|
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 13 2016 15:41 LegalLord wrote:
It's perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the domain of racists and bigots of all varieties.
I acknowledge that there's a significant portion of the alt-right that aren't racists or bigots. But I also feel that if they actually had a real interest in effecting change, they would make an effort to distance themselves from the racist/bigoted members of their communities, because those people dilute their message and make it less appealing to people who might otherwise be interested in their concerns.
As they don't do this, I'm largely convinced that the movement largely isn't interested in effecting change, more than just complaining about things within their own echo chambers.
|
On September 13 2016 16:27 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 15:41 LegalLord wrote:
It's perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the domain of racists and bigots of all varieties. I acknowledge that there's a significant portion of the alt-right that aren't racists or bigots. But I also feel that if they actually had a real interest in effecting change, they would make an effort to distance themselves from the racist/bigoted members of their communities, because those people dilute their message and make it less appealing to people who might otherwise be interested in their concerns. As they don't do this, I'm largely convinced that the movement largely isn't interested in effecting change, more than just complaining about things within their own echo chambers.
As an interesting aside, one of the main complaints some people have is that islam doesn't do enough to seperate itself from it's more extreme elements.
Not all alt-righters perhaps?
+ Show Spoiler +I know this is a stupid thing to say, just guilt by association for something as trivial as this is fucking lame
|
It's not really the same thing. I'm not calling them racist by association. My point is more that if you want people to listen to what you have to say, you have to play the game.
The extreme left is guilty of this too (e.g. Jill Stein not willing to outright disavow the anti-science people and instead skirting around the relevant issues). On some level if you want people to care about your concerns, you have to pander to them a little bit so they actually start listening to you rather than dismissing you before you've said anything. If that means disavowing people you don't personally have a problem with, but other people do, that's the game you have to play. You don't get things done in this country by being uncompromising in your ideology. So you have to give things up where they don't matter to get things done where they do.
|
On September 13 2016 16:27 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 15:41 LegalLord wrote:
It's perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the domain of racists and bigots of all varieties. I acknowledge that there's a significant portion of the alt-right that aren't racists or bigots. But I also feel that if they actually had a real interest in effecting change, they would make an effort to distance themselves from the racist/bigoted members of their communities, because those people dilute their message and make it less appealing to people who might otherwise be interested in their concerns. As they don't do this, I'm largely convinced that the movement largely isn't interested in effecting change, more than just complaining about things within their own echo chambers.
Well I'm not sure "alt-right" is even a movement in its own right. Just a vague general classification of ideas, some of which should not be rejected out of hand for being associated with "racists."
|
On September 13 2016 16:36 TheYango wrote:
It's not really the same thing. I'm not calling them racist by association. My point is more that if you want people to listen to what you have to say, you have to play the game.
The extreme left is guilty of this too (e.g. Jill Stein not willing to outright disavow the anti-science people and instead skirting around the relevant issues). On some level if you want people to care about your concerns, you have to pander to them a little bit. If that means disavowing people you don't personally have a problem with, but other people do, that's the game you have to play. You don't get things done in this country by being uncompromising in your ideology.
I think they think that they shouldn't have to effect change, and that the last few years of trigger warnings and safe spaces will un do itself through regular exposure of just how stupid those things really are.
"You're a white male!" has not ever been, and will continue to never be a valid argument, the belief that only white people can be racist in America, the rest are just bigots etc. Absurd events like blm in Milwaukee just a few weeks ago rioting after a black man shot a gang banger. Privilege being a catch all phrase for people justifying their failures at life while 99% of them live in a nice enough part of a first world nation, the whole concept of diversity quotas, what's happening in Europe in general. The regressive left is a catch all phrase but to pretend things haven't been fucking dumb for a while now is a bit rich.
Just to trigger people, Europeans have developed the most successful and best places to live in the world by far.
|
On September 13 2016 16:44 bo1b wrote:
I think they think that they shouldn't have to effect change,
If you're not trying to effect change, you're complaining just for the sake of complaining, which is just about the least productive thing you can do.
|
On September 13 2016 16:46 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 16:44 bo1b wrote:
I think they think that they shouldn't have to effect change, If you're not trying to effect change, you're complaining just for the sake of complaining, which is just about the least productive thing you can do.
Not really, they're complaining because they can complain, because the current state of affairs is not some legislated reality that we currently reside in. Most of the complaints in the end are jokes anyway.
|
Hahahaha I just can't believe an article about PEPE has made Hillary's official site. This has made my day.
edit: Is that site actually run by her campaign?
|
On September 13 2016 16:59 bo1b wrote:
Not really, they're complaining because they can complain, because the current state of affairs is not some legislated reality that we currently reside in. Most of the complaints in the end are jokes anyway.
And people then find it surprising or problematic that they aren't acknowledged in mainstream politics?
|
On September 13 2016 17:07 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 16:59 bo1b wrote:
Not really, they're complaining because they can complain, because the current state of affairs is not some legislated reality that we currently reside in. Most of the complaints in the end are jokes anyway. And people then find it surprising or problematic that they aren't acknowledged in mainstream politics?
I think people find it surprising that they're acknowledged at all in mainstream politics lol.
|
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say.
|
On September 13 2016 17:16 LegalLord wrote:
They barely are. Which was sort of what xDaunt seemed to be trying to say.
Well, we've come full circle then to the absurdity of Hillary's latest article.
Seize all rare pepes! Distribute them to the 99%!
|
I have no idea who is running her website, but engaging in meme wars doesn't seem to be something Clinton (or her campaign team) should try to do. They will never beat 4chan, and the only people who care are either already voting for her, or are firm Trumpeters.
|
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing.
|
On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing.
Mostly just scapegoating Trump as the root of all evil to hide the fact that people don't like her much either.
It's only barely working.
|
On September 13 2016 17:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. Mostly just scapegoating Drumpf as the root of all evil to hide the fact that people don't like her much either. It's only barely working.
Pretty sure the only reason Clinton even has a hope of winning is Trump is her opponent. I don't think she is capable of beating anyone but him....and might lose to him anyways.
|
On September 13 2016 18:02 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 17:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. Mostly just scapegoating Drumpf as the root of all evil to hide the fact that people don't like her much either. It's only barely working. Pretty sure the only reason Clinton even has a hope of winning is Trump is her opponent. I don't think she is capable of beating anyone but him....and might lose to him anyways.
Not if the huffington post has anything to say about it!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-gabriel/if-you-dont-vote-democrat_b_10425968.html
|
On September 13 2016 18:02 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 17:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. Mostly just scapegoating Drumpf as the root of all evil to hide the fact that people don't like her much either. It's only barely working. Pretty sure the only reason Clinton even has a hope of winning is Trump is her opponent. I don't think she is capable of beating anyone but him....and might lose to him anyways.
Lol, she already beat Sanders and all other candidates in the primaries, likewise she could probably also beat Cruz and all other Republican candidates that lost to Trump. Even with all the corruption scandals, emails, stupid campaigning team, and bad health, she'll probably still beat Trump.
|
On September 13 2016 18:07 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 18:02 Orcasgt24 wrote:On September 13 2016 17:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. Mostly just scapegoating Drumpf as the root of all evil to hide the fact that people don't like her much either. It's only barely working. Pretty sure the only reason Clinton even has a hope of winning is Trump is her opponent. I don't think she is capable of beating anyone but him....and might lose to him anyways. Not if the huffington post has anything to say about it! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-gabriel/if-you-dont-vote-democrat_b_10425968.html
Is that a parody article?
|
On September 13 2016 18:07 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 18:02 Orcasgt24 wrote:On September 13 2016 17:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 13 2016 17:42 TheYango wrote:
Between this and the "deplorables" statement, I'd really question what the hell whoever is running the Clinton campaign is doing. Mostly just scapegoating Drumpf as the root of all evil to hide the fact that people don't like her much either. It's only barely working. Pretty sure the only reason Clinton even has a hope of winning is Trump is her opponent. I don't think she is capable of beating anyone but him....and might lose to him anyways. Not if the huffington post has anything to say about it! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-gabriel/if-you-dont-vote-democrat_b_10425968.html
Publish that. Wonder why people don't think HuffPost is a serious news platform.
Yes, it's an opinion and clearly marked as such, but wtf. Why would a "serious" platform ever want to be associated with such drivel. Let the guy post it on his blog where it will fade into the archive of forgotten and never seen shit on the internet, where it belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
