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 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get...
I suppose you're going to report with equal fervor on the Hillary supporters setting fire to things in protest as well?
Are you really comparing sexual assault and physical violence against people to setting fire to a few garbage cans and spraying some graffiti? Vandalism takes a back seat to hate crimes, sorry.
A shit ton of riots with plenty of people getting injured and into fights about Hillary losing, plus significant vandalism... Versus a few reported cases of Trump reports.
I just searched "Clinton supporter violence", and plenty came up:
(And of course all the could be if it was Hillary instead of Trump winning)
So there's plenty going both ways. Don't try and be so divisive with this - I don't understand what you're trying to achieve besides unfairly shit on Trump for what some of his supporters do... Things that Hillary supporters do too, though admittedly, probably in smaller numbers.
On November 10 2016 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get...
I suppose you're going to report with equal fervor on the Hillary supporters setting fire to things in protest as well?
Are you really comparing sexual assault and physical violence against people to setting fire to a few garbage cans and spraying some graffiti? Vandalism takes a back seat to hate crimes, sorry.
Your handful of anecdotes mean absolutely nothing to me, there isn't an epidemic of Trump inspired hate crimes. If you think differently, show so by credible statistics rather than internet stories. Generalizing from simple anecdotes is an incredibly lazy and stupid way to argue.
On November 10 2016 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get...
I suppose you're going to report with equal fervor on the Hillary supporters setting fire to things in protest as well?
Are you really comparing sexual assault and physical violence against people to setting fire to a few garbage cans and spraying some graffiti? Vandalism takes a back seat to hate crimes, sorry.
A shit ton of riots with plenty of people getting injured and into fights about Hillary losing, plus significant vandalism... Versus a few reported cases of Trump reports.
I just searched "Clinton supporter violence", and plenty came up:
(And of course all the could be if it was Hillary instead of Trump winning)
So there's plenty going both ways. Don't try and be so divisive with this - I don't understand what you're trying to achieve besides unfairly shit on Trump for what some of his supporters do... Things that Hillary supporters do too, though admittedly, probably in smaller numbers.
I don't think it's unfair at all. When a presidential candidate targets, ostracizes, threatens, and asks his supporters to rise up against certain groups of people, it's certainly not unfair to point out that Trump was enabling his supporters. It's also unfair to blame Hillary in a similar fashion to the blame that Trump deserves, because Hillary wasn't telling her supporters to get out their guns, gloating about sexual assault, or putting targets on the backs of minorities. She didn't advocate for the hate and violence that Trump did. My point was that there are hate crimes being committed because of Trump's permission.
On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
I won't name names, but there are clearly Trump supporters who have been more and less graceful in victory.
Let's just say that, to the extent that some Trump supporters have taken victory laps around here, it's been far more subdued than what we saw from the other side in 2012.
Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either...
Ask the few conservatives who are still around from back then. We remember.
Ok, I take it back. You're right.
Maybe I was just more of a troll back then and just didn't really notice anything particularly egregious because of that. Compared to where the thread is now, that does actually look pretty toxic.
Also I have no idea where I got that you were pro-Obama. That looks like it was very demonstrably false.
On November 10 2016 13:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters have become emboldened with Trump's win and are assaulting people non-stop. When you vote for a candidate who supports assaulting women, insulting minorities, and attacking people who disagree with you, this is the shit you get...
I suppose you're going to report with equal fervor on the Hillary supporters setting fire to things in protest as well?
Are you really comparing sexual assault and physical violence against people to setting fire to a few garbage cans and spraying some graffiti? Vandalism takes a back seat to hate crimes, sorry.
Your handful of anecdotes mean absolutely nothing to me, there isn't an epidemic of Trump inspired hate crimes. If you think differently, show so by credible statistics rather than internet stories. Generalizing from simple anecdotes is an incredibly lazy and stupid way to argue.
It's been one day, so I doubt that statistics have already been compiled. However, there are tons of articles about crazy behavior from Trump supporters, from the sexual assault and hate crimes previously mentioned, to Nazi/ anti-Semitic graffiti (https://trofire.com/2016/11/09/trumps-fascist-hate-already-spreading-cross-burning-nazi-vandalism-hate-crimes/). It's very disappointing when people really don't care about this kind of enabled chaos.
On November 10 2016 13:40 Buckyman wrote: I wasn't aiming at the SJW movement per se, though they're certainly within the splash radius. I was referring to the broader trend of claiming the moral high ground by belonging to a group rather than by the merits of one's own actions.
I was specifically referring to infighting within the feminist movement. For years, there's been various groups warring over which one has the least amount of privilege so they can claim moral superiority and framing powers; ironically, a movement that places so much stock in its inherent lack of privilege is fragmenting because subgroups implicitly understand "lack of privilege" is privilege within that sphere. This has especially hurt transsexuals, who are regularly mocked and vilified by other feminists as not being "real members" or recipients of male privilege in the past.
More broadly, many feminists/PoCs/minorities assume that their status inherently make them more perceptive/empathetic/morally righteous than others. They try to use that status as social currency to claim the upper hand in discourse or label events as violations of their rights. Oftentimes it's narcissistic and employs the same tactics that they claim the patriarchy/whatever use to oppress them.
It's short-sighted to say "moral virtue via association" instead of "moral virtue via action" is a recent phenomenon though. People have always claimed moral righteousness as an inherent trait in various ways.
On November 10 2016 13:40 Buckyman wrote: Namely, how much of the statistical economic disadvantages of black people in America is attributable to:
A) Themselves, individually? B) The rest of the black community? C) Non-black Americans? D) The government? E) Previous (prewar) generations? F) External forces and forces of nature?
It's almost impossible to say because all of these reinforce each other. If men within the community see no hope in the future due to generations of poverty and lack of opportunity, they will give up on long-term planning and the self-control needed for it. Then they will make individually poor choices (abandon families, reliance on alcohol, gang membership, impulsive acts of violence or revenge) and perpetuate the circumstances of the community. That's not even taking into account the socioeconomic differences between, say, Detroit and Atlanta and how they are impacted by loss of manufacturing/globalization/demographic shifts.
An actual assessment determining how each one contributes to the overall plight would easily fill out 2-3 textbooks.
On November 10 2016 12:32 Kamisamanachi wrote: Let me ask some of you who oppose Donald Trump due to his in your face approach. do u guys really think he is going to launch random nukes at any country without thinking. his policies might be strict, but i am pretty sure, the thing some people crying on twitter and facebook about him launching nukes on muslim countries is pretty much a hoax.
I don't know man, some people just live in a fantasy world where they imagine that just because yes the president technically has the authority to do some of these things, that the various departments and apparatuses in charge of it would actually let him. Especially someone as clueless and childish as some people believe Trump to be.
And yes, some of those institutions may have a penchant for interfering with and destabilizing other countries (If you can guess which one I'm referring to, congrats, you've been paying attention over the last 30 years) but that's still a far cry from letting a theoretical loonie actually launch a nuke for little reason.
There's a lot of things to be concerned about, this isn't one of them.
yea, i get it and this is what i have been thinking since last night too after seeing huge outburst of muslims saying "we are fucked" .
i am actually positive that a guy who is fully against radical islamic terrorism coming at the helm means now U.S. will work towards stopping the aid they send to countries like pakistan every year, which is being fully used for funding terrorist camps in the country.
I don't understand this high-ground approach of "yeah our president would never actually do that". Well, I kinda do from what was mentioned earlier about anti-Trump's taking him literally but not seriously. But this idea that everyone who was actually scared of his racist/xenophobic/sexist remarks are a bunch of idiots for believing him because clearly he wouldn't do it is absurdly condescending.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to so I'll just clarify my earlier post and hope that suffices.
Actually first off, Trump is not my president. Trump probably can't locate my country on the world map.
Now, the biggest most rational concern in my opinion as a non-US citizen is that we have no idea what he actually intends to do and how things will go moving forward. But the one thing that I almost positively certain of is that no matter what he intends to do, the organizations actually in charge of defense and military and intelligence would not allow him to nuke or start wars willy-nilly, especially against hotspots like the Middle East (in fact you don't have to be a genius to realize that Israel wouldn't want the US nuking the Middle East) or big dogs like Russia. It's simply not going to happen no matter what he says. These institutions have their own structure and way of doing things and they've been competent enough to enjoy more power and influence than the general public seems to realize. Even assuming Trump to be the nutjob that many people believe him to be, they would not let him take a big nasty shit on world balance and US national security by nuking Syria or Russia or China or any place that isn't an immediate threat to national security on that level. Even though technically he has the authority to do it.
I didn't call anyone idiots, and I most certainly did not bring up whether there will be any repercussions for minorities living in the US, immigrants of any kind, or any of that. I'm just saying, the DoD and the CIA and those guys will not let Trump nuke X country just because he wants to nuke X country. They're too smart and influential to allow something so cartoonishly stupid to happen. Trump may not be, but they certainly are.
So yes, that is definitely an unrealistic fear.
Basically what I meant was that your comment felt like you were just brushing aside all the nuclear trigger happy/deportation/anti-immigration the anti-Trump's feared/concerned of a Trump presidency as though they were unjustified and irrational. Because the nuclear concerns were played up even by Obama, and some of the rally chants were frightening. I remember some livestreams when Trump won were talking about how some people in the chain of command were trying to figure out if Trump told them to do something unconstitutional like deport all X, were they okay to ignore his orders. Those factors to me, did not make Trump's volatility with the nuclear codes, and the deportation stuff, sound unrealistic.
Saying it would be a hard task to do is a bit different from saying everyone scared was wrong and being unrealistic. Maybe the media's to blame, but I'm just saying I disagree with your opinion.
That's okay if you disagree, I certainly wouldn't call you an idiot for it; a lot of people don't realize how much scarier the CIA actually is in reality compared to any individual politician, even the president. Or perhaps they overestimate the power that the president actually wields in practice as opposed to in theory. It doesn't matter what he says or thinks or whether there's people in the streets chanting "bomb X nuke Y" etc.
But either way this is the one thing I promise you will be fine. You know unless there actually ends up being a threat to national security of such scale that it would merit such response. But it would still be up to them, not Trump or any other face in the oval office.
As for why Obama would play up such concerns... well I'm not feeling like speculating at the moment but he certainly must have had a reason. Although he should know well enough how hard it can be to get things done even as the president. And that's with actual reasonable plans, not wanting to nuke countries for no real reason.
I think the only way to resolve this is for Barack Obama in his finest whiteman suit and Donald Trump dressed as a Muslim woman to have a giant wet and passionate make-out session on the front lawn of the Whitehouse while a David Duke look-alike explains how there is nothing wrong with that.
On November 10 2016 14:10 a_flayer wrote: I think the only way to resolve this is for Barack Obama in his finest whiteman suit and Donald Trump dressed as a Muslim woman to have a giant wet and passionate make-out session on the front lawn of the Whitehouse while a David Duke look-alike explains how there is nothing wrong with that.
Alternatively, we could just drop this senseless fight over whose supporters are more terrible people, given that this already happened over Brexit and it wasn't any more productive then than it is now.
On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
I won't name names, but there are clearly Trump supporters who have been more and less graceful in victory.
Let's just say that, to the extent that some Trump supporters have taken victory laps around here, it's been far more subdued than what we saw from the other side in 2012.
Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either...
Ask the few conservatives who are still around from back then. We remember.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I remember you being a conservative either. I swear I remember you being something of an Obama supporter - though you posted with the same concision that you do now, that made it difficult to tell.
You must have been high.
Huh. I guess intermittent participation makes it hard to remember who stood for what. I'm drawing a blank in trying to recall most of the participants from back then, much less what they stood for.
Looking back, I only remember about 5% of the actual posters. Memory does play tricks on you.
So for shits and giggles, I went back to the 2012 thread just to see if my recollection was accurate. It basically was, but what I'd forgotten is that I'm the only conservative regular left from back then. Danglars had a few posts, but he wasn't really that involved yet. And more to the point, I was basically "the" conservative guy in that thread. So instead of saying "we remember" when referring to the victory laps of the liberals in that thread, what I really should have said is "I remember." You can see the festivities start here, with various outbreaks of me being tea-bagged here and here. Consider this my gift to all of the broken-hearted Hillary supporters.
On November 10 2016 14:10 a_flayer wrote: I think the only way to resolve this is for Barack Obama in his finest whiteman suit and Donald Trump dressed as a Muslim woman to have a giant wet and passionate make-out session on the front lawn of the Whitehouse while a David Duke look-alike explains how there is nothing wrong with that.
Alternatively, we could just drop this senseless fight over whose supporters are more terrible people, given that this already happened over Brexit and it wasn't any more productive then than it is now.
Somehow, I think my suggestion is more likely to happen than yours.
Also, I was referring to ending the violence and stuff, not the discussion.
On November 10 2016 12:17 Blisse wrote: If you guys keep engaging in this anti-liberal rhetoric, as all the reasonable liberals are trying to figure out what they can do to make everyone (minorities AND rural whites) feel included in the future of America now that we realize it's a legitimate concern (because hey, tons of us took that for granted and this result is a wake up call), you dis-illusion the people who actually want to help and effect positive change for everyone. Stop it.
I won't name names, but there are clearly Trump supporters who have been more and less graceful in victory.
Let's just say that, to the extent that some Trump supporters have taken victory laps around here, it's been far more subdued than what we saw from the other side in 2012.
Strange, I don't remember things being quite so bad back then. Though I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly disgraceful I saw among the current winning group either...
Ask the few conservatives who are still around from back then. We remember.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I remember you being a conservative either. I swear I remember you being something of an Obama supporter - though you posted with the same concision that you do now, that made it difficult to tell.
You must have been high.
Huh. I guess intermittent participation makes it hard to remember who stood for what. I'm drawing a blank in trying to recall most of the participants from back then, much less what they stood for.
Looking back, I only remember about 5% of the actual posters. Memory does play tricks on you.
So for shits and giggles, I went back to the 2012 thread just to see if my recollection was accurate. It basically was, but what I'd forgotten is that I'm basically the only conservative regular left from back then. Danglars had a few posts, but he wasn't really that involved yet. And more to the point, I was basically "the" conservative guy in that thread. So instead of saying "we remember" when referring to the victory laps of the liberals in that thread, what I really should have said is "I remember." You can see the festivities start here, with various outbreaks of me being tea-bagged here and here. Consider this my gift to all of the broken-hearted Hillary supporters.
It's interesting to see how the posters have changed over time. A few people (including you, oneofthem, ticklish, and kwizach) were active or semi-active back then. Most of the thread is either people I don't remember or the Starcraft old guard. It definitely had more of an LR flair than it does now.
On November 10 2016 12:52 CosmicSpiral wrote: Moral preening via identity is an ingrained facet of social life these days (just think about how various groups fight over which one has the least privilege).
I find this statement profoundly disturbing.
When has moral virtue ever come from how you were born rather than what you did after that? Only monarchies and religions get to make that claim.
I dislike this attitude because it sounds like you're strawmanning the entire social justice movement.
I wasn't aiming at the SJW movement per se, though they're certainly within the splash radius. I was referring to the broader trend of claiming the moral high ground by belonging to a group rather than by the merits of one's own actions.
However (and this is open to the whole thread, not just CosmicSpiral) I would like a frank assessment of the underlined:
For example, black people born in poor black areas tend to do poorly in income, and also struggle to break out of the black communities that have been drawn up in the past that way through no direct fault of the new generation of people.
Namely, how much of the statistical economic disadvantages of black people in America is attributable to: A) Themselves, individually? B) The rest of the black community? C) Non-black Americans? D) The government? E) Previous (prewar) generations? F) External forces and forces of nature?
Specifically to your question, I believe there's a mountain of evidence now that we have had 50 years to study and confirm that these were the right choices.
One problem is described in the John Oliver video I linked, or more specifically, separate but equal schools. This sounds inherently unconstitutional, but because of the nature of the act, how residential districts are segregated and educational districts are drawn, these kinds of schools still exist. Besides the obvious ones because some schools are in disadvantaged areas, the schools have lower budgets, higher crime, worse role models, less parental pressure to succeed, less peer pressure to succeed, which can lead to an inferior education, among a host of other factors. There is evidence that integrating black students into schools with more privileged students can narrow an achievement gap, again in the video.
Here's an infographic on how residential segregation can lead to economic disadvantage.
I don't know if it'll be easy to find studies that show exact statistics and correlations of the factors you want, but there is a lot of research that segregation has harsh socioeconomic effects on disadvantaged communities.
This is actually kinda amazing. Milo took a stroll through the media row area at the Trump election HQ right after Trump won, and like no one was there. I get that it was really late and people were tired, but I can't help but think that people would have been partying hard at Clinton's election HQ if she had won.
That's a lot of stuff to do on day one lol. Quite the long list for the first 100 days. Most of it is as expected and it's interesting to see that he has some kind of a plan but some of those goals are quite lofty.
Very domestic focus on the goals. Of course I really doubt a lot of that will actually be done anywhere close to 100 days in, but it's not a particularly insane set of policies. On their face they seem sane, if somewhat objectionable.
I might be mistaken but I remember reading a while back when he was talking about some of these ideas that things like withdrawing from NAFTA and from TPP aren't actually within his authority, or at least require other approval as well? Anyone have any idea how likely this is to actually happen?
On November 10 2016 15:06 207aicila wrote: I might be mistaken but I remember reading a while back when he was talking about some of these ideas that things like withdrawing from NAFTA and from TPP aren't actually within his authority, or at least require other approval as well? Anyone have any idea how likely this is to actually happen?
Googled NAFTA article 2205 and it says a party may withdraw giving 6 months notice. Don't know if "Party" is the executive branch but with everything being red i don't think it particularly matters.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6x7U4gZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DqvEpwB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4PPBbG2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kHsOQAW.jpg)
