EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 590
| 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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On October 31 2013 16:43 Wegandi wrote: Lack of stress? I imagine the political oppression, and the continual rationing and shortage or oversupply of various and sundry goods, provided them less stress than liberty does. I always find it hilarious and communists can sit there and defend communit countries and then turn around and berate Fascist countries. Here's a little pointer: Communists are worst than they are. Communists have killed more people, oppressed more people, and still yet, they seem to never go away. It's always the rich. It doesn't matter how they got their money, only that they have money. I am sure we'd all be better off without choice - just let the State and its Commissar's decide for us! How wonderful life would be! So carefree and innocent... + Show Spoiler + PS: I think Yuri Maltsev is a good enough counter-voice as someone who used to be apart of the Politburo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Maltsev Funnily enough you are perfect example of what I wrote about. Did you actually live in one of those countries ? Or are you just parroting propaganda you heard, because it suits your ideological needs ? I am about as communist as anyone who thinks that markets are useful tools, that communist regimes were oppressive and violent and it is good that they are gone. But, unlike some, I actually am not ideologically blinded and can acknowledge that there were good things also. That world was never black and white and that people like you have absolutely no idea what they are talking about when you paint bleak and terrible situation people in those countries lived in. Most people lived happy and comfortable lives. I know it does not fit your narrative, but tough luck. I will not comment on situation in USSR as I did not live there and I would assume it was significantly worse than in my country. Rest of your post has nothing to do with my post as I did not comment at all about rich vs poor. You should stop knee-jerking when someone says something that does not fit your ideology and actually read the posts and try to comprehend them. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On October 31 2013 16:43 Wegandi wrote: Lack of stress? I imagine the political oppression, and the continual rationing and shortage or oversupply of various and sundry goods, provided them less stress than liberty does. I always find it hilarious and communists can sit there and defend communit countries and then turn around and berate Fascist countries. Here's a little pointer: Communists are worst than they are. Communists have killed more people, oppressed more people, and still yet, they seem to never go away. It's always the rich. It doesn't matter how they got their money, only that they have money. I am sure we'd all be better off without choice - just let the State and its Commissar's decide for us! How wonderful life would be! So carefree and innocent... PS: I think Yuri Maltsev is a good enough counter-voice as someone who used to be apart of the Politburo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCEiN4Jw6FM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Maltsev Some of us don't have to imagine, because we've lived there or have family and friends who lived there. That's mcc's point. You could learn something from people who have vastly different experiences than you do. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 01 2013 03:45 Introvert wrote: What is literal about it? What is racist about it? I didn't hear any negative remarks about black people. The implication is that Obama's not really an American (in philosophy). Race has exactly zero to do with it. I know the left has a knee-jerk "racist!" reaction, but just think about it for a second. Are you serious? | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On November 01 2013 03:53 farvacola wrote: That you think "philosophy" has anything to do with what Cruz's father spoke of speaks volumes (yeah, I'm sure he was merely saying that Obama is philosophically Kenyan LOL). That aside, your heuristic is not an essential truth; that's the funny thing with interpretation. Without the old man to defend his words or provide further information, someone's interpretation of that statement as being racist is just as valid as yours that it isn't. This is the court of public opinion after all. I don't much know if he is a birther or not, but I don't take that from his speech. That part can be debated (without any other evidence to work from.) However, it's NOT racist. What in that statement is racist? So far, no one has actually pointed out the "racist" part of what he said, just the potential birther part. He didn't say "people of Kenyan decent are not the type of people we want running the country." At most he was questioning Obama's honesty and legitimacy. (Or maybe referring to the communist revolutionaries of the region.) That's not racist. Are you serious? I don't automatically think "racist!" whenever someone speaks, so yes, I am serious. If anything, it says more about you guys, that you take Kenyan comment=racist. Can't even spend two seconds to give him the benefit of the doubt, much less actually consider the point he was making. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
![[image loading]](http://moviestache.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/500full1.jpeg) I'm half-joking of course, but one would have to ignore pretty much every historical moment in which similar statements were uttered in order to see the old man's words as you do, Introvert. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:23 farvacola wrote: Historically, those who said anything that looked like, "Go back to _____" or "You belong back in ______" looked like this. One would have to ignore pretty much every historical moment in which similar statements were uttered in order to see the old man's words as you do. No, when I hear the context of what he said, I hear what he meant. I am aware of history. I'm sure you listened to his remarks when he said that, yes? Or about the part where he said "send him back to Chicago" first? Of course not. Might as well use all the comments about Cruz being a Canadian as racism, as well. Again, this is all knee-jerking. It's especially hilarious when you have people making explicit comparisons to the KKK (or make a comment about chains), and you blow them off- "eh, there goes Allan/Biden again!" philosophically obama comes straight from a pragmatism inspired version of civil activism, also seems to be very legalistic, also american trait. so he's as american as you can get I was commenting on what Cruz said, not on what Obama is. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:27 oneofthem wrote: i wish 'nativist' or something of the like is more of an insult so people can use it in place of racist. but really when it comes to some guy who classifies people according to ethnic origins it's rather pointless to find out what exact sort of bigot he is The left uses this classification all the time. They love to use groups- poor, black, minority, rich, women, oppressed, etc. I mean, that's the only reason Trayvon Martin was a thing at all. since cruz was talking about what obama is, yes, what obama is is relevant. But that's you responding to Cruz, not to me. My point was that it really isn't relevant. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:35 Introvert wrote: The left uses this classification all the time. They love to use groups- poor, black, minority, rich, women, oppressed, etc. I mean, that's the only reason Trayvon Martin was a thing at all. But that's you responding to Cruz, not to me. My point was that it really isn't relevant. If you think that the right didn't "use groups" when gerrymandering their districts or that they don't co-opt similar language in campaigns across the country, then you got another thing coming. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote: If you think that the right didn't "use groups" when gerrymandering their districts or that they don't co-opt similar language in campaigns across the country, then you got another thing coming. They have to because the Left is really fond of creating "oppressed" groups then campaigning on them. I mean, this got more publicity because of left-wing types MAKING it a thing. Gerrymandering, while a problem, is far less of an issue than the left has made it out to be, as of late. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/did-democrats-get-lucky-in-the-electoral-college/?_r=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/redistricting-didnt-win-republicans-the-house/ | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote: "They started it first" tends to speak for itself in terms of legitimacy when it comes to explaining away a group's negative tendencies. It takes two to tango, but figuring out who the lead is in politics is far more difficult than partisan rhetoric would have you believe. Yet, you easily accepted that Mr. Cruz was a racist bigot. I don't like it, I'm just saying that the only reason we talk like this is because the Left is always the one talking about how "Republicans hate poors/blacks/Hispanics/the middle class/etc." Maybe the republicans started it? (No.) But they certainly don't use this type of rhetoric nearly as often as the left does. They rely on it less, at any rate. Anyway, thought I'd pop in when I saw such an open ended, un-sourced claim on the page. My main point: One must be looking through race-colored glasses to see what Cruz said as racist, get angry about it, then proceed to explain away progressive race bating. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
first. self asserted identity is vastly different, because it is a performative. ethnogenesis is largely a creative process of culture. if some group does identify themselves as a racial group, it's more of a cultural gesture of solidarity and common experience. the same group can indeed become racist about it by stressing the genetic origins of superior [] race, but merely taking on a racial identity does not go far enough in that regard. secondly you were commenting on cruz's comments about obama so whether cruz has any footing to make his claim on obama is surely relevant. had he been right about obama's 'philosophical' origins, instead of being literally on the opposite side of the earth wrong, he would look a lot better. instead, he is indeed wildly wrong and made the judgement purely on some sort of kenyan father connection, which is very much along the lines of the racialist "one drop of black blood makes u black" view. so yea he's a fucking racist | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:54 oneofthem wrote: my face this guy first. self asserted identity is vastly different, because it is a performative. ethnogenesis is largely a creative process of culture. secondly you were commenting on cruz's comments about obama so whether cruz has any footing to make his claim on obama is surely relevant. had he been right about obama's 'philosophical' origins, instead of being literally on the opposite side of the earth wrong, he would look a lot better. instead, he is indeed wildly wrong and made the judgement purely on some sort of kenyan father connection, which is very much along the lines of the racialist "one drop of black blood makes u black" view. so yea he's a fucking racist When Debbie Wasserman (sp?) Schultz talks about race, she can't identify with any particular ethnic group. Instead, she just makes comments about her opponents and how THEY must hate minorities. (Disclaimer: I don't know if DWS has ever made such accusations, it's an example. I wouldn't be surprised though. Alan Grayson would actually be the perfect example). No, your logic does not follow. What matters is what Cruz thinks Obama is, not what he is. This should be fairly obvious. If he thinks he's Kenyan, then the remark, AT THE MOST could be associating Obama with communists in Kenya. There is NO way to get race from what he said, unless you put it there yourself. He even named a particular country! It wouldn't even be "Cruz hates blacks" it would be "Cruz hates Kenyans." Sheesh. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 01 2013 04:19 Introvert wrote: I don't much know if he is a birther or not, but I don't take that from his speech. That part can be debated (without any other evidence to work from.) However, it's NOT racist. What in that statement is racist? So far, no one has actually pointed out the "racist" part of what he said, just the potential birther part. He didn't say "people of Kenyan decent are not the type of people we want running the country." At most he was questioning Obama's honesty and legitimacy. (Or maybe referring to the communist revolutionaries of the region.) That's not racist. I don't automatically think "racist!" whenever someone speaks, so yes, I am serious. If anything, it says more about you guys, that you take Kenyan comment=racist. Can't even spend two seconds to give him the benefit of the doubt, much less actually consider the point he was making. Questioning someone's legitimacy by implying he's not a real American because he's from an African country is racist, even when considered thoughtfully in context. If your belief that this sort of remark is acceptable is something you thought out as well, and not "kneejerk", then your opinion on this is racist, too, and there's no reason why anyone should take you seriously. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
| ||
