|
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 September 11 2016 01:12 TheYango wrote:
You don't have to be in the category being insulted to be turned off from a candidate by insulting statements. This isn't that hard to understand.
True, but the only people who care about the good character of Republican white supremacists are already Trump supporters. People who care about insults aren't exactly going to run to the Trump camp either.
Maybe there will be a few who go third party, but that seems unlikely.
Overarall, reminding minority citizens (that typically do not vote) about what the Republican party allegedly looks like this election cycle probably outweighs the effect this will have on wavering democrats.
|
Personally I'm glad someone is willing to call out and confront that part of America. You don't get to go around yapping about 'political correctness' and then turn into cry babies because someone called you out on your behavior.
I'm cautious to make predictions about how stuff like this will play out before we see a real reaction though.
|
On September 11 2016 01:47 CobaltBlu wrote:
Personally I'm glad someone is willing to call out and confront that part of America. You don't get to go around yapping about 'political correctness' and then turn into cry babies because someone called you out on your behavior.
I'm cautious to make predictions about how stuff like this will play out before we see a real reaction though.
I mean I agree, but who's worse, bigoted Trump supporters or Henry Kissinger?
|
|
|
On September 11 2016 01:12 TheYango wrote:
You don't have to be in the category being insulted to be turned off from a candidate by insulting statements. This isn't that hard to understand.
Is it really insulting though ? Shes talking about people who exhibit racist, xenophobic, hateful behavior. She would have been better of saying "some" instead of half.. but whatever the point is valid. I characterise people who exhibit these tendencies as deplorable. And if that ends up being, 10 20 30 40 50 60 or whatever percent of Trump supporters then thats how many there are.
|
Almost decades ago, this was predicted. We knew it was coming, but were powerless to stop it.
|
On September 11 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 01:47 CobaltBlu wrote:
Personally I'm glad someone is willing to call out and confront that part of America. You don't get to go around yapping about 'political correctness' and then turn into cry babies because someone called you out on your behavior.
I'm cautious to make predictions about how stuff like this will play out before we see a real reaction though. I mean I agree, but who's worse, bigoted Trump supporters or Henry Kissinger?
I'm not a fan of Kissinger but he is his own (valid) discourse topic. You can't just randomly inject him as an argument into other discussions.
|
On September 11 2016 02:01 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 11 2016 01:47 CobaltBlu wrote:
Personally I'm glad someone is willing to call out and confront that part of America. You don't get to go around yapping about 'political correctness' and then turn into cry babies because someone called you out on your behavior.
I'm cautious to make predictions about how stuff like this will play out before we see a real reaction though. I mean I agree, but who's worse, bigoted Trump supporters or Henry Kissinger? I'm not a fan of Kissinger but he is his own (valid) discourse topic. You can't just randomly inject him as an argument into other discussions.
We're talking about deplorable people. It appears HRC and her supporters find half of Trump's supporters more deplorable than Kissinger. It's not "randomly injecting him".
|
Well of course they are more deplorable than Kissinger and they haven't even been in power for a day
|
On September 11 2016 02:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Well of course they are more deplorable than Kissinger and they haven't even been in power for a day
Hard time telling if you're being serious or not. Makes me wonder what, if anything, Kissinger had responsibility in that you disapprove of?
|
As far as I know Kissinger declined to endorse this election so no I don't think he fits into this discussion.
Empowered bigots causes more harm to me and my country than a rumor about Clinton seeking an endorsement of a person I disapprove of. If that is what you were asking me.
|
Sure I disapprove of plenty of things that Kissinger did, but the guy actually held political power and responsibility for decades and didn't divide his own country. That's like saying Trump supporters are better than Bush. Sure most of the things Bush did relating to foreign policy where pretty stupid, but he didn't intentionally race-bait and divide the population.
If Trump supporters would hold the political power that Kissinger and comparable people held you'd wish Kissinger back.
|
On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote:On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote:On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are. How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology? ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem. I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists.
Social allocation of resources is fundamentally political. Governing requires prioritization, or a hierarchical ordering of issues/interests/people that is fundamentally political. Execution of laws is fundamentally political.
Are you familiar with terms like "deep capture"? Have you ever heard Noam Chomsky, for example, speak/write about Manufacturing Consent? The technocratic attitude that you are displaying here is ideology that denies its own existence. Governing is not just about means, its about ends. Science is a means-making tool that has nothing to say about ends.
|
On September 11 2016 02:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote:On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote:On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are. How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology? ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem. I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. Social allocation of resources is fundamentally political. Governing requires prioritization, or a hierarchical ordering of issues/interests/people that is fundamentally political. Execution of laws is fundamentally political. Are you familiar with terms like "deep capture"? Have you ever heard Noam Chomsky, for example, speak/write about Manufacturing Consent? The technocratic attitude that you are displaying here is ideology that denies its own existence. Governing is not just about means, its about ends. Science is a means-making tool that has nothing to say about ends.
i haven't heard of deep capture; I know of chomsky, but am not that familiar with his work.
And I stand by my points, more science and rigor for better means-making is needed.
|
On September 11 2016 02:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 02:15 IgnE wrote:On September 11 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:On September 11 2016 00:14 TMagpie wrote:On September 10 2016 22:53 zlefin wrote:On September 10 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On September 10 2016 09:29 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I mean exactly what I said; one focused on pragmatism and rigorous analysis, rather than ideology.
i'm not familar enough with yoru examples ot say how apt they are. How is rigorous analysis opposed to "ideology?" Do you think you are free of ideology? ideology, by definition, is about a belief system, rather than about what really works. and staunch ideologues are an observable problem. I have some ideology; but i'm quite willing to temper much of it with pragmatism. we need more pragmatism in gov't at the moment. and more rigor. I'm not an Igne fan by any stretch--but what you see as "ideological thinking" is the other guy's "pragmatic thinking" and your idea of "pragmatic thinking" is the other guy's idea of "ideological thinking" For the most part, politics happens because there is no consensus on what "pragmatism" actually means in practice. Your belief that you somehow have this objective way of thinking that is more correct than the other guy's way of thinking is the whole reason why the American political system is the way it is today--too many people who accuse the other guy of being too idea driven and not pragmatic enough--specifically because they can't agree as to what a pragmatic solution is. no, it's really not. there really is a difference between pragmatism and ideological thinking. yes, some people do use it that way, and they're just wrong. It really is quite possible to be considerably more objective than a fair number of the current politicians are. the decreased willingness to compromise is a mark of higher levels of ideologues compared to pragmatists. Social allocation of resources is fundamentally political. Governing requires prioritization, or a hierarchical ordering of issues/interests/people that is fundamentally political. Execution of laws is fundamentally political. Are you familiar with terms like "deep capture"? Have you ever heard Noam Chomsky, for example, speak/write about Manufacturing Consent? The technocratic attitude that you are displaying here is ideology that denies its own existence. Governing is not just about means, its about ends. Science is a means-making tool that has nothing to say about ends. i haven't heard of deep capture; I know of chomsky, but am not that familiar with his work. And I stand by my points, more science and rigor for better means-making is needed.
well means-making is not the whole of politics. you certainlu didnt seem to be arguing purely over means when you denounced "ideology" in favor of pragmatism. scientists are not polticians but that doesn't mean they aren't political.
|
On September 11 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean I agree, but who's worse, bigoted Trump supporters or Henry Kissinger?
I self-admittedly turn a blind eye to the shitty things Kissinger has done because of his role in detente with China.
|
On September 11 2016 02:38 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean I agree, but who's worse, bigoted Trump supporters or Henry Kissinger? I self-admittedly turn a blind eye to the shitty things Kissinger has done because of his role in detente with China.
There are good and bad parts of the policy he helped to create.
A Kissinger-esque FP would be particularly shitty for the modern political climate though, which is all that really matters.
|
On September 11 2016 01:51 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 01:12 TheYango wrote:
You don't have to be in the category being insulted to be turned off from a candidate by insulting statements. This isn't that hard to understand. Is it really insulting though ? Shes talking about people who exhibit racist, xenophobic, hateful behavior. She would have been better of saying "some" instead of half.. but whatever the point is valid. I characterise people who exhibit these tendencies as deplorable. And if that ends up being, 10 20 30 40 50 60 or whatever percent of Trump supporters then thats how many there are.
She called 10% of America deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and not America. Since the alt-right speech (tackling the real issues), she's going to keep insulting the voters like this. Trump might insult every opponent of his in the political arena, but he's so far been smart enough not to come out and say, you know what the problem is? that the opponent's supporters are entitled victims that are too stupid to learn personal responsibility and be convinced to vote for me. Do you know what no person said after hearing Romney's 47% comment 4 years ago? "Woohoo, he can't have been talking about me so I must be in that 5-10% of independents that he's trying to win over, I'm so elated to have this privilege of being condescended to, let me cast a ballot today!" I hope Clinton keeps doing this.
|
On September 11 2016 02:40 LegalLord wrote:
A Kissinger-esque FP would be particularly shitty for the modern political climate though, which is all that really matters.
Oh, I definitely agree with that.
|
On September 11 2016 02:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2016 01:51 Rebs wrote:On September 11 2016 01:12 TheYango wrote:
You don't have to be in the category being insulted to be turned off from a candidate by insulting statements. This isn't that hard to understand. Is it really insulting though ? Shes talking about people who exhibit racist, xenophobic, hateful behavior. She would have been better of saying "some" instead of half.. but whatever the point is valid. I characterise people who exhibit these tendencies as deplorable. And if that ends up being, 10 20 30 40 50 60 or whatever percent of Trump supporters then thats how many there are. She called 10% of America deplorable, irredeemable, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, and not America. Since the alt-right speech (tackling the real issues), she's going to keep insulting the voters like this. Trump might insult every opponent of his in the political arena, but he's so far been smart enough not to come out and say, you know what the problem is? that the opponent's supporters are entitled victims that are too stupid to learn personal responsibility and be convinced to vote for me. Do you know what no person said after hearing Romney's 47% comment 4 years ago? "Woohoo, he can't have been talking about me so I must be in that 5-10% of independents that he's trying to win over, I'm so elated to have this privilege of being condescended to, let me cast a ballot today!" I hope Clinton keeps doing this.
i think at least 10% of america probably is each of irredeemable, racist, sexist, homophobic, and islamophobic. maybe not deplorable. i dont know them personally and i think deplorable is a highly interpersonal adjective, yknow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
