|
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 November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election.
Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
she lost the midwest due to higher 'anti' turnout but also a lot lower turnout in the union labor force.
nafta nafta
and a bit of 'we are closing down coal power plants'
|
On November 10 2016 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
Or the FBI or the media that created a ridiculous email scandal based on almost nothing.
I saw some analyses that the DNC was to blame for supporting a 'scandal-ridden, unpopular candidate' in Clinton, but I find that weird. Pretty much all her scandals are based on GOP slander or social media whisper campaigns, and much of what makes her unpopular is sexist prejudice against the first female candidate.
Funny, some of my other circles have been criticizing the media for not covering the important aspects of the (multiple) email scandals.
Like, say, testifying to the FBI that she never bothered to learn what the rules for handling classified information were.
Or the Huma Abedin state department emails that apparently got purged from her private server when they should have been turned over.
Or the leaked messages coordinating some violations of campaign finance laws.
Or the leaked messages implicating her in further violations of campaign finance laws prior to the official start of her campaign.
|
On November 10 2016 05:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:16 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
Curious, how many of you have actually been to the border and know to what extent there is one in place? That few, huh? Alright, so I'll explain this. Over the past 15 years I've been to Mexico more than a few times. I've had a chance to see perfectly well how the border has evolved over that time. Back 15 years ago, the border was almost trivial, something like what you would find between states. A few border patrol officers who do little but check for export restrictions on agriculture and the like, but who just let regular people pass. On the Mexican side, sometimes it was just 1-2 guys who really didn't care and never really checked anything substantial. Over the years that has all changed. First, if you want to cross the border without a valid passport then you could forget about it. Then, a fence running along its length, border patrols with dozens of people, and a passport verification check every time you want to enter the US. Not to mention patrols along the border cities and multiple secondary border checks. It reminds me of what borders looked like back home. My point is, there is already something very closely approximating a wall. Maybe his wall will be just a slight boost and a few holes filled in. A few more inches of barbed wire, more checks for contraband, maybe some watchtowers. He can fulfill his promise on the cheap because it's already mostly done. Uh you know the border is pretty long right? From what I could find there's about 600 miles of fence for 1900 miles of border. Much of it is mountain terrain which is all but impassable. Some of it is vulnerable I'm sure, but there has been a hell of a lot done there. They're talking about a 50 foot concrete wall, but barbed wire would do the same job and cost very little. And a lot of what needs to be patched already is. This project can be scaled down substantially without breaking the bank.
I don't see how leaving huge stretches of the border without anything counts as 'a wall' by any stretch though?
Like I don't doubt that Trump can get away with some token meaningless border effort, he probably could even just claim to have built what's already there and most people would think the matter was solved, but if anyone is actually holding him to a complete wall then it's not going to go well.
Especially if you get into next election cycle and people start touting that Trump's wall only covers 25% of the border.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:21 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
Or the FBI or the media that created a ridiculous email scandal based on almost nothing.
I saw some analyses that the DNC was to blame for supporting a 'scandal-ridden, unpopular candidate' in Clinton, but I find that weird. Pretty much all her scandals are based on GOP slander or social media whisper campaigns, and much of what makes her unpopular is sexist prejudice against the first female candidate.
Funny, some of my other circles have been criticizing the media for not covering the important aspects of the (multiple) email scandals. Like, say, testifying to the FBI that she never bothered to learn what the rules for handling classified information were. Or the Huma Abedin state department emails that apparently got purged from her private server when they should have been turned over. Or the leaked messages coordinating some violations of campaign finance laws. Or the leaked messages implicating her in further violations of campaign finance laws prior to the official start of her campaign.
these are all presumably national security issues.
but when you've got multiple former CIA directors coming out to support hillary or bash Trump, that should be a hint on this issue, no?
|
On November 10 2016 05:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
Curious, how many of you have actually been to the border and know to what extent there is one in place? That few, huh? Alright, so I'll explain this. Over the past 15 years I've been to Mexico more than a few times. I've had a chance to see perfectly well how the border has evolved over that time. Back 15 years ago, the border was almost trivial, something like what you would find between states. A few border patrol officers who do little but check for export restrictions on agriculture and the like, but who just let regular people pass. On the Mexican side, sometimes it was just 1-2 guys who really didn't care and never really checked anything substantial. Over the years that has all changed. First, if you want to cross the border without a valid passport then you could forget about it. Then, a fence running along its length, border patrols with dozens of people, and a passport verification check every time you want to enter the US. Not to mention patrols along the border cities and multiple secondary border checks. It reminds me of what borders looked like back home. My point is, there is already something very closely approximating a wall. Maybe his wall will be just a slight boost and a few holes filled in. A few more inches of barbed wire, more checks for contraband, maybe some watchtowers. He can fulfill his promise on the cheap because it's already mostly done. A fence is not a wall. Although I agree with you that this would be a more reasonable suggestion and with the same practical consequences (none whatsoever, except maybe a very minor bump in the price of smuggling). In neither case is Mexico paying for anything, though.
All I'm saying is, the infrastructure is mostly there, and if I were on Trump's "wall building committee" then I would be able to find a perfectly good way to make a tighter border that people would be happy with, without spending $20+ billion on it. It's very possible with proper scaling.
|
On November 10 2016 05:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:53 Grumbels wrote:On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:
Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are.
It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact. People that support the alt-right should be shamed, it is a sexist, racist, anti-semitic fringe that consists of deluded con artists, trolls, bullies and neo-nazis. As true as this may be, why are they now cited as instrumental to the results to the election? As long as a Trump presidency was judged impossible, the alt-right was the fringiest of fringe groups. Now that he's won, there was some vast conspiracy among disgruntled young white men to ensure his victory? This is almost the same rationale for the anti-Masonist movements in the 1780s and anti-Catholicism in the 1820s-1840s; shit, McCarthy was spouting the same garbage during the Red Scare. And we now know there was no evidence for those. Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:59 207aicila wrote:On November 10 2016 04:48 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are. https://twitter.com/SiyandaWrites/status/796286719058382848It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact. No offense, but this sounds exactly like the "tinfoil hat conspiracy" attitudes perpetuated by the same fringe communities (or when Hofstadter would call the "paranoid style" in American politics). The fact that Mohutsiwa resorts to the most asinine, reductionist interpretation—Freudian mother complex + not getting laid—doesn't make it a plausible insight. I guess my question was more about how prevalent these people actually are in American society / how likely it would be for their specific niche to have had a palpable impact on the outcome of this election. But even then I'd only be inviting guesses, guesses hopefully more educated than my own, but guesses nonetheless. In terms of being far-far-right and Neo-Nazis and adamant on bringing back traditional masculinity? Probably not that many. But I'd guess there's a larger swath of people who were affected by some of those issues (especially on the issues of masculinity, globalization and multiculturalism), who didn't adapt extreme positions but were charmed by Trump nonetheless. Whether or not their claims are objectively true, the fact that the alt-right exists is reflective of social anxieties and concerns right now.
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election? For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright.
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much.
|
On November 10 2016 05:23 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 05:16 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
Curious, how many of you have actually been to the border and know to what extent there is one in place? That few, huh? Alright, so I'll explain this. Over the past 15 years I've been to Mexico more than a few times. I've had a chance to see perfectly well how the border has evolved over that time. Back 15 years ago, the border was almost trivial, something like what you would find between states. A few border patrol officers who do little but check for export restrictions on agriculture and the like, but who just let regular people pass. On the Mexican side, sometimes it was just 1-2 guys who really didn't care and never really checked anything substantial. Over the years that has all changed. First, if you want to cross the border without a valid passport then you could forget about it. Then, a fence running along its length, border patrols with dozens of people, and a passport verification check every time you want to enter the US. Not to mention patrols along the border cities and multiple secondary border checks. It reminds me of what borders looked like back home. My point is, there is already something very closely approximating a wall. Maybe his wall will be just a slight boost and a few holes filled in. A few more inches of barbed wire, more checks for contraband, maybe some watchtowers. He can fulfill his promise on the cheap because it's already mostly done. Uh you know the border is pretty long right? From what I could find there's about 600 miles of fence for 1900 miles of border. Much of it is mountain terrain which is all but impassable. Some of it is vulnerable I'm sure, but there has been a hell of a lot done there. They're talking about a 50 foot concrete wall, but barbed wire would do the same job and cost very little. And a lot of what needs to be patched already is. This project can be scaled down substantially without breaking the bank. I don't see how leaving huge stretches of the border without anything counts as 'a wall' by any stretch though? Like I don't doubt that Trump can get away with some token meaningless border effort, he probably could even just claim to have built what's already there and most people would think the matter was solved, but if anyone is actually holding him to a complete wall then it's not going to go well. Especially if you get into next election cycle and people start touting that Trump's wall only covers 25% of the border.
So what you're saying is that mountains aren't wall enough for you? Trump even talked specifically about the mountains in his debate performances and no one at all even thought that there was anything to criticize about not having walls on a mountain.
|
On November 10 2016 05:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:20 Acrofales wrote:On November 10 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
Curious, how many of you have actually been to the border and know to what extent there is one in place? That few, huh? Alright, so I'll explain this. Over the past 15 years I've been to Mexico more than a few times. I've had a chance to see perfectly well how the border has evolved over that time. Back 15 years ago, the border was almost trivial, something like what you would find between states. A few border patrol officers who do little but check for export restrictions on agriculture and the like, but who just let regular people pass. On the Mexican side, sometimes it was just 1-2 guys who really didn't care and never really checked anything substantial. Over the years that has all changed. First, if you want to cross the border without a valid passport then you could forget about it. Then, a fence running along its length, border patrols with dozens of people, and a passport verification check every time you want to enter the US. Not to mention patrols along the border cities and multiple secondary border checks. It reminds me of what borders looked like back home. My point is, there is already something very closely approximating a wall. Maybe his wall will be just a slight boost and a few holes filled in. A few more inches of barbed wire, more checks for contraband, maybe some watchtowers. He can fulfill his promise on the cheap because it's already mostly done. A fence is not a wall. Although I agree with you that this would be a more reasonable suggestion and with the same practical consequences (none whatsoever, except maybe a very minor bump in the price of smuggling). In neither case is Mexico paying for anything, though. All I'm saying is, the infrastructure is mostly there, and if I were on Trump's "wall building committee" then I would be able to find a perfectly good way to make a tighter border that people would be happy with, without spending $20+ billion on it. It's very possible with proper scaling.
The cost of the wall is almost entirely in maintenance regardless. Building the wall is meaningless compared to maintaining it for the next decade.
|
On November 10 2016 05:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:23 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 05:16 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
Curious, how many of you have actually been to the border and know to what extent there is one in place? That few, huh? Alright, so I'll explain this. Over the past 15 years I've been to Mexico more than a few times. I've had a chance to see perfectly well how the border has evolved over that time. Back 15 years ago, the border was almost trivial, something like what you would find between states. A few border patrol officers who do little but check for export restrictions on agriculture and the like, but who just let regular people pass. On the Mexican side, sometimes it was just 1-2 guys who really didn't care and never really checked anything substantial. Over the years that has all changed. First, if you want to cross the border without a valid passport then you could forget about it. Then, a fence running along its length, border patrols with dozens of people, and a passport verification check every time you want to enter the US. Not to mention patrols along the border cities and multiple secondary border checks. It reminds me of what borders looked like back home. My point is, there is already something very closely approximating a wall. Maybe his wall will be just a slight boost and a few holes filled in. A few more inches of barbed wire, more checks for contraband, maybe some watchtowers. He can fulfill his promise on the cheap because it's already mostly done. Uh you know the border is pretty long right? From what I could find there's about 600 miles of fence for 1900 miles of border. Much of it is mountain terrain which is all but impassable. Some of it is vulnerable I'm sure, but there has been a hell of a lot done there. They're talking about a 50 foot concrete wall, but barbed wire would do the same job and cost very little. And a lot of what needs to be patched already is. This project can be scaled down substantially without breaking the bank. I don't see how leaving huge stretches of the border without anything counts as 'a wall' by any stretch though? Like I don't doubt that Trump can get away with some token meaningless border effort, he probably could even just claim to have built what's already there and most people would think the matter was solved, but if anyone is actually holding him to a complete wall then it's not going to go well. Especially if you get into next election cycle and people start touting that Trump's wall only covers 25% of the border. So what you're saying is that mountains aren't wall enough for you? Trump even talked specifically about the mountains in his debate performances and no one at all even thought that there was anything to criticize about not having walls on a mountain.
Nothing is enough for me so, no?
But earlier in this thread people were all up in arms thinking that if Trump didn't massively deliver on the wall there would be hell to pay, but now he can just stick a few token efforts in there and everything will be OK? It seems very all over the place.
|
On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:51 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are. https://twitter.com/SiyandaWrites/status/796286719058382848It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact. And people like this girl are partly responsible for this. If people have shitty ideas, then engage with them and discuss. There's reason to everything : the moral kabbal that some people in the left created in the last few years participated in the appearance of the "alt right". On a campus, you should discuss everything with everyone. Her twitter feed is a beautiful exemple of cognitive bias. "Those white men, they're sexist and racist and hating on us, and they elected him for that" : no, it's the economy stupid. I don't disagree with problems of communication in a general sense, but have you see alt-right places like /r/the_donald and 4chan? You're basically arguing that people should try and have reasonable discussions over Twitch Chat, except in this case everyone else in chat hates what you have to say on principal alone. You can't have a reasonable argument on the internet in a place like a twitch chat or reddit where trolling is the rule, but in a class room or on a college campus, in face to face interactions, you can talk with anyone. When you insult someone and assimilate everything he or she says to his/her caracteristics (men or women, white or not, etc.) you lose all chance to actually engage in a good discussion. Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule. Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for?
I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself.
I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such.
EDIT: I believe Grumbels is not arguing from good faith at this point. Plenty of rational arguments for Trump have been made (Personally I disagree with the underlying logic, but that doesn't make them any less rational). Had Hillary won a similar argument of the "regressive left" (the Kill all men-group which is likely as big as the alt-right) being dangerously empowered could be made.
|
On November 10 2016 05:29 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:26 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 05:23 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 05:16 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
Curious, how many of you have actually been to the border and know to what extent there is one in place? That few, huh? Alright, so I'll explain this. Over the past 15 years I've been to Mexico more than a few times. I've had a chance to see perfectly well how the border has evolved over that time. Back 15 years ago, the border was almost trivial, something like what you would find between states. A few border patrol officers who do little but check for export restrictions on agriculture and the like, but who just let regular people pass. On the Mexican side, sometimes it was just 1-2 guys who really didn't care and never really checked anything substantial. Over the years that has all changed. First, if you want to cross the border without a valid passport then you could forget about it. Then, a fence running along its length, border patrols with dozens of people, and a passport verification check every time you want to enter the US. Not to mention patrols along the border cities and multiple secondary border checks. It reminds me of what borders looked like back home. My point is, there is already something very closely approximating a wall. Maybe his wall will be just a slight boost and a few holes filled in. A few more inches of barbed wire, more checks for contraband, maybe some watchtowers. He can fulfill his promise on the cheap because it's already mostly done. Uh you know the border is pretty long right? From what I could find there's about 600 miles of fence for 1900 miles of border. Much of it is mountain terrain which is all but impassable. Some of it is vulnerable I'm sure, but there has been a hell of a lot done there. They're talking about a 50 foot concrete wall, but barbed wire would do the same job and cost very little. And a lot of what needs to be patched already is. This project can be scaled down substantially without breaking the bank. I don't see how leaving huge stretches of the border without anything counts as 'a wall' by any stretch though? Like I don't doubt that Trump can get away with some token meaningless border effort, he probably could even just claim to have built what's already there and most people would think the matter was solved, but if anyone is actually holding him to a complete wall then it's not going to go well. Especially if you get into next election cycle and people start touting that Trump's wall only covers 25% of the border. So what you're saying is that mountains aren't wall enough for you? Trump even talked specifically about the mountains in his debate performances and no one at all even thought that there was anything to criticize about not having walls on a mountain. Nothing is enough for me so, no? But earlier in this thread people were all up in arms thinking that if Trump didn't massively deliver on the wall there would be hell to pay, but now he can just stick a few token efforts in there and everything will be OK? It seems very all over the place.
That's my point. It's not hard to deliver on the wall. You don't have to do much and the only thing you have to do to realize that is actually go to the border and see for yourself what it looks like.
|
On November 10 2016 05:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:21 Buckyman wrote:
Funny, some of my other circles have been criticizing the media for not covering the important aspects of the (multiple) email scandals.
Like, say, testifying to the FBI that she never bothered to learn what the rules for handling classified information were.
Or the Huma Abedin state department emails that apparently got purged from her private server when they should have been turned over.
Or the leaked messages coordinating some violations of campaign finance laws.
Or the leaked messages implicating her in further violations of campaign finance laws prior to the official start of her campaign.
these are all presumably national security issues.
One national security issue. National security was a Trump campaign point.
One transparency issue. Transparency was an Obama campaign point.
Two campaign finance issues that represent extreme hypocrisy given that she made Citizens United a campaign point.
All of them raise suspicions of felonious conduct.
but when you've got multiple former CIA directors coming out to support hillary or bash Trump, that should be a hint on this issue, no?
This helps, but does not mean the issues should not have been addressed or mentioned by media coverage.
|
On November 10 2016 05:21 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
Or the FBI or the media that created a ridiculous email scandal based on almost nothing.
I saw some analyses that the DNC was to blame for supporting a 'scandal-ridden, unpopular candidate' in Clinton, but I find that weird. Pretty much all her scandals are based on GOP slander or social media whisper campaigns, and much of what makes her unpopular is sexist prejudice against the first female candidate.
Funny, some of my other circles have been criticizing the media for not covering the important aspects of the (multiple) email scandals. Like, say, testifying to the FBI that she never bothered to learn what the rules for handling classified information were. Or the Huma Abedin state department emails that apparently got purged from her private server when they should have been turned over. Or the leaked messages coordinating some violations of campaign finance laws. Or the leaked messages implicating her in further violations of campaign finance laws prior to the official start of her campaign.
http://europe.newsweek.com/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373
Not sure why I should reply to something that you just stated without sources, but here is a good counter example which nobody ever cares about because this is not about the specifics of "emails", it's about finding Hillary Clinton guilty for something, anything, because people gladly indulge in GOP smear campaigns as they're just itching to stick it to Hillary for being elitist.
|
On November 10 2016 05:30 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:51 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are. https://twitter.com/SiyandaWrites/status/796286719058382848It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact. And people like this girl are partly responsible for this. If people have shitty ideas, then engage with them and discuss. There's reason to everything : the moral kabbal that some people in the left created in the last few years participated in the appearance of the "alt right". On a campus, you should discuss everything with everyone. Her twitter feed is a beautiful exemple of cognitive bias. "Those white men, they're sexist and racist and hating on us, and they elected him for that" : no, it's the economy stupid. I don't disagree with problems of communication in a general sense, but have you see alt-right places like /r/the_donald and 4chan? You're basically arguing that people should try and have reasonable discussions over Twitch Chat, except in this case everyone else in chat hates what you have to say on principal alone. You can't have a reasonable argument on the internet in a place like a twitch chat or reddit where trolling is the rule, but in a class room or on a college campus, in face to face interactions, you can talk with anyone. When you insult someone and assimilate everything he or she says to his/her caracteristics (men or women, white or not, etc.) you lose all chance to actually engage in a good discussion. Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule. Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for? I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself. I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such.
Yeah, but again I feel like you're conflating a pretty reasonable idea with an alt-right movement that doesn't really embody those ideas. From everything I've seen (going all the way back to before Gamergate) the alt-right movement has always been largely about lashing out & harassing (women especially) and really not much else. Like the closest thing I've ever seen to an alt right message is "alpha males rule".
At best it's a reactionary movement to the idea of stuff like safe spaces, but instead of reacting to those concepts it's reacted to the reasons why people push for those concepts (and hence reduces itself to harassment and what not).
But again it's hard to get perspective because the movement is just a shapeless mass of anger rather than some organized entity.
|
Hillary Clinton has lost because she wasn't a good candidate. E-mails and this kind of things are just something for poor crybaby guys. Being a male or female isn't the focal point. Dem must really re-think themselfs after this, because she obtained the nomination with a huge advantage on Sanders. This means this party wasn't able to find a better name then a pseudo-socialist (America isn't a place where a socialist can win) and a loser (Hillary now really is a loser). GOT has found this jolly-candidate and, even not supporting him with all his forces, has won today. I would have never vote for Donald Trump, but, if he won, we should re-think the judgment about Obama's 8 years. From Italy i can say some medias treat Barack Obama like some kind of God, probably misunderstanding american people's opinion about him. Let's see...
(my english is quite poor sorry)
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election?
She is. It's basically the underlying assumption of her Twitter rant.
On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright.
That's not Trump's message either. The reality is he never had one. He was improving his way through the campaign trail and contradicted himself 1759607 times along the way. But since he didn't have a feasible plan or ideology to sell, he gave the public vague catchphrases and promises that they could interpret as anything. Most of his supporters are reacting to him on an emotional level, not an intellectual one.
On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much.
I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm pointing out that her screed follows the same pattern as the other movements I mentioned. The only difference is that since the "conspirators" couldn't have been the elite by definition (since whether they want to admit it or not, they would constitute her and much of her audience), they must be a grassroots movement. And yet they share the same traits as the "Masons" and "Papists" and "commies": living among us yet undetectable, morally abhorrent, possessing the power to influence world events without description as to the extent of their power, and existing at every level of society.
This is already happen among Clinton supporters and pundits of the left. Apparently America is a toxic stew of racism, sexism, and ignorance that placed their future in the hands of a blustering strongman, which left those who were truly understanding and moral bemoaning the future. Even if that entire sentence was true, it doesn't excuse the fact that those people shot themselves in the foot. It couldn't possibly the results of a hundred different trends that converged for this specific election. The Democratic Party couldn't possibly be accountable for their hypocrisy, terrible strategy, and determination to frame themselves as the "good guy" at the expense of everything else. It couldn't possibly be the sheer arrogance and snobbery from groups that should, in theory, know what it's like to be belittled, forgotten, and abused by those with power. The lack of introspection is staggering for a party that supposed holds up secular humanism and rationalist views.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
how to stop mexico border illegal immigration?
revitalize the mexican/mesoamerican economy
this was already happening and you see a lot of repatriations already.
|
On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative.
you don't really need the media to get a sense that trump won thanks to racist white male idiots. i was out in the city last night. there were literally 20 something white male idiots with red hats climbing the trees in front of the white house and yelling shit at all the dc clinton supporters. groups of bearded white men in red hats screaming about how trump has saved white men from destruction. that is literally what they said. and the groups were exclusively white twenty something males with extreme self-awareness deficits
|
On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election.
Just saying I'm not a straight economic determinists. But anyway, can you develop a little on the bold part ? I'm interested to know what you mean exactly.
On November 10 2016 05:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative. you don't really need the media to get a sense that trump won thanks to racist white male idiots. i was out in the city last night. there were literally 20 something white male idiots with red hats climbing the trees in front of the white house and yelling shit at all the dc clinton supporters. groups of bearded white men in red hats screaming about how trump has saved white men from destruction. that is literally what they said. and the groups were exclusively white twenty something males with extreme self-awareness deficits
It's resentment also. Those people hear they're racist and sexist on the TV everyday - then they behave like they are asked to. Now that Trump won, they feel like they got a collective acceptance to do all the stupid shit they wanted to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
