|
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 04:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote:On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote: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? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic? He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination. Those are interesting issues and it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line like a good homosexual. This is the whole problem of the left blob now.
Okay, but he's still homophobic for thinking that way.
|
On August 27 2016 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:17 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote:On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote: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? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic? He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination. Those are interesting issues and it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line like a good homosexual. This is the whole problem of the left blob now. Okay, but he's still homophobic for thinking that way.
Then the word doesn't mean anything that an average person should care about with respect to character assassination.
|
On August 27 2016 04:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote:On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote: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? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic? He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination. Those are interesting issues and it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line like a good homosexual. This is the whole problem of the left blob now.
He also said he would support a cure to being gay and believes it’s a sin. He opposes them having basic human rights that other people have and thinks they are a crime against god. But other than that, he isn’t homophobic.
On August 27 2016 04:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 27 2016 04:17 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote:On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
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? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic? He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination. Those are interesting issues and it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line like a good homosexual. This is the whole problem of the left blob now. Okay, but he's still homophobic for thinking that way. Then the word doesn't mean anything that an average person should care about with respect to character assassination.
It has become very clear that you only believe people are homophobic or racist is if they murder someone while yelling “I’m doing this because they are black and gay” at the top of their lungs. At that moment, you have sufficient proof they could be a bigot. Before then, you cannot be sure.
|
The idea that people can't be prejudiced against the culture, race or ethnicity they were born to is a fallacy.
Being a Jew doesn't stop me from being pretty anti-Semitic at times.
At least against those filthy Hasids.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On August 27 2016 04:05 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and lest we forget, we can't conflate Milo's analysis of the Alt Right with what he actually believes. From the article: Show nested quote +Not all alt-righters will agree with our taxonomy of the movement. Hacker and white nationalist Andrew Auernheimer, better known as weev, responded in typically jaw-dropping fashion to our enquiries: “The tireless attempts of you Jews to smear us decent Nazis is shameful.”
Delving into the depths of the alternative right, it quickly becomes apparent that the movement is best defined by what it stands against rather than what it stands for. There are a myriad of disagreements between its supporters over what they should build, but virtual unity over what they should destroy.
For decades – since the 1960s, in fact – the media and political establishment have held a consensus over what’s acceptable and unacceptable to discuss in polite society. The politics of identity, when it comes from women, LGBT people, blacks and other non-white, non-straight, non-male demographics is seen as acceptable — even when it descends into outright hatred.
Any discussion of white identity, or white interests, is seen as a heretical offence.
...
The current consensus offers, at best, mild condemnation of identity politics on the Left, and zero tolerance for identity politics on the right. Even for us – a gay man of Jewish descent and a mixed-ethnic half-Pakistani – the dangers of writing on this topic loom large. Though we do not identify with the alt-right, even writing an article about them is akin to prancing through a minefield.
The problem is his taxonomy is flat out wrong if it either precludes or trivializes the very real and prominent white nationalist voices that hate Jews and other minorities... or argue these sorts of things (when arguing that Buckley killed the conservative movement by reading out the John Birsch Society):
Erickson is only one of many conservatives who don't understand that the Alt-Right doesn't give a damn about their sacred Constitution, their 10 Kirkean principles, their small government ideology that can't get rid of a single federal agency, their immigration amnesties, and their conservatism that hasn't conserved so much as women's bathrooms. We don't want positions at their think tanks, two-minute guest slots on Fox News, or book contracts from Thomas Nelson and Regnery for tedious my-eyes-glaze-over tomes with a picture of the author and an American flag on the cover.
Every member of the Alt-Right understands one thing: none of those efforts and none of that edifice matters one iota if the USA does not remain a heavily white country, because whites, and specifically, white Americans who are the posterity of the Founders, are the only people in the history of the world who have ever supported small government and individual liberty in statistically significant numbers.
...
As one guy rightly responded: "Buckley had a nation that was 90% white, you don't. That's why you need to listen to us."
-Vox Day
While there is no leader, when there is a very strong representation of white supremacy within the movement and speaking for it, it is bad, bad, bad to claim that they are not in earnest when they appear to be very earnest indeed. It seems most start up political groups must excise the supremacist element (Preston Manning had to do it when he began his right wing Reform Party in Canada), but excusing and justifying it is just wrong.
|
United States42008 Posts
I always find this exchange amusing because some people on the right seem to believe that the left support groups rather than ideals, blacks rather than racial equality for example. This leads them to believe that black people cannot be racist against blacks and they end up in very strange places with very strange minority spokesmen saying very strange things. All of which is promptly ignored by the left because it completely missed the point.
Like of course gays can hate gay people. Hell, you could argue the Catholic clergy is a physical manifestation of that.
|
On August 27 2016 04:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 27 2016 04:17 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote:On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
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? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic? He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination. Those are interesting issues and it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line like a good homosexual. This is the whole problem of the left blob now. Okay, but he's still homophobic for thinking that way. Then the word doesn't mean anything that an average person should care about with respect to character assassination.
Calling something what it is isn't "character assassination".
If someone says something racist and someone else tells them it's racist to say that, doesn't mean they are attacking their character, it means they said or did something racist.
Once people realize we're all prejudiced (or "racist" if you prefer) then you realize it's not all that different from any other mistake one makes. If you accidentally curse in front of kids people don't presume you're a person of terrible character, but if you start every kindergarten class with a profanity laced rant they may start to wonder.
Saying/doing something racist doesn't make someone a terrible person, refusing to acknowledge what they said or did was racist, repeatedly doing it despite being told, or doing it for laughs does make you a terrible person.
Like white privilege, the problem isn't that it exists (though it's part of it), it's that so many white people refuse to acknowledge it, or worse yet, try to claim it's actually the opposite or not a significant problem.
People who tell you racism isn't a big deal are being racist.
|
Man, I never thought I would see the day when Vox Day, the man who ruined the Hugo awards for science fiction, would make it into the TL politics thread.
|
A relic of the "vote for your first choice in the primary" is that we actually will never know whether more Republicans support the winning candidate or another candidate in the primary (even in a functioning primary system with proportional delegate allocation which both Dems and Republicans lack). We'll only know who most people had as their first choice.
You'd have to have comprehensive favorability polls or something, and nobody wants to check all those boxes.
It's obviously possible for someone to win a primary and have 51% of his party willing to support him, beating out someone who 80% of the party would support.
|
Canada11279 Posts
@Plansix
Sorry. I've been reading a lot of Hugo related stuff again
|
On August 27 2016 04:30 KwarK wrote:
I always find this exchange amusing because some people on the right seem to believe that the left support groups rather than ideals, blacks rather than racial equality for example. This leads them to believe that black people cannot be racist against blacks and they end up in very strange places with very strange minority spokesmen saying very strange things. All of which is promptly ignored by the left because it completely missed the point.
Like of course gays can hate gay people. Hell, you could argue the Catholic clergy is a physical manifestation of that.
If the left wasn't so vocal about identity groups and victim groups, they might just shake the label.
On August 27 2016 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:17 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote:On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote: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? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic? He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination. Those are interesting issues and it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line like a good homosexual. This is the whole problem of the left blob now. Okay, but he's still homophobic for thinking that way.
oBlade: it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line
DPB: he's still homophobic
Kinda the point he made, right? Homophobia, join racism and sexism in the junkheap of words that are now meaningless attacks by overuse.
|
A good time to try to get approval voting in the primaries!
gogo blandest candidate.
|
On August 27 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:
A good time to try to get approval voting in the primaries!
gogo blandest candidate.
I could go for some bland right about now in my politics.
That said, Sanders probably would have won with approval voting, so there's a case where it wouldn't have been bland particularly.
|
On August 27 2016 04:40 Falling wrote:@Plansix Sorry. I've been reading a lot of Hugo related stuff again
No its fine. It just reminds me that all this garbage from the last three or so years is coming from the same place. Different names, same roots. But fuck Vox Day. Better authors deserved those awards. Everyone lost that year.
|
On August 27 2016 04:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:
A good time to try to get approval voting in the primaries!
gogo blandest candidate. I could go for some bland right about now in my politics. That said, Sanders probably would have won with approval voting, so there's a case where it wouldn't have been bland particularly.
Based on approval it would have been a no contest, Bernie would have won by a landslide, and considering how absurd his proposals were painted as I don't think anyone could call him "bland".
|
On August 27 2016 04:30 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:05 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and lest we forget, we can't conflate Milo's analysis of the Alt Right with what he actually believes. From the article: Not all alt-righters will agree with our taxonomy of the movement. Hacker and white nationalist Andrew Auernheimer, better known as weev, responded in typically jaw-dropping fashion to our enquiries: “The tireless attempts of you Jews to smear us decent Nazis is shameful.”
Delving into the depths of the alternative right, it quickly becomes apparent that the movement is best defined by what it stands against rather than what it stands for. There are a myriad of disagreements between its supporters over what they should build, but virtual unity over what they should destroy.
For decades – since the 1960s, in fact – the media and political establishment have held a consensus over what’s acceptable and unacceptable to discuss in polite society. The politics of identity, when it comes from women, LGBT people, blacks and other non-white, non-straight, non-male demographics is seen as acceptable — even when it descends into outright hatred.
Any discussion of white identity, or white interests, is seen as a heretical offence.
...
The current consensus offers, at best, mild condemnation of identity politics on the Left, and zero tolerance for identity politics on the right. Even for us – a gay man of Jewish descent and a mixed-ethnic half-Pakistani – the dangers of writing on this topic loom large. Though we do not identify with the alt-right, even writing an article about them is akin to prancing through a minefield. The problem is his taxonomy is flat out wrong if it either precludes or trivializes the very real and prominent white nationalist voices that hate Jews and other minorities... or argue these sorts of things (when arguing that Buckley killed the conservative movement by reading out the John Birsch Society): Show nested quote +Erickson is only one of many conservatives who don't understand that the Alt-Right doesn't give a damn about their sacred Constitution, their 10 Kirkean principles, their small government ideology that can't get rid of a single federal agency, their immigration amnesties, and their conservatism that hasn't conserved so much as women's bathrooms. We don't want positions at their think tanks, two-minute guest slots on Fox News, or book contracts from Thomas Nelson and Regnery for tedious my-eyes-glaze-over tomes with a picture of the author and an American flag on the cover.
Every member of the Alt-Right understands one thing: none of those efforts and none of that edifice matters one iota if the USA does not remain a heavily white country, because whites, and specifically, white Americans who are the posterity of the Founders, are the only people in the history of the world who have ever supported small government and individual liberty in statistically significant numbers.
...
As one guy rightly responded: "Buckley had a nation that was 90% white, you don't. That's why you need to listen to us."
-Vox Day
While there is no leader, when there is a very strong representation of white supremacy within the movement and speaking for it, it is bad, bad, bad to claim that they are not in earnest when they appear to be very earnest indeed. It seems most start up political groups must excise the supremacist element (Preston Manning had to do it when he began his right wing Reform Party in Canada), but excusing and justifying it is just wrong.
Here's the problem as I see it: if the emphasis is upon the hardcore racists/white supremacists, then the Alt Right movement is irrelevant. Those are utterly defeated political groups that have no political traction and probably never will absent a revolution in the country. The numbers in the Alt Right movement are in what Milo dubs the natural conservatives. That is a politically significant constituency as evidenced by the Trump candidacy. Given which segment of the Alt Right movement actually matters, I don't think that Milo's taxonomy is that off-base.
|
On August 27 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:
A good time to try to get approval voting in the primaries!
gogo blandest candidate.
Well, surely it's better to have bland candidates than megalomaniac crazy individuals, no?
Though approval voting doesn't necessarily gives the blandest candidate the win. Interestingly enough, it takes away from the bland candidates their much overused argument, the "lesser evil".
|
|
|
Those are utterly defeated political groups that have no political traction and probably never will
Is it your position that they were defeated in the 60's, 70's? When did they get driven out of the political realm? I'm under the impression that there are still plenty in powerful positions, they just can't freely say the types of things they used to but they sure as hell can still think and act on their prejudices.
I mean I doubt the Virginia AG had no idea that her spokesperson was an overt racist, it was fine until the wrong people found out.
|
On August 27 2016 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Those are utterly defeated political groups that have no political traction and probably never will Is it your position that they were defeated in the 60's, 70's? When did they get driven out of the political realm? I'm under the impression that there are still plenty in powerful positions, they just can't freely say the types of things they used to but they sure as hell can still think and act on their prejudices. I mean I doubt the Virginia AG had no idea that her spokesperson was an overt racist, it was fine until the wrong people found out.
Where's their public platform? Why are they all hidden? What happens when they get outted? The George Wallaces of the country are long gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
