|
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 11 2016 22:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON ― On Thursday, Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss to Donald Trump in the presidential race. It didn’t go well.
Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”
Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.
“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.
Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange.
Asked for comment, Brazile said in an email, “As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member of the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal meetings.”
A DNC spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Brazile, a seasoned Democratic strategist, is the DNC’s interim chair until March 2017, when party officials hold a full DNC meeting to elect a new chair. Brazile has been filling in since July, when then-chair Wasserman Schultz stepped down after WikiLeaks released internal DNC emails showing party officials trying to help Clinton win the Democratic primary.
Brazile ran into her own bit of trouble in October when Wikileaks released emails showing that, in her role as a CNN strategist, she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Clinton’s campaign.
Neither of the DNC staffers who spoke to HuffPost knew Zach’s last name, or much about him. They noted that he wasn’t alone in his sentiments. Some in the room nodded as he spoke, they said, and after he left, some talked about him being right on some points (perhaps not his claims about imminent death by climate change). Source
Zach is the hero the party needs, not the hero it deserves.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 11 2016 22:21 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 21:58 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 21:53 Kickboxer wrote:
1). I know he's acted wtf? It's not a secret.
2). His astute analysis of the disastrous failure of the progressive left all over the globe is making fun of me? That is an odd way to interpret satire. Yes, it seems you fell for Poe's Law. What you call an astute analysis is him talking the kind of gibberish Alex Jones and Molyneux do because that's the object of his satire Ok keep pretending this is true while things keep rolling along these exact same tracks. From where I stand, he's making fun of you. The piece and everything in it is not only factually true (these things are happening), it also resonates 100% with myself, many people I know and, apparently, over 50% of the interested electorate in some of the world's most powerful countries. People just don't talk about it in public because that's literally not safe to do in the current climate. Had I posted this on my Facebook wall, I might have lost clients in real life. It's just not worth the hassle to express my opinion unless it comes perfectly aligned with "ultra-progressive" dogma, some of which I simply, profoundly disagree with. Do you think that is a healthy vibrant climate of progressive discussion? You guys might think everyone else is stupid, but unfortunately for you democracy is the order of the day and there are masses of people who simply don't share your worldview.
I'm not part of whatever strawman 'ultra-progressive' you're talking about. Believe it or not, there are reasons other than 'PC-ness' to not like Trump's character and ideas. I also find the alt-right to be exactly like these people they are complaining about, they are SJWs with merely a different definition of social justice, pushing their social ideals in the same way, with the same victimization, the same need for safe spaces and an inability to handle any criticism.
It's not a big deal that you misunderstood Pie, it happens to everyone to miss this kind of stuff (myself included), that's why there's a name for the effect. But I have no interest in continuing to argue the merits of his literal content, what you are doing is akin to insisting that the article that Sokal published in Social Text is meritorious at face value.
|
Okay, I actually watched the video. I don't think you're right about what's happening here. If he's an acted character, he isn't taking the mickey out of Alex Jones or Stephen Molyneux.
The character is a pissed off liberal who is tired of shutting down discussion by calling the other side labels instead of discussing why what they think is wrong. And he hits a nerve. However. There isn't much wrong with the idea, except that it is really fucking exhausting to do that on the internet. We tried. It turned into a 50page shitstorm between p6/kwark and xdaunt/ggtemplar and NEITHER side was willing to actually listen to what the other person had to say. It ended the way it began: xdaunt and ggtemplar hadn't been swayed and didn't see any reason to think that maybe white privilege is a real thing. And kwark and p6 were firmly convinced they were racist pigs. It was very productive. And that is the way the "debate" has been for the last 5 years. Labelling the one side racist mysogenistic pigs and the other side self-hating dhimmi SJWs is not because people fail to debate. It is the outcome of trying to debate and finding the gap is too large to be breached by that debate.
|
He's not talking about Trump or the alt-right at all. He is talking about the complete disconnect between the modern "college left" and the proletariat as well as anyone with a dash of honest conservativism in their worldview (as factually proven by recent results of the democratic process), a climate in which open honest discussion is impossible, language and thought policing are seen as virtues, and people consequently can't understand or predict phenomena such as Brexit and Trump's victory which isn't good for any of us.
|
If that video is satire, the irony is out of this world.
|
that would imply he thinks Hillary and democrats were without faults i doubt any sane person thinks that
|
On November 11 2016 22:44 Kickboxer wrote:
He's not talking about Trump or the alt-right at all. He is talking about the complete disconnect between the modern "college left" and the proletariat as well as anyone with a dash of honest conservativism in their worldview (as factually proven by recent results of the democratic process), a climate in which open honest discussion is impossible, language and thought policing are seen as virtues, and people consequently can't understand or predict phenomena such as Brexit and Trump's victory which isn't good for any of us.
Yes, I brought that up myself to show you the similarity between the two fringe groups and why I think neither was decisive in making their candidate lose. I don't disagree that people are too quick to call others -isms, but I don't think you're right to suggest that Trump & Brexit means half the electorate in the US & UK voted that way due to the 'PC culture'. Both of those voting blocks had bigger problems to worry about.
In the US I think a generic republican would have had an easier time beating Clinton than Trump did, despite no one other than him being an anti-PC crusader. The reason Trump won was first and foremost thanks to the economic woes in the rust belt, regarding jobs going overseas and only the elite benefiting from it. Well, that and Clinton.
In the UK I don't think this applies at all because both the far left and the far right wanted to leave. They were aided in succeeding also by the working class in deprived regions which didn't reap the benefits of membership to the single market.
What's special about these two is not being countries where you are judged for making inflammatory statements, but rather being the countries with the highest inequality in the developed world and a continuous increase in that regard.
|
On November 11 2016 22:44 Kickboxer wrote:
He's not talking about Trump or the alt-right at all. He is talking about the complete disconnect between the modern "college left" and the proletariat as well as anyone with a dash of honest conservativism in their worldview (as factually proven by recent results of the democratic process), a climate in which open honest discussion is impossible, language and thought policing are seen as virtues, and people consequently can't understand or predict phenomena such as Brexit and Trump's victory which isn't good for any of us.
the "college left" seems to have forgotten that persuasion is an important method of communication in a free world. its a bunch of people with zero life experience who love telling everyone they know how the world is.
On November 11 2016 23:23 Dan HH wrote:
In the US I think a generic republican would have had an easier time beating Clinton than Trump did, despite no one other than him being an anti-PC crusader. The reason Trump won was first and foremost thanks to the economic woes in the rust belt, regarding jobs going overseas and only the elite benefiting from it. Well, that and Clinton.
adding to the above 2 quotes
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 18:56 Dan HH wrote:Just saw that Wikileaks did an AMA yesterday and it backfired spectacularly. I wasn't expecting redditors to call them on their shit. Lots of contradictions, hypocrisy and questions they couldn't answer in there. @GH I agree that honesty was a big factor in the equation, that could have gotten Bernie ahead in the general regardless of red scare tactics
Wikileaks is a huge self-contradiction that is very likely influenced by a certain major security apparatus that would allow them to exist. That aside, look at those posts and tell me they don't look like the posts of someone who is deliberately trying to throw a big "gotcha" in their general direction to discredit them.
|
On November 11 2016 23:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 18:56 Dan HH wrote:Just saw that Wikileaks did an AMA yesterday and it backfired spectacularly. I wasn't expecting redditors to call them on their shit. Lots of contradictions, hypocrisy and questions they couldn't answer in there. @GH I agree that honesty was a big factor in the equation, that could have gotten Bernie ahead in the general regardless of red scare tactics Wikileaks is a huge self-contradiction that is very likely influenced by a certain major security apparatus that would allow them to exist. That aside, look at those posts and tell me they don't look like the posts of someone who is deliberately trying to throw a big "gotcha" in their general direction to discredit them.
What's funny is that like 200 out of 205 newspapers officially took the side of Clinton in this election, and let's not talk about who owns which newspapers because ... well.
But when one internet group takes even an indirect stance for Trump, then everybody jump on them. Let's face facts (something that actually need journalist work, to falsify or not news), whoever point them out, for once.
|
|
|
On November 11 2016 22:37 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 22:21 Kickboxer wrote:On November 11 2016 21:58 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 21:53 Kickboxer wrote:
1). I know he's acted wtf? It's not a secret.
2). His astute analysis of the disastrous failure of the progressive left all over the globe is making fun of me? That is an odd way to interpret satire. Yes, it seems you fell for Poe's Law. What you call an astute analysis is him talking the kind of gibberish Alex Jones and Molyneux do because that's the object of his satire Ok keep pretending this is true while things keep rolling along these exact same tracks. From where I stand, he's making fun of you. The piece and everything in it is not only factually true (these things are happening), it also resonates 100% with myself, many people I know and, apparently, over 50% of the interested electorate in some of the world's most powerful countries. People just don't talk about it in public because that's literally not safe to do in the current climate. Had I posted this on my Facebook wall, I might have lost clients in real life. It's just not worth the hassle to express my opinion unless it comes perfectly aligned with "ultra-progressive" dogma, some of which I simply, profoundly disagree with. Do you think that is a healthy vibrant climate of progressive discussion? You guys might think everyone else is stupid, but unfortunately for you democracy is the order of the day and there are masses of people who simply don't share your worldview. I'm not part of whatever strawman 'ultra-progressive' you're talking about. Believe it or not, there are reasons other than 'PC-ness' to not like Trump's character and ideas. I also find the alt-right to be exactly like these people they are complaining about, they are SJWs with merely a different definition of social justice, pushing their social ideals in the same way, with the same victimization, the same need for safe spaces and an inability to handle any criticism.
Well yes.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Without the SJWs continually talking about gender, race and sexuality every five seconds you wouldn't have had Trump, the alt-right wouldn't be 10% of what it is right now and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
User was warned for this post
|
Seems to me that most of the people causing damage were anarchists or people encouraged by them. In some of the videos I've seen you can see people actively trying to stop them.
When someone says "Liberals, when you smash all these car windows, shopfront windows and commit looting" I imagine Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow doing it. "
The people out there smashing things probably didn't vote at all, and don't care who people voted for. My first day at college there was an anarchists meeting I accidentally stumbled into. Was like 30 people, several not even students, this is exactly the kind of stuff they talked about doing.On November 12 2016 00:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 22:37 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 22:21 Kickboxer wrote:On November 11 2016 21:58 Dan HH wrote:On November 11 2016 21:53 Kickboxer wrote:
1). I know he's acted wtf? It's not a secret.
2). His astute analysis of the disastrous failure of the progressive left all over the globe is making fun of me? That is an odd way to interpret satire. Yes, it seems you fell for Poe's Law. What you call an astute analysis is him talking the kind of gibberish Alex Jones and Molyneux do because that's the object of his satire Ok keep pretending this is true while things keep rolling along these exact same tracks. From where I stand, he's making fun of you. The piece and everything in it is not only factually true (these things are happening), it also resonates 100% with myself, many people I know and, apparently, over 50% of the interested electorate in some of the world's most powerful countries. People just don't talk about it in public because that's literally not safe to do in the current climate. Had I posted this on my Facebook wall, I might have lost clients in real life. It's just not worth the hassle to express my opinion unless it comes perfectly aligned with "ultra-progressive" dogma, some of which I simply, profoundly disagree with. Do you think that is a healthy vibrant climate of progressive discussion? You guys might think everyone else is stupid, but unfortunately for you democracy is the order of the day and there are masses of people who simply don't share your worldview. I'm not part of whatever strawman 'ultra-progressive' you're talking about. Believe it or not, there are reasons other than 'PC-ness' to not like Trump's character and ideas. I also find the alt-right to be exactly like these people they are complaining about, they are SJWs with merely a different definition of social justice, pushing their social ideals in the same way, with the same victimization, the same need for safe spaces and an inability to handle any criticism. Well yes. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Without the SJWs continually talking about gender, race and sexuality every five seconds you wouldn't have had Trump, the alt-right wouldn't be 10% of what it is right now and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently.
The constitution should have given black people, women, and others rights, instead we had to have a 13th amendment 14th amendment, 15th amendment, 19th amendment, and a civil rights act and there are still significant segments of our population living without the full protection of their constitutional rights they should have had before those amendments.
SJW's are a reaction to those amendments and laws still not being enough to get the people who needed those amendments to give other Americans the rights they were promised, to do so today (they never actually did it in the first place btw).
|
I really doubt they're anarchists, as anarchy is the highest expression of order.
|
On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently.
Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's.
People just seemed to get on with their lives back then.
My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created.
|
On November 12 2016 00:20 WhiteDog wrote:
I really doubt they're anarchists, as anarchy is the highest expression of order.
That idea seems very debatable.
|
On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created.
The difference between then and now is the fact that we finally have an entire generation of minorities that grew up without being a part of or have parents who were a part of the civil rights movement, so their opinion of what equality should be isn't colored by "well its better than it was 30 years ago so ill take it". its not social media, its not pop culture, it is a group of people who have grown up being told that they are equals (unlike their predecessors), but when they look at the system built up around them they can clearly see that isn't the case.
EDIT: They are not quiet anymore because they have been told they dont have to be, that they dont have to accept even one iota of inequality, so they are fighting for it, on every medium.
|
On November 12 2016 00:52 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then. My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created. The difference between then and now is the fact that we finally have an entire generation of minorities that grew up without being a part of or have parents who were a part of the civil rights movement, so their opinion of what equality should be isn't colored by "well its better than it was 30 years ago so ill take it". its not social media, its not pop culture, it is a group of people who have grown up being told that they are equals (unlike their predecessors), but when they look at the system built up around them they can clearly see that isn't the case.
There's also way more platforms for this type of information to get around and spread and be heard for it to happen more safely than before. The people were likely always there, they just couldn't be heard before.
The funny thing is from my perspective it's the alt-right and other such segments that make the 'SJWs' so unbearable with some of the more out there things (like all the infighting or not having proportional responses). Because of the hardline stance they take against the underlying rights that those people are fighting for (and backing that up with actual legislation) it really ruins any chance at moderate discussion and when most people are pushed to take a side they're going to take the side of the people fighting for equal rights.
|
On November 12 2016 00:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, no. You got it backwards, if there wasn't an America full of people who would support Trump's campaign persona, we wouldn't have SJW's bringing up gender, race, and sexuality so frequently. Ok well I can't remember it being as bad as this back in the 90's. People just seemed to get on with their lives back then.My personal opinion much of it is due to the narcissism culture that social media and the internet in general has created.
What I think you mean is that many people still didn't have a place in the conversation about what was offensive, it only seemed that way to you because it was easier for you to ignore. As someone pointed out, Hillary wearing a pantsuit made it possible for millions of women to be able to choose to wear pants. In the interest of trying to see things from the other side, I don't think it makes you a terrible person for being oblivious to it in the 90's, but I will blame you if people tell you that wasn't the case and you just continue to rely on your own limited personal experiences.
Whether NWA on race, Hillary with women in the workplace, or Ellen with sexuality, there was plenty of it going on in the 90's too. Hell they called it a "culture war".
Democrats passed the "Defense of Marriage act" too. Point being, it was happening whether you noticed it or not. What's happening now, is instead of all the other groups it had been for all of America's history their job to just suck it up and "get on with their lives" now it's folks like yourself who are supposed to just get on with your life, and it appears that after just a handful of years of sorta having to suck it up, many are ready for it to be our turn again.
EDIT: I'd even suggest that the "narcissism culture" is more accurately reflected by those who see SJW's as some significant burden on their existence
|
On November 12 2016 00:50 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:20 WhiteDog wrote:
I really doubt they're anarchists, as anarchy is the highest expression of order. That idea seems very debatable.
It's a quote from XIXth century anarchist (Élisée Reclus). One of the first anarchist journal was called "L'anarchy, journal of the order" (Journal de l'ordre, created in 1850). People mistake anarchy for disorder. Or maybe anarchist mistake anarchy for what it's not, who knows. What is sure is that modern anarchy is garbage (well, oftentime).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
