|
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 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist.
You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist.
On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As just one example, how many racists/neo-nazis/whatever stupid label people want to use are willing to concede that African Americans have had a rough go in the US historically such that some degree of governmental assistance may be appropriate?
That's like saying that someone that doesn't deny the holocaust can't possibly be anti-semitic. I don't see how not completely denying reality makes someone immune to being judged for everything else they say.
And I don't see how 'trolling' is an excuse. Whether this guy is really a neo-nazi or is just dedicating his life to ironically pose as one makes little difference since we can't read his mind. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give him a pass for using neo-nazi jargon just because you agree with him about PC, SJWs and whatnot.
|
|
|
On August 27 2016 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 00:19 Introvert wrote:On August 27 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.” This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with. On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode. If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea. People saw "wikileaks" and "dnc" and assumed I was accusing them of some conspiracy. I was following up on a post from earlier, though the content of the story can stand alone just fine. This is Hillary trying to win, while kinda throwing the congressional Dems under. I would argue that the persistence of the alt-right movement would inhibit Clinton's presidency more than losing a couple seats. The kind of silliness associated with Cruz' government shutdown is childish nonsense that has no place in government. Republicans used to play along. Obstruction has become a priority and Clinton is trying to cleanse the GOP of their cancer. She can get a lot done and make a lot of compromises so long as there are people in office who at least acknowledge she is president.
The childish thing is to make budgets all-or-nothing affairs. Congress presents a modified budget to the president, president vetoes, waah Republicans are shutting down the government. It's important to preserve for future congresses as an important check on agency accountability and overreach. Why even drag these poor bureaucrats before Congressional panels when it's clear that if the administration supports them, they can do as they like (see the contempt the IRS commissioner had after promising a tough investigation and turning around to do no such thing).
Obstruction continues to be a gutless partisan attack to sway the uninformed.
|
Trump has proven himself by now to be politically incompetent. Zero vetting of spokespeople and campaign leaders, on top his only political lifeblood being cable TV ratings savvy, and not realizing that wouldn't carry over into the general.
The only way to explain these things, and his and his campaign manager's recent direct and major contradictions on his immigration policy, is that he is flying by the seat of his pants. This comports with various accounts of his business career, notwithstanding his ability to convince others to lend him lots of money so he can build big things and have the appearance of a solid business foundation.
A vote for Trump by a thinking conservative is an indefensible vote for political leadership incompetence.
|
On August 27 2016 01:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2016 00:19 Introvert wrote:On August 27 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.” This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with. On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode. If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea. People saw "wikileaks" and "dnc" and assumed I was accusing them of some conspiracy. I was following up on a post from earlier, though the content of the story can stand alone just fine. This is Hillary trying to win, while kinda throwing the congressional Dems under. I would argue that the persistence of the alt-right movement would inhibit Clinton's presidency more than losing a couple seats. The kind of silliness associated with Cruz' government shutdown is childish nonsense that has no place in government. Republicans used to play along. Obstruction has become a priority and Clinton is trying to cleanse the GOP of their cancer. She can get a lot done and make a lot of compromises so long as there are people in office who at least acknowledge she is president. Congress presents a modified budget to the president, president vetoes, waah Republicans are shutting down the government. It's important to preserve for future congresses as an important check on agency accountability and overreach.
By all means, continue to defend the Freedom Caucus refusing routine government operation funding, premised on a futile attempt to gut Obamacare (after 60 failed repeal votes). We Democrats are liking our electoral chances.
|
The argument that “White supremacy is effectively dead in the US, so we should downplay the racism in alt-right” has got to be the weakest argument I have heard in a while. The “Don’t worry, we just want the vote of racists, we won’t listen to them. Trust us.” Platform.
Or we could not take that chance and just not vote for people who actively court racists.
|
If/When Trump loses he will announce a TV media deal to rival Fox News.
|
On August 27 2016 02:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If/When Trump loses he will announce a TV media deal to rival Fox News.
Is that before or after he whips his supporters into an armed rebellion?
|
On August 27 2016 01:45 Plansix wrote:
The argument that “White supremacy is effectively dead in the US, so we should downplay the racism in alt-right” has got to be the weakest argument I have heard in a while. The “Don’t worry, we just want the vote of racists, we won’t listen to them. Trust us.” Platform.
Or we could not take that chance and just not vote for people who actively court racists.
Proposal: stop saying "racism" because it implies personality flaws that are difficult to prove without individual psychological analysis**. Instead, we should refer to guys who support Milo as "white nationalists". They plainly have a concept of citizenship and national interest that aligns with a white nation. Their whole argument is that whites as a group aren't sticking up for themselves and need to crack down on the other to restore their power. If you call them racist you open up a counter argument that "hey, maybe you don't know their personality; or hey, maybe you don't have an on record racist statement**". But we damn well know Milo is advocating white nationalism.
**except Trump because of his on record statements about Curiel and his record of housing discrimination against people of color
EDIT: see the comments below. Milo can hide behind politically correct language and never say an on record racist statement. As long as he avoids racial slurs his defenders can say "see he didn't say a racial slur". It avoids Milo's whole argument about restoring white cultural supremacy.
|
On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist.
Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two.
|
On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two.
Does saying bad things about muslims count?
|
Ok, suppose we take as given that people on the alt-right aren't actually racist, but are just trolling.
I'm failing to see how that helps legitimize them or makes them worth listening to.
If your response to people being legitimately concerned about social issues is to dismissively troll them with faux-racism, how is that much better than actually being a racist?
If the way you interact with people is by being a complete ass to them, why is it their fault that they dont care for what you have to say?
|
On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two.
Using triple paranthesis whenever tweeting about someone that happens to be jewish, which is not some the_donald meme (well it might be now, I guess) but straight up neo-nazi jargon. Then there's using 'apes' when talking about black people. Is that racist enough?
|
United States43503 Posts
https://archive.is/1FoFy
An article by Milo explaining who the alt right are.
I'll let him use his own words
The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people
So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps?
The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.
Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide").
Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there.
The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.
Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war.
You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible.
Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know.
But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts.
|
On August 27 2016 01:43 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 01:39 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2016 00:26 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2016 00:19 Introvert wrote:On August 27 2016 00:03 Plansix wrote:“Clinton suggests giving the Republicans a way out and an attempt to bring back some form of civility to Washington. Democrat leaders are upset by the idea after years of gridlock, confused by the concept that that the parties used to work together to accomplish things.” This is called long term planning. The GOP isn’t going to disappear and if it did, it would be replaced by something the Democrats would need to deal with. On August 27 2016 00:00 Introvert wrote:
The point was the content and strategy. Stop reflexively going into Clinton defense mode. If anything, people are pointing out that her plan isn’t that terrible and doesn’t need defending. Suggesting that they work with the more reasonable members of the GOP who respect government isn’t this wild, crazy idea. People saw "wikileaks" and "dnc" and assumed I was accusing them of some conspiracy. I was following up on a post from earlier, though the content of the story can stand alone just fine. This is Hillary trying to win, while kinda throwing the congressional Dems under. I would argue that the persistence of the alt-right movement would inhibit Clinton's presidency more than losing a couple seats. The kind of silliness associated with Cruz' government shutdown is childish nonsense that has no place in government. Republicans used to play along. Obstruction has become a priority and Clinton is trying to cleanse the GOP of their cancer. She can get a lot done and make a lot of compromises so long as there are people in office who at least acknowledge she is president. Congress presents a modified budget to the president, president vetoes, waah Republicans are shutting down the government. It's important to preserve for future congresses as an important check on agency accountability and overreach. By all means, continue to defend the Freedom Caucus refusing routine government operation funding, premised on a futile attempt to gut Obamacare (after 60 failed repeal votes). We Democrats are liking our electoral chances. If you want to talk childishness, yes, holding so many repeal votes is the height of the art and political ass-covering (and many of them deserve to lose their seats for not taking effective action to stop the ACA). The rest is total ignorance on how much of government is totally immune from budget funding and partisan alignment with taking the budget hostage through presidential veto. A craven Congress will never make the civics case and the media will never report on it so Obama had the upper hand all along. You might live to see fierce opposition from a speaker and senate majority leader; I'm fighting for that day to eventually come.
|
The above comment by Kwark is what I was getting at. Defenders can always fall back on "but you don't know what is in his heart" even though Milo repeatedly advocates for white nationalism. Aiming for racism is too hard because racism defenders have too ready of a series of epistemological defenses**. But the Breitbart campaign against integration is plainly white nationalism. That is the idea.
**
But he never said "n*****"
But he knows a person of color
But maybe in his heart he is nice
But he acts nice to his similar skinned neighbors
|
We have not reached "He burned a cross on that black families law, but it was ironic" levels yet, but I feel we getting closer every day.
|
On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to Show nested quote +intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? Show nested quote +The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. Show nested quote +The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. Show nested quote +You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. He makes no such claim. He claims the prioritization of tribal interests is a preexisting condition of a multicultural society. He didn't say that it was right. He claims it just is. The conclusions he draws are suspect as hell. Fundamental incompatibility is one of them.
|
On August 27 2016 02:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. He makes no such claim. He claims the prioritization of tribal interests is a preexisting condition of a multicultural society. He didn't say that it was right. He claims it just is. The conclusions he draws are suspect as hell. Fundamental incompatibility is one of them.
That is white nationalism in its sanitized for the public form. Because the next step after that is arguing that the conflict in inevitable and whites should preserve their culture. Its a slow roll, but the end of the argument is the full on race war.
|
On August 27 2016 02:49 Danglars wrote:
He makes no such claim. He claims the prioritization of tribal interests is a preexisting condition of a multicultural society. He didn't say that it was right. He claims it just is. The conclusions he draws are suspect as hell. Fundamental incompatibility is one of them.
The assertion that racial separation is required for cultural identity also flies in the face of history. Every modern culture is a product of many generations of assimilation and amalgamation between different racial/ethnic groups at some point in history, and that process didn't cause those cultures to cease to exist. Separation of cultures along racial boundaries is only a thing if you take a myopic, Eurocentric view of history where the emergence of modern nation-states limited mass cultural migrations on that scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
