 2016 04:54 oBlade wrote:On August 26 2016 04:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't think anyone has ever teamed up with the media to deliver an entire prepared speech about insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters before. What about Trump claiming he could only lose if HRC rigged the election? What about Trump calling HRC a bigot yesterday? Trump opened this line of attack against himself with gusto. That's not what I said. You're supposed to attack the opponent. (In point of fact Trump obviously isn't the first to call the other bigoted.) I'll be right here with you if Trump ever has a speech written and holds an event specifically to make a case that the media runs with that the voters of the other side are morally/intellectually inferior. That's new and it's creepy. This is Trump literally "insulting and delegitimizing the other side's voters". Word for word. He is saying their votes are not legitimate and will be fraudulent. " We're going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don't come in and vote five times," he said at a rally in Altoona. "If you do that, we're not going to lose. The only way we can lose, in my opinion -- I really mean this, Pennsylvania -- is if cheating goes on." http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-pennsylvania-cheating/ Voting five times is fraud. And that's a few lines from a rally. Yeah, but that isn’t going to happen. It also isn’t how voter fraud is committed if someone wants to rig an election. Just like voter impersonation isn’t really a crime anyone should be worried about because no one does that.
To which I responded
On August 26 2016 05:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
It's getting old hearing 'we shouldn't worry about x crime because it rarely happens'
Do continue emphasizing your lack of ability to understand what's actually going on though Reb in your attempts to insult me and literally lie about what happened
|
It's such a classic fucking deflect move to remove responsibility of criticism
'yea well.. we weren't even talking about that how dare you try to distract from the real issue here! trump was being an idiot and we were having a good time then you had the nerve to talk about something else'
-reb
See I can be a smug prick too
Unfortunately for you mine is a far more accurate representation of the reality of your post than yours was of mine
|
On August 26 2016 06:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it: About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically. The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Trump-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege. Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks
You might be too opposed to everything they stand for to see the movement straight. Milo is a bigoted Trump loving loud asshole? Okay, Obama is a socialist freedom-hating pedant. Their word for the Tea Party and conservative movement is cuckservative.
I'll try to be charitable because their ranks involve both the vicious and the thoughtful. Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). The feminist movement is societally backwards and hate-filled to the core. Gamer gate overlaps broadly. Trade views range from Trumpian protectionist to free traders, I think the trade protectionists have it but I'm not sure. Somewhere along the line, foreign countries are wrecking the economy with the movement of money and people. Most of them are military isolationists, but maybe it's closer to the truth to call it Rand-Paul style foreign policy.
In my view, frequently the attempt to understand it is overshadowed by the gut-instinct need to challenge and defeat it on the part of moderates and leftists. Horrified reaction and armchair psychoanalysis does not lead to dispassionate analysis. See: dozens of pages in this thread of intentional mislabeling of conservatives and conservative ideas.
|
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
|
On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
|
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 06:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it: About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically. The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Trump-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege. Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks You might be too opposed to everything they stand for to see the movement straight. Milo is a bigoted Trump loving loud asshole? Okay, Obama is a socialist freedom-hating pedant. Their word for the Tea Party and conservative movement is cuckservative. I'll try to be charitable because their ranks involve both the vicious and the thoughtful. Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). The feminist movement is societally backwards and hate-filled to the core. Gamer gate overlaps broadly. Trade views range from Trumpian protectionist to free traders, I think the trade protectionists have it but I'm not sure. Somewhere along the line, foreign countries are wrecking the economy with the movement of money and people. Most of them are military isolationists, but maybe it's closer to the truth to call it Rand-Paul style foreign policy. In my view, frequently the attempt to understand it is overshadowed by the gut-instinct need to challenge and defeat it on the part of moderates and leftists. Horrified reaction and armchair psychoanalysis does not lead to dispassionate analysis. See: dozens of pages in this thread of intentional mislabeling of conservatives and conservative ideas.
Well if you have a gut instinct against people who think that diversity means white genocide then I think your gut is working perfectly well. We're talking about twenty-something guys living in their parents basement being angry at society here, we don't need to discuss this like it's Burkean conservatism or something. I don't even know what this has to do with conservatism, everyone on the left or liberal side can see that the weird alt-right movement isn't conservative in any sense.
|
Also:
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Trade views range from Trumpian protectionist to free traders, I think the trade protectionists have it but I'm not sure. Somewhere along the line, foreign countries are wrecking the economy with the movement of money and people. Most of them are military isolationists, but maybe it's closer to the truth to call it Rand-Paul style foreign policy.
So they run the gamut on anything meaningfully related to policy, but are unified only by white nationalist ideology?
Regardless of how thoughtful someone is, it's very difficult for me to enter into a meaningful dialogue with them if they're coming in with the basic assertion that I'm a threat to their society or their position therein.
EDIT: Realized my second statement was unclear that I'm not addressing you personally but using an ambiguous "you".
|
On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
|
Hillary Clinton on Thursday laid out a comprehensive critique of Donald Trump’s worldview as full of “racially tinged” conspiracy theories outside of mainstream Republicanism.
...
The Democratic nominee told her supporters that Trump has peddled “a constant stream of bigotry” during his campaign. She said Trump is not a mainstream conservative, but rather part of a “fringe element” called the “alt-right.”
Yahoo
Well I'm not gonna lie I think the Clinton campaign team is pretty smart. This is a believable line of attack for the people who count Trump's missteps as a serious concern, as well as his wildly unrealistic policy statements.
It's probably Hillary's election to lose at this point. You just don't take on the Breitbart leader as a form of doubling down and have a wide enough appeal to win a presidential election.
|
On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
If a self-identified member comes in he'll let you know. I imagine a second generation immigrant could think continued rates of immigration would threaten the economy and civilizational identity. I've been called a cuckservative and traitor to my racial heritage by people identifying as alt-right so I'm no fan of speaking for them.
|
On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
|
On August 26 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
|
On August 26 2016 08:27 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things. Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
Related issue: harping on a Trumpism to the exclusion of discussing the actual issues, such as the ones he brings up.
|
On August 26 2016 08:27 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things. Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
|
On August 26 2016 08:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:27 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things. Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority. People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
|
On August 26 2016 08:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:27 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things. Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority. Related issue: harping on a Trumpism to the exclusion of discussing the actual issues, such as the ones he brings up.
I don't think the mob has ever been more open about not giving an inch on any topic to in order stop Trump, who they've seen from the beginning as unelectable, from taking a mile. There are people who can't name a single positive they view from him.
|
On August 26 2016 08:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 08:31 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:27 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote:On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote:On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote:
Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me? Or, I got mine, so fuck those people. It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well. It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings. No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things. Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority. People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same. it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
Where does "demonizing an entire region and hundreds of millions of people" calculate out in your risk assessment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
