| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On September 21 2016 13:44 xDaunt wrote: Calling Milo a bigot is a good example of why the term has no meaning anymore. Just because you wrap yourself in misrepresented/flawed science and more eloquent language doesn't change what a lot of his pieces are. He is just a high class who is smart enough to know how to spin things so to not be overt and appeal to those unconscious biases we all have. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 21 2016 13:59 Slaughter wrote: Just because you wrap yourself in misrepresented/flawed science and more eloquent language doesn't change what a lot of his pieces are. He is just a high class who is smart enough to know how to spin things so to not be overt and appeal to those unconscious biases we all have. The only way that you can reach "Milo is a bigot" is by adopting an over-expansive definition of racism -- precisely the type that he (and I, for that matter) routinely rail against. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On September 21 2016 13:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: All happening already.No matter who wins it's going to be real bad. Economic power is shifting east at an accelerating rate. USA can't even take out Assad which seems to be one of their pet projects despite the chaos caused in Libya and Iraq when removing leaders. Except that, you know, economic growth this year and such. But I guess that's mostly limited to actual cities, so maybe you live in a rural area and don't get to see it like a lot of trump voters? Or work in a meaningless field that doesn't see growth because it is being replaced by technology? Milo literally equated black people to monkeys on twitter, I guess that's fine? Xdaunt? | ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
On September 21 2016 13:08 Nebuchad wrote: This graphic ignores what it means to be a conservative over the years. Twenty years from now, the conservatives won't think that gay marriage is bad. They will still identify as conservatives. Sanders is not fringe. He's only fringe in the US cause you have an imbalanced system. You don't have a rush to both extremes, you have a rush to something that should exist, but doesn't (a social democrat party), and a rush to an extreme that is also happening in most european countries. Check out how Trump was doing against Sanders among young people before you decide the same explanation can cover both. The goalposts of conservative v progressive will obviously be different in different countries/generations. I think the jury is very much out on which proposed changes to today's society will be universally accepted by future generations and yes that includes gay marriage. The idea that history is on an arc towards progressivism isn't one that's in any way set in stone. The future is fluid. http://theweek.com/articles/632380/how-brexit-shattered-progressives-dearest-illusions PS: I'm not American :p | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On September 21 2016 14:02 xDaunt wrote: The only way that you can reach "Milo is a bigot" is by adopting an over-expansive definition of racism -- precisely the type that he (and I, for that matter) routinely rail against. How much racial slur-laden harassment can you instigate before you might as well have said the racial slurs yourself? As I understand it, before he was banned on Twitter there were repeated incidents with Milo attacking someone on Twitter, spawning a wave of harassment against the person he attacked. Then when people started complaining about the harassment he would mock them, refuse to discourage his supporters from harassing them, and even say that they deserved to be harassed. Like, if a black person is getting all kinds of racial slurs thrown at them, and they say you should tell your supporters to stop doing it, and you respond by calling them "barely literate," that's not even a dog whistle. Who wouldn't recognize that as a not-so-subtle hint at supporting the racism? It's like that time Destiny was pissed at Deezer and got all his stream followers to spam Deezer with messages until he lagged out of Bnet. It wasn't Destiny that was doing the messaging, but everyone knew he incited it, so Blizzard banned him for a week or w/e for it. Seems fair for the "bigot" title to fall on someone who instigates racial harassment, and that's really not all that broad a definition of "bigot." | ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
| ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On September 21 2016 14:42 Amarok wrote: For me the issue isn't whether Milo is a dick on twitter, it's that there are an absolute horde of dicks on twitter of a variety of political persuasions that don't get banned. There are ISIS accounts that seem to be fine. You're either a bastion of free speech or you're selectively curating discussion. You can't have it both ways. On its face I don't like having terrorist twitter accounts either. However no one has any idea if the FBI or any other government or international agency hasn't told twitter to keep certain accounts active for the purposes of tracking suspected terrorists. It's certainly easier to track people out in the open rather than letting them hide in the shadows. I'm certain someone somewhere is using twitter accounts to keep eyes on possible white supremacists and ISIS agents, their followers, circles, and communications. That's where the "You banned Milo but not Osama Bin Laden!" argument kind of falls apart. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
To put it simply, Twitter's goal isn't to maintain the most robust marketplace of ideas possible, it's to protect and promote the Twitter platform. If you're abusing or otherwise damaging the platform, you'll get banned, even if plenty of other more onerous accounts are out there (because those accounts aren't actively abusing your platform, even if their presence still damages your platform a little by association). Anyway, the question at hand wasn't whether Twitter was right to ban Milo, it was whether Milo can fairly be called a bigot. I'd say it's easy enough to find his actions bigoted without expanding the definition of the term to meaninglessness. | ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
On September 21 2016 14:50 OuchyDathurts wrote: On its face I don't like having terrorist twitter accounts either. However no one has any idea if the FBI or any other government or international agency hasn't told twitter to keep certain accounts active for the purposes of tracking suspected terrorists. It's certainly easier to track people out in the open rather than letting them hide in the shadows. I'm certain someone somewhere is using twitter accounts to keep eyes on possible white supremacists and ISIS agents, their followers, circles, and communications. That's where the "You banned Milo but not Osama Bin Laden!" argument kind of falls apart. The terrorist thing is kind of a side issue though. To be more clear, plenty of progressives are dicks on twitter too and being called out for selectively applying their rules is fair enough. Honestly the issue is that twitter is a shitty platform that encourages low dialogue, there's very little productive discussion that can occur in 160 characters. The sooner it dies the better off the world will be. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On September 21 2016 15:03 Amarok wrote: The terrorist thing is kind of a side issue though. To be more clear, plenty of progressives are dicks on twitter too and being called out for selectively applying their rules is fair enough. Honestly the issue is that twitter is a shitty platform that encourages low dialogue, there's very little productive discussion that can occur in 160 characters. The sooner it dies the better off the world will be. Well people expecting to have quality dialogue in 140 characters are crazy. It's like trying to solve world hunger via thumbs in a text message. Twitter is fantastic at what it does well. It's a great place to check out what is going on in a snapshot. What's up with your favorite team, favorite players, a director you like, your favorite comedians, whats going on locally. You get a tiny taste of all of your interests at once so its amazing at checking the pulse of the wide range of your interests all at once. Yeah it's terrible for having meaningful discussion, it's awful with clickbait, people taking things out of context, saying dumb stuff because they're trying to be concise, people being assholes in quick sharp 140 character jabs, etc. Like everything it has its pros and cons. I thought it was dumb as hell at first glance but it does do a great job of keeping you abreast of a ton of little things. People are dicks on all sides of the fence. They're dicks when they're anonymous and even on facebook where your account is often times very real, people are massive douches. The internet is rife with problems and everyone is an asshole, you'll get no argument from me there. But its well within Twitter, or Facebook, or TL.nets right to cut someone off if they don't like how someone is using their property. Milo had a history of long term targeted harassment and bandwagoning. Twitter is a better place with him gone without a single doubt. I think their removing his verification check ~a year ago was super childish and at that time they should have either banned him or let him keep the check so I don't think twitter is above being petty. If someone is being a long term assbag to people just cut them out and move on. As I've said countless times here. Unfortunately people have found out a FABULOUS way to get eyes on you is to be as loud, as dickish, as outlandish as possible. Scream your hatred and lunacy proudly as loud as you can from the highest mountain top. A certain percentage of those eyes will turn into followers, devotees, cash in your bank account. Scream and people will show up to see what all the fuss is about, a certain number of people will just turn back and ignore it, some people will see you're crazy and pity you, some will see you're crazy and hate you, some will see through your BS, but a certain percentage of people will go "oh yeah this guy makes a lot of sense!" and latch onto your lunacy. Those people will keep coming back, they'll become fans, they'll cheer your every word, watch all your videos, read all your books. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Unscrupulous people have figured out that they can make a lot of money saying inflammatory things. That poisons the discourse more than anything IMO. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12583 Posts
On September 21 2016 14:12 Amarok wrote: The goalposts of conservative v progressive will obviously be different in different countries/generations. I think the jury is very much out on which proposed changes to today's society will be universally accepted by future generations and yes that includes gay marriage. The idea that history is on an arc towards progressivism isn't one that's in any way set in stone. The future is fluid. http://theweek.com/articles/632380/how-brexit-shattered-progressives-dearest-illusions PS: I'm not American :p Sorry for some reason I thought you were american. I agree with you that it's not set in stone that all future generations will be more progressive, I'm just talking about this one, and for this one I don't have a lot of doubts. The notion that they will become less progressive as they grow old and run back to the Rubios of this world seems to me like an extraordinary claim, which requires more evidence than: other generations grow more conservative as they grow old. Even if we follow that claim, and they grow old to become more conservative following an european model (seems the logical model to use given that Sanders fits the european model better), they should tend to move from someone like Sanders to someone like Clinton, which would be a huge step in the right direction in my view. I would defend the argument that this generation is extremely likely to bring a lot of change, again, based on getting their information from internet rather than mainstream media, and on the perception that they have that they are a more informed generation politically than the ones before them. Sure, some of them may become rich and suddenly feel like taxing the 1% more is not such a priority, but we should expect them to be outliers (especially if nothing changes regarding social injustice, which is very likely for the next 8 years no matter who wins this). | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On September 21 2016 14:10 hunts wrote: Except that, you know, economic growth this year and such. But I guess that's mostly limited to actual cities, so maybe you live in a rural area and don't get to see it like a lot of trump voters? Or work in a meaningless field that doesn't see growth because it is being replaced by technology? Well if you add 10 trillion to the national debt in 8 years you'd hope for some positive GDP figures. Sadly this is still the weakest recovery of the post WW2 era. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Meanwhile China keeps growing at 6% per year. We just saw Ford announce it is moving all small car production to Mexico last week and Boeing also announced there will be no yearly price rises on aircraft (First time since 2009). All indicators point to a weak economy entering recession. | ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
Clinton Foundation- High rated charitable foundation, probably one of the best in the US gets Clinton chewed out and grilled to no end cause so and so donated and then tried to get a meeting with Hillary. Trump Foundation For all regards seems like a very poor charitable foundation that trump has been using as a glorified slush fund gets a mehhhh Why are the Republicans not jumping on this, the Clinton Foundation so much as puts a wrong piece of punctuation on legal document you know there would be at least 4 investigation into it by at least 2 house committees. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On September 21 2016 17:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well if you add 10 trillion to the national debt in 8 years you'd hope for some positive GDP figures. Sadly this is still the weakest recovery of the post WW2 era. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Meanwhile China keeps growing at 6% per year. We just saw Ford announce it is moving all small car production to Mexico last week and Boeing also announced there will be no yearly price rises on aircraft (First time since 2009). All indicators point to a weak economy entering recession. and yet even the smallest recovery is more than what we had under bush, and far more than we could expect under trump. A big reason chinas economy is growing so much is because of the labor market, eventually it will stop when they either start demanding actual pay for labor, or we simply replace labor with machines. Furthermore, trump can't do anything to help any of that, all his "plans" to "bring the jobs back" would not bring a single job back to America that has left America, all it would do is piss off both other countries and companies working in America. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6323 Posts
On September 21 2016 17:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well if you add 10 trillion to the national debt in 8 years you'd hope for some positive GDP figures. Sadly this is still the weakest recovery of the post WW2 era. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Meanwhile China keeps growing at 6% per year. We just saw Ford announce it is moving all small car production to Mexico last week and Boeing also announced there will be no yearly price rises on aircraft (First time since 2009). All indicators point to a weak economy entering recession. How can you even call debt fuelled expansion a problem and then give China as an example of a country which does well in the same post. China's leveraging since 2008 (although before as well tbh) is a huge long term problem. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On September 21 2016 17:50 hunts wrote: and yet even the smallest recovery is more than what we had under bush, and far more than we could expect under trump. A big reason chinas economy is growing so much is because of the labor market, eventually it will stop when they either start demanding actual pay for labor, or we simply replace labor with machines. Furthermore, trump can't do anything to help any of that, all his "plans" to "bring the jobs back" would not bring a single job back to America that has left America, all it would do is piss off both other countries and companies working in America. I'm not here to defend Bush so I'm not sure why you're getting partisan but did you even read the article? This is the weakest post WW2 recovery ie weaker than the recovery under Bush from the dot com bubble/ 9/11 recession. Obama is the first president since Hoover not to oversee at least one year of 3% GDP growth - fact.Go look it up. And i agree that any recovery/expansion under Trump would be weaker than it is now under Obama.That has been the trend since the late 1970's.The guy i replied to was arguing the economy is strong, I am saying it's weak now and will be weaker whoever gets elected, I've been saying that for months. And the other guy who mentioned China - point about China is they are buying up hard assets all over the globe.Farmland, mining companies, ports, huge investments in Africa, factories.Try invest in Chinese owned companies and see how far you get.Meanwhile five trillion of the US debt is due to the Afghan and Iraq wars. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 21 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote: Sorry for some reason I thought you were american. I agree with you that it's not set in stone that all future generations will be more progressive, I'm just talking about this one, and for this one I don't have a lot of doubts. The notion that they will become less progressive as they grow old and run back to the Rubios of this world seems to me like an extraordinary claim, which requires more evidence than: other generations grow more conservative as they grow old. Even if we follow that claim, and they grow old to become more conservative following an european model (seems the logical model to use given that Sanders fits the european model better), they should tend to move from someone like Sanders to someone like Clinton, which would be a huge step in the right direction in my view. I would defend the argument that this generation is extremely likely to bring a lot of change, again, based on getting their information from internet rather than mainstream media, and on the perception that they have that they are a more informed generation politically than the ones before them. Sure, some of them may become rich and suddenly feel like taxing the 1% more is not such a priority, but we should expect them to be outliers (especially if nothing changes regarding social injustice, which is very likely for the next 8 years no matter who wins this). http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/ Pew research on the subject. People become more extreme in their viewpoints as they get older. They don't simply get more conservative. Different generations have different political leanings, so people misconstrue this as older -> more conservative. | ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
AI Arena Tournament
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
