|
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 12 2016 01:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:50 Djzapz wrote: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 it's not, who knows. What is sure is that modern anarchy is garbage (well, oftentime).
Hm, I'd say it describes an idealized end state of an anarchy, when everyone living in an anarchy has accepted and internalized what is needed in an anarchic society. In reality, and even in a transition into such an ideal society, you'll probably always see anarchists blow up stuff and commit violence. It'd be nice if ideologies would meet their ideals as described by philosophers, alas, human nature has always prevented it thus far. See also: communism.
|
On November 12 2016 01:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:50 Antyee wrote:
Black and white are not colors.
And he is right because noone is 000000 or FFFFFF, so everyone is colored. True, but specifying someone as Asian instead of Korean diminishes the unique identities of various countries. Black people have a very unique identity in American culture, so lumping them together with all the other groups that also suffer from the same systematic difficulties doesn't make sense from a cultural perspective. It is grouping people based on struggle, not based on identity. Being defined by your struggle is kind of fucked up.
The same way I could argue that lumping African Americans together with all the other kinds of black people doesn't make sense.
Or we could just agree that American and British English are not the same.
|
well its not a lie technically.
"first time seen since concession speech" It could be true.
|
On November 12 2016 02:00 biology]major wrote:![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/FhDQfK.png) The lies continue
I don't get it. Can you explain your post? You think it's just manufactured facebook drama to show Hillary is still alive and well? Who cares?
|
they bring up a women who claims she saw Hillary for the first time, turns out she has known Hillary for much longer and they took a picture at a school fundraising or something.
|
On November 12 2016 02:01 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:02 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 00:50 Djzapz wrote: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 it's not, who knows. What is sure is that modern anarchy is garbage (well, oftentime). Hm, I'd say it describes an idealized end state of an anarchy, when everyone living in an anarchy has accepted and internalized what is needed in an anarchic society. In reality, and even in a transition into such an ideal society, you'll probably always see anarchists blow up stuff and commit violence. It'd be nice if ideologies would meet their ideals as described by philosophers, alas, human nature has always prevented it thus far. See also: communism.
Obviously whitedoge (and Élisée Reclus) means that true anarchy is an anarchistic communism with the lowest social entropy. Just think about the energetic costs of enforcing discipline in the modern bureaucratic nation state. Entropy threatens to erupt everywhere.
|
On November 12 2016 02:07 pmh wrote:
they bring up a women who claims she saw Hillary for the first time, turns out she has known Hillary for much longer and they took a picture at a school fundraising or something.
You do understand the difference between "First time since..." and "First time" right?
Having met Hillary and seeing her for the first time since the concession aren't mutually exclusive things.
|
On November 12 2016 02:12 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 02:07 pmh wrote:
they bring up a women who claims she saw Hillary for the first time, turns out she has known Hillary for much longer and they took a picture at a school fundraising or something. You do understand the difference between "First time since..." and "First time" right? Having met Hillary and seeing her for the first time since the concession aren't mutually exclusive things.
yes,that is what I said in my post right above it.
|
On November 12 2016 02:13 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 02:12 Logo wrote:On November 12 2016 02:07 pmh wrote:
they bring up a women who claims she saw Hillary for the first time, turns out she has known Hillary for much longer and they took a picture at a school fundraising or something. You do understand the difference between "First time since..." and "First time" right? Having met Hillary and seeing her for the first time since the concession aren't mutually exclusive things. yes,that is what I said in my post right above it.
Sorry meant to quote biology instead of you!
|
On November 12 2016 02:14 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 02:13 pmh wrote:On November 12 2016 02:12 Logo wrote:On November 12 2016 02:07 pmh wrote:
they bring up a women who claims she saw Hillary for the first time, turns out she has known Hillary for much longer and they took a picture at a school fundraising or something. You do understand the difference between "First time since..." and "First time" right? Having met Hillary and seeing her for the first time since the concession aren't mutually exclusive things. yes,that is what I said in my post right above it. Sorry meant to quote biology instead of you!
It could be a coincidence, I'll try to refrain from assuming Hillary lies about everything.
|
If I never hear about Hillary Clinton again it will probably be too soon. Her political career is basically dead. Does it really matter what she says on Facebook anymore? Getting the albatross of her off their neck is definitely a good thing for the Democrats.
|
On November 12 2016 02:24 Nevuk wrote:
If I never hear about Hillary Clinton again it will probably be too soon. Her political career is basically dead. Does it really matter what she says on Facebook anymore? Getting the albatross of her off their neck is definitely a good thing for the Democrats.
I'm hoping not to have to hear about Hillary Clinton or her retainers any time soon. If Madeleine Albright never tells women that they will go to hell for not voting for her, or that we need to start a billion more conflicts with Russia, ever again, it would be too soon. And DWS and other DNC leaders of the Hillary camp, likewise.
Similarly, I find it moot to talk about any of her policies again given that she has no more chance of being in a position to implement them again. Good riddance.
Time to build a new Democratic Party, if the current leadership is willing to admit its faults and allow a more reasonable group to take power.
|
|
|
On November 12 2016 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote: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. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views. No, it forced marginalized people to keep their opinions to themselves, like people are complaining about happening to them now. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but what you all are describing isn't new, what's new is sometimes the marginalized person is a white guy with views that used to be mainstream. EDIT: Oh and it's not only other white guys that can do it to white guys. Sometimes it's a gay woman of color. That last part is certainly new. how many workplaces were you part of in 1990 ? 90? not many unless you count hanging out with my dad at work. I also didn't work in 50's, but I don't need to, to know it was a racist and sexist environment for many people. But what's your point? EDIT: If your point was that sitting in front of a computer doesn't build dialogue, that's a matter of who and where you chooses to engage. But you can also sit in front of a computer and not interact with anyone. I was pointing out that merely working with people with different political opinions didn't/doesn't mean you're forced to have reasonable dialogue.
the physically closer you are with your coworkers the greater the probability dialogue occurs. is it guaranteed? no. from my own experience, sitting at a computer at home as an IT consultant and visiting your customer once every 6 months leads to far less informal dialogue about just about any topic than if you show up 1 day per week.
that informal, physical face-to-face contact is in decline and its valuable for all forms of community building... including my own little "community" of customers.
On November 12 2016 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
Time to build a new Democratic Party, if the current leadership is willing to admit its faults and allow a more reasonable group to take power.
amen, i want 2 or more really good parties lead by very smart people competing hard for votes. many have compared Trump to Reagan. I tell ya, Carter//Reagan look like mega geniuses compared to Clinton//Trump. If the democrats can't admit Clinton did a poor job campaigning... o man.
|
On November 12 2016 02:07 pmh wrote:
they bring up a women who claims she saw Hillary for the first time, turns out she has known Hillary for much longer and they took a picture at a school fundraising or something.
It's just the kind of framing where the premise is "oh look this woman and her daughter just happened to see her hiking with her husband" kind of story. It isn't disproven by former knowledge that she appeared at a fundraiser or Hillary event. It's just the sort of heartwarming photo op we're a little used to being staged. But who cares.
|
On November 12 2016 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2016 01:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote: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. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views. No, it forced marginalized people to keep their opinions to themselves, like people are complaining about happening to them now. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but what you all are describing isn't new, what's new is sometimes the marginalized person is a white guy with views that used to be mainstream. EDIT: Oh and it's not only other white guys that can do it to white guys. Sometimes it's a gay woman of color. That last part is certainly new. how many workplaces were you part of in 1990 ? 90? not many unless you count hanging out with my dad at work. I also didn't work in 50's, but I don't need to, to know it was a racist and sexist environment for many people. But what's your point? EDIT: If your point was that sitting in front of a computer doesn't build dialogue, that's a matter of who and where you chooses to engage. But you can also sit in front of a computer and not interact with anyone. I was pointing out that merely working with people with different political opinions didn't/doesn't mean you're forced to have reasonable dialogue. the physically closer you are with your coworkers the greater the probability dialogue occurs. is it guaranteed? no. from my own experience, sitting at a computer at home as an IT consultant and visiting your customer once every 6 months leads to far less informal dialogue about just about any topic than if you show up 1 day per week. that informal, physical face-to-face contact is in decline and its valuable for all forms of community building... including my own little "community" of customers. Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
Time to build a new Democratic Party, if the current leadership is willing to admit its faults and allow a more reasonable group to take power. amen, i want 2 or more really good parties lead by very smart people competing hard for votes. many have compared Trump to Reagan. I tell ya, Carter//Reagan look like mega geniuses compared to Clinton//Trump. If the democrats can't admit Clinton did a poor job campaigning... o man.
There seems to be growing steam for Ellison as DNC chair over the more establishment Dean so there's definitely some hope. Especially as Trump starts dismantling everything he campaigned for which is sooner or later going to really start pissing people off.
I'm incredibly curious to see his approval rating by the time he takes office.
|
On November 12 2016 01:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:50 Djzapz wrote: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).
People think anarchy is a synonym of disorder and I understand that it's not the case but I also think that the notion that anarchy is the highest form of order is naive. Nonetheless I don't think it's worth discussing here but it strikes me as odd that you essentially made that statement as if it were fact.
|
On November 12 2016 02:49 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 02:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2016 01:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 12 2016 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 12 2016 01:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote: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. in social media people seem to just surround themselves with other people who share their opinion. in the pre-internet workplace you are forced to socialize with people who do not share your political views. this helps create dialogue between opposing views. No, it forced marginalized people to keep their opinions to themselves, like people are complaining about happening to them now. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but what you all are describing isn't new, what's new is sometimes the marginalized person is a white guy with views that used to be mainstream. EDIT: Oh and it's not only other white guys that can do it to white guys. Sometimes it's a gay woman of color. That last part is certainly new. how many workplaces were you part of in 1990 ? 90? not many unless you count hanging out with my dad at work. I also didn't work in 50's, but I don't need to, to know it was a racist and sexist environment for many people. But what's your point? EDIT: If your point was that sitting in front of a computer doesn't build dialogue, that's a matter of who and where you chooses to engage. But you can also sit in front of a computer and not interact with anyone. I was pointing out that merely working with people with different political opinions didn't/doesn't mean you're forced to have reasonable dialogue. the physically closer you are with your coworkers the greater the probability dialogue occurs. is it guaranteed? no. from my own experience, sitting at a computer at home as an IT consultant and visiting your customer once every 6 months leads to far less informal dialogue about just about any topic than if you show up 1 day per week. that informal, physical face-to-face contact is in decline and its valuable for all forms of community building... including my own little "community" of customers. On November 12 2016 02:27 LegalLord wrote:
Time to build a new Democratic Party, if the current leadership is willing to admit its faults and allow a more reasonable group to take power. amen, i want 2 or more really good parties lead by very smart people competing hard for votes. many have compared Trump to Reagan. I tell ya, Carter//Reagan look like mega geniuses compared to Clinton//Trump. If the democrats can't admit Clinton did a poor job campaigning... o man. There seems to be growing steam for Ellison as DNC chair over the more establishment Dean so there's definitely some hope. Especially as Trump starts dismantling everything he campaigned for which is sooner or later going to really start pissing people off. I'm incredibly curious to see his approval rating by the time he takes office.
I simply can't imagine Dean getting it over Ellison. Warren and Bernie own the party now. They have said they want Ellison. This must be how Republican voters felt after Romney, lol.
|
Jimmy -> I don't think anyone disputes clinton did a poor job of campaigning. they mostly claim that she would've done a good/acceptable job in office.
she's one of those people who're decent at theri job, but terrible at being likeable/campaigning.
I'm kind of similar, i'm smart and good at doing my jobs, but i'm terrible at salesmanship/getting people to give me a job.
|
http://www.yescalifornia.org/
Americans, this can't possibly get any traction, right?
Re the Hillary photo op:
Reading the BBC article about the Hillary photo op it seems that both photos originates from the woman's Facebook feed and that she did note that she had met Hillary at a fundraiser with her mom previously so it seems that there was no lie here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
