• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:37
CEST 16:37
KST 23:37
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles5[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?14FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event23
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays Korean Starcraft League Week 77
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps i aint gon lie to u bruh... BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Summer Games Done Quick 2024!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 611 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4934

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 4932 4933 4934 4935 4936 10093 Next
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.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
September 08 2016 17:29 GMT
#98661
On September 09 2016 02:25 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:18 IgnE wrote:
On September 09 2016 01:59 xDaunt wrote:
On September 09 2016 01:44 IgnE wrote:
On September 09 2016 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2016 14:18 IgnE wrote:
On September 08 2016 13:31 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2016 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Whence also Trump and the aesthetics of the cult. As Benjamin says, "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." Trump isn't alone of course. The leftist consensus indulges in the same aesthetics, for, "Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system." But those who subscribe to Trumpism seem to me to be totally in thrall to Trump's aesthetic mastery. Electing Trump is to enshrine this aesthetics, and to take literally the phrase, "Fiat ars–pereat mundus," which Trump should have emblazoned on all of his buildings. Just as modern media art forms like reality tv make every audience member a critic by virtue of being expert on "living" per se, it makes Trump the iconic modern artist, making art for art's sake. Those are his credentials for the highest office in the land: an expert on the one-dimensional, monomaniacal, self-delusional, peculiarly American form of "living", or of self-extension.


The underlined above strikes me as being rather harsh. And it's not like Trump would be the first president that we've had who took advantage of a tremendous cult of personality. Both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama all fit the bill in the modern era. And in the cases of Kennedy and Obama, very strong arguments can be made that they lacked any sort of real "credentials" to be president at the time of their respective elections.

Edit: And the other thing that bears mentioning is that Trump isn't unique among the previously mentioned presidents in his use of cutting edge media manipulation to boost his popularity.


Reagan for sure, but at least he had the End of History story to buttress the emptiness that was his politics. The End of History tapped into primordial myths of good vs. evil and obscured the Reagan aesthetic. He kind of prefigured the Real World by about a decade as an actor who played himself on the stage of the White House. But imagine Obama on reality tv. He would be terrible at it. He (perhaps reluctantly) represented the aesthetics of the leftist consensus.

Compare for example the titanic struggle between the USA and the USSR with Trump's story about building a wall. One has resemblances to the political; the other is Warhol.

Kennedy was the last real politician we had. The world might end with a whimper but American politics ended with a bang in Dallas.


Are you sure that you're not this guy?



But back to Trump. I very much disagree with the proposition that he's a vacuous candidate. As much as I enjoy his aesthetic (most of the time, anyway), what I really like about him are his policies. And I'm not alone in this regard. The reason Trump wiped the floor with the republican field during the nomination was because of his stated policies -- immigration above all.

There's an article that was authored by an anonymous conservative intellectual that is a hot topic in conservative circles right now. It more eloquently describes many of the things that I have articulated about the present state of conservatism and the republican party over the past couple of years. The article essentially is a massive and damning indictment of the conservative movement -- and particularly anyone who is part of the #nevertrump crowd. But the author also talks about the Trump's substance on the critical issues of immigration, trade, and war/foreign policy, while shitting on Trump's aesthetic. Here's some excerpts:

More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?

....

Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.

Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.

Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?

Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say ... “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.

Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now.
The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.

But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.

By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.

Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.



Perhaps if Trump was some dignified statesman of high character you would have a point.


Now, now. I don't think anyone can say that only "dignified statesmen" have substantive policies. The uncouth can certainly have them, too.

There is definitely something of the political in the article you've posted here, unlike the misdirecting emptiness of the Third Way, devoid of politics by virtue of overwhelming consensus. So Trump is maybe tapping into the same populist urge to "change the property relations" as Benjamin would put it.


Comparing Trump and Clinton, it should be pretty clear that Trump is the one proposing the more radical changes to the current "property relations." Now there's no doubt that he isn't going as far as our socialist/Marxist brethren (or others) would like, but his proposals are definitely more upsetting to the current world order than Hillary's.

But how is he doing it? By bringing l'art pour l'art in the vein of the Kardashians to the Presidential election. I'm not convinced he even fully understands it himself. He's entirely within the domain of habit. That's why he needed new handlers. That's why to even write the article you've posted you have to grant Trump, the image, a solidity that it doesn't possess. The only constant is the Trump aesthetic itself, and it is that which makes belief in all things Trump possible.


Yes, Trump is using his image as a means to an end. But I think that the important breakthrough that we're having is that Trump clearly has a political end in mind. So to use your terminology, Trump is not strictly a case of "art for art's sake."


I guess the difference between you and me is that I think if Trump were elected he'd essentially be an ineffectual twat. I don't think there is anything deep inside Trump beyond art for art's sake. An elected Trump is a Trump who goes on publicity tours for four years until he's thrown out of office while the "junta" runs the country.


and to quote myself in a double sense, that is why i think you might have had a point if trump were a person of "high character", someone with a contemplative air. someone who could at least be a self-conscious warhol instead of the perfectly habitual product and producer of the self-aggrandizing american aesthetic

You could be right. I have freely admitted that a vote for Trump is a roll of the dice.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42551 Posts
September 08 2016 17:33 GMT
#98662
On September 09 2016 02:29 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:25 IgnE wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:18 IgnE wrote:
On September 09 2016 01:59 xDaunt wrote:
On September 09 2016 01:44 IgnE wrote:
On September 09 2016 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2016 14:18 IgnE wrote:
On September 08 2016 13:31 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2016 12:03 IgnE wrote:
Whence also Trump and the aesthetics of the cult. As Benjamin says, "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." Trump isn't alone of course. The leftist consensus indulges in the same aesthetics, for, "Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system." But those who subscribe to Trumpism seem to me to be totally in thrall to Trump's aesthetic mastery. Electing Trump is to enshrine this aesthetics, and to take literally the phrase, "Fiat ars–pereat mundus," which Trump should have emblazoned on all of his buildings. Just as modern media art forms like reality tv make every audience member a critic by virtue of being expert on "living" per se, it makes Trump the iconic modern artist, making art for art's sake. Those are his credentials for the highest office in the land: an expert on the one-dimensional, monomaniacal, self-delusional, peculiarly American form of "living", or of self-extension.


The underlined above strikes me as being rather harsh. And it's not like Trump would be the first president that we've had who took advantage of a tremendous cult of personality. Both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama all fit the bill in the modern era. And in the cases of Kennedy and Obama, very strong arguments can be made that they lacked any sort of real "credentials" to be president at the time of their respective elections.

Edit: And the other thing that bears mentioning is that Trump isn't unique among the previously mentioned presidents in his use of cutting edge media manipulation to boost his popularity.


Reagan for sure, but at least he had the End of History story to buttress the emptiness that was his politics. The End of History tapped into primordial myths of good vs. evil and obscured the Reagan aesthetic. He kind of prefigured the Real World by about a decade as an actor who played himself on the stage of the White House. But imagine Obama on reality tv. He would be terrible at it. He (perhaps reluctantly) represented the aesthetics of the leftist consensus.

Compare for example the titanic struggle between the USA and the USSR with Trump's story about building a wall. One has resemblances to the political; the other is Warhol.

Kennedy was the last real politician we had. The world might end with a whimper but American politics ended with a bang in Dallas.


Are you sure that you're not this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4

But back to Trump. I very much disagree with the proposition that he's a vacuous candidate. As much as I enjoy his aesthetic (most of the time, anyway), what I really like about him are his policies. And I'm not alone in this regard. The reason Trump wiped the floor with the republican field during the nomination was because of his stated policies -- immigration above all.

There's an article that was authored by an anonymous conservative intellectual that is a hot topic in conservative circles right now. It more eloquently describes many of the things that I have articulated about the present state of conservatism and the republican party over the past couple of years. The article essentially is a massive and damning indictment of the conservative movement -- and particularly anyone who is part of the #nevertrump crowd. But the author also talks about the Trump's substance on the critical issues of immigration, trade, and war/foreign policy, while shitting on Trump's aesthetic. Here's some excerpts:

More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?

....

Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.

Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.

Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?

Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say ... “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.

Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now.
The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.

But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.

By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.

Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.



Perhaps if Trump was some dignified statesman of high character you would have a point.


Now, now. I don't think anyone can say that only "dignified statesmen" have substantive policies. The uncouth can certainly have them, too.

There is definitely something of the political in the article you've posted here, unlike the misdirecting emptiness of the Third Way, devoid of politics by virtue of overwhelming consensus. So Trump is maybe tapping into the same populist urge to "change the property relations" as Benjamin would put it.


Comparing Trump and Clinton, it should be pretty clear that Trump is the one proposing the more radical changes to the current "property relations." Now there's no doubt that he isn't going as far as our socialist/Marxist brethren (or others) would like, but his proposals are definitely more upsetting to the current world order than Hillary's.

But how is he doing it? By bringing l'art pour l'art in the vein of the Kardashians to the Presidential election. I'm not convinced he even fully understands it himself. He's entirely within the domain of habit. That's why he needed new handlers. That's why to even write the article you've posted you have to grant Trump, the image, a solidity that it doesn't possess. The only constant is the Trump aesthetic itself, and it is that which makes belief in all things Trump possible.


Yes, Trump is using his image as a means to an end. But I think that the important breakthrough that we're having is that Trump clearly has a political end in mind. So to use your terminology, Trump is not strictly a case of "art for art's sake."


I guess the difference between you and me is that I think if Trump were elected he'd essentially be an ineffectual twat. I don't think there is anything deep inside Trump beyond art for art's sake. An elected Trump is a Trump who goes on publicity tours for four years until he's thrown out of office while the "junta" runs the country.


and to quote myself in a double sense, that is why i think you might have had a point if trump were a person of "high character", someone with a contemplative air. someone who could at least be a self-conscious warhol instead of the perfectly habitual product and producer of the self-aggrandizing american aesthetic

You could be right. I have freely admitted that a vote for Trump is a roll of the dice.

In which you, like me, are very unlikely to be the one who pays if it's the wrong choice.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
September 08 2016 17:34 GMT
#98663
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-09-08 17:36:22
September 08 2016 17:34 GMT
#98664
Which is often when people are most willing to roll the dice, when they are not going to suffer because of it.

On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.


The internet gives a powerful platform to people who previously were relegated yelling at you in the subway and on the sidewalk.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
TheYango
Profile Joined September 2008
United States47024 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-09-08 17:51:17
September 08 2016 17:36 GMT
#98665
On September 09 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:
This is one of the major reasons I feel a vote for Trump is ultimately just a vote for the Republican Party, and unfortunately that party is so bad that I have to vote party-line against them (even if it means voting for Hillary).

Basically the same for me. Pence VP pick convinced me that despite his populist rhetoric, Trump is really just going to be more of the same.

I could understand the "the system's broken, vote for the candidate who's least in bed with the system" if Trump did anything to inspire confidence that he would be a break from said system, but handing over the reins to Pence doesn't exactly do that. As LegalLord has said multiple times over the past few months, now isn't the right time for change, even though change is needed.
Moderator
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
September 08 2016 17:37 GMT
#98666
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.


why don't you elaborate?

@dauntless

and that's why Trump's motto should be:

Fiat ars--pereat mundus
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21641 Posts
September 08 2016 17:38 GMT
#98667
Kasich basically confirmed he got offered the presidency by Trump in exchange as his VP. I see no reason to assume Pence got a worse deal
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
September 08 2016 17:44 GMT
#98668
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.

Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-09-08 17:49:24
September 08 2016 17:46 GMT
#98669
On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.

Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion.

I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness. you will have to elaborate, though it is unlikely you have a convincing case; given the number of standard deviations apart.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
September 08 2016 17:49 GMT
#98670
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
September 08 2016 17:50 GMT
#98671
On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.

Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion.

I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness.

You realize that you're admitting a complete inability to distinguish between high quality stuff that you may disagree with and low quality stuff that you may disagree with, right?
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17971 Posts
September 08 2016 17:51 GMT
#98672
On September 09 2016 02:37 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.


why don't you elaborate?

@dauntless

and that's why Trump's motto should be:

Fiat ars--pereat mundus

Incidentally, it would be truer of Trump than of the 19th century artists who adopted it as their motto. Despite Edgar Allen Poe's best intentions, his art criticizes aspects of life, and evokes feelings (mainly of fear and anxiety, but that is kinda the point of horror). This thus falls under Nietzsche's criticism that no art exists just for the sake of it. However, Trump's moment on the stage serves only for the purpose of being on the stage. I disagree with xDaunt that his populist policies are something he genuinely believes in. I believe he adopted his policies for the sole sake of that they are popular. He is a good enough actor to convince people he is invested in them, but I see no conviction. I see a weathervane whose "policy" changes upon what his current audience wants to hear. This also explains why there are no details to any of them. As long as it's all abstract or wildly unrealistic waffle, contradictions don't matter at all: it's all just soundbytes anyway.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
September 08 2016 17:53 GMT
#98673
On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.

Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion.

I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness. you will have to elaborate, though it is unlikely you have a convincing case; given the number of standard deviations apart.


zlefin: despite everyones fascination with this thing its drek

others: why dont you elaborate? isnt fascination a prima facie case of some kind of substance?

zlefin: no u elaborate. its drek. you havent made an argument that its not.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
September 08 2016 17:53 GMT
#98674
On September 09 2016 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.

Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion.

I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness.

You realize that you're admitting a complete inability to distinguish between high quality stuff that you may disagree with and low quality stuff that you may disagree with, right?

This assumes that we consider you an authority on quality of those subjects, rather than our own personal assessment.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Dan HH
Profile Joined July 2012
Romania9114 Posts
September 08 2016 17:56 GMT
#98675
On September 09 2016 02:37 IgnE wrote:
@dauntless

and that's why Trump's motto should be:

Fiat ars--pereat mundus

I know that when acquiring a new lens it's tempting to look at everything throught it for a while, but you are taking this to new heights on these last few pages
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
September 08 2016 17:56 GMT
#98676
On September 09 2016 02:51 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:37 IgnE wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.


why don't you elaborate?

@dauntless

and that's why Trump's motto should be:

Fiat ars--pereat mundus

Incidentally, it would be truer of Trump than of the 19th century artists who adopted it as their motto. Despite Edgar Allen Poe's best intentions, his art criticizes aspects of life, and evokes feelings (mainly of fear and anxiety, but that is kinda the point of horror). This thus falls under Nietzsche's criticism that no art exists just for the sake of it. However, Trump's moment on the stage serves only for the purpose of being on the stage. I disagree with xDaunt that his populist policies are something he genuinely believes in. I believe he adopted his policies for the sole sake of that they are popular. He is a good enough actor to convince people he is invested in them, but I see no conviction. I see a weathervane whose "policy" changes upon what his current audience wants to hear. This also explains why there are no details to any of them. As long as it's all abstract or wildly unrealistic waffle, contradictions don't matter at all: it's all just soundbytes anyway.


well nietzsche perhaps disagrees that trump's aesthetic is art at all. maybe i do as well. im just using the term in a specific context here. it does seem like an apt slogan for trump.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
September 08 2016 17:57 GMT
#98677
On September 09 2016 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.

Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion.

I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness.

You realize that you're admitting a complete inability to distinguish between high quality stuff that you may disagree with and low quality stuff that you may disagree with, right?

no; this is low quality stuff I disagree with, that's written well. bad ideas, with good writing. I'm focusing on whether the ideas are good in deciding whether to mark it as "drek"; they have too many deep flaws in them.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
September 08 2016 17:57 GMT
#98678
On September 09 2016 02:56 Dan HH wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:37 IgnE wrote:
@dauntless

and that's why Trump's motto should be:

Fiat ars--pereat mundus

I know that when acquiring a new lens it's tempting to look at everything throught it for a while, but you are taking this to new heights on these last few pages


i dont know if you think that's a criticism. it's part intellectual exercise and part provocation. ill just assume you agree woth my analysis.
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17971 Posts
September 08 2016 17:59 GMT
#98679
On September 09 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote:
People have written small novels over the deep meanings and philosophical questions in The Matrix. Just because two people can wax philosophical over something doesn’t not automatically impart it with merit or quality.

The Matrix has both, however. It is firstly a rather excellent action movie, and has merit on that point alone. However, it also brought some philosophical questions into the mainstream. Of course, the treatment of these questions does not exceed that of a highschool debate, but even that is more than most people had discussed about self-determination, what constitutes happiness, or the ethics of AI before the movie. It obviously also tapped into the zeitgeist, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Of course, "amateur philosophers" got everything they know about philosophy out of that movie (or maybe the trilogy, which is arguably even worse), yet think they are experts. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's fault.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
September 08 2016 17:59 GMT
#98680
On September 09 2016 02:53 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:46 zlefin wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On September 09 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
huh, sad that there are apparently so many people who thought that article by that unnamed conservative is anything other than drek.

Given the discussion over the past couple of pages, it should be obvious that you need to reconsider that opinion.

I see no reason why the last couple of pages demonstrate that the drek is something other than drek. or that it is sad when people follow foolishness. you will have to elaborate, though it is unlikely you have a convincing case; given the number of standard deviations apart.


zlefin: despite everyones fascination with this thing its drek

others: why dont you elaborate? isnt fascination a prima facie case of some kind of substance?

zlefin: no u elaborate. its drek. you havent made an argument that its not.

I didn't think anyone was truly interested in an elaboration; and several people have already pointed out some of the significant flaws in it anyways.
and some kind of substance doesn't mean it isn't drek overall; or drek as ideas.

Watching people rant is fascinating, no matter how stupid their rants are.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Prev 1 4932 4933 4934 4935 4936 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 23m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Creator 104
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 1991
Shuttle 1513
firebathero 1240
EffOrt 975
Mini 650
Hyuk 616
GuemChi 530
Larva 509
Soulkey 408
PianO 334
[ Show more ]
Snow 263
Mind 174
Soma 154
ToSsGirL 148
Rush 135
Pusan 96
Barracks 77
Sharp 69
Hyun 69
JYJ37
Aegong 35
Movie 29
soO 24
yabsab 22
Sacsri 20
HiyA 18
JulyZerg 18
GoRush 17
Terrorterran 15
Free 15
IntoTheRainbow 13
Bale 11
ivOry 3
Dota 2
Gorgc11488
qojqva2691
XcaliburYe222
syndereN220
League of Legends
singsing2300
Dendi1260
Counter-Strike
fl0m386
flusha335
kRYSTAL_187
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King65
Other Games
tarik_tv26011
gofns20466
B2W.Neo1317
hiko906
DeMusliM474
FrodaN430
crisheroes380
Lowko354
Pyrionflax125
ArmadaUGS97
QueenE58
Rex22
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick38680
StarCraft 2
angryscii 52
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 10
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 8
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis6247
• TFBlade683
Upcoming Events
WardiTV European League
1h 23m
MaNa vs sebesdes
Mixu vs Fjant
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs goblin
Gerald vs Babymarine
Krystianer vs YoungYakov
PiGosaur Monday
9h 23m
The PondCast
19h 23m
WardiTV European League
21h 23m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 1h
Replay Cast
1d 9h
RSL Revival
1d 19h
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
4 days
CSO Cup
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Season 20
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.