|
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 14 2016 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 11:05 blade55555 wrote:If people did actual research instead of relying on facebook/twitter/msn/CNN/fox/etc, they would have known a lot of this already. Anyone who's legitimately worried that gay marriage will be overturned or legal people being deported are just plain stupid and letting the media's fear mongering work on them. Whether he'll be an actual good president we shall see, but I personally believe he has a better chance at it than Clinton ever did. He seems very passionate about improving America. He's not going to take the President Salary, plans on taking very very little (if any) vacations during his presidency. I hope he does good and I feel like he can, but only time will tell. Smart people can think critically and see the sensationalism in news, and come to a decision on their own. It requires reading the news no matter the source and applying a filter, rather than disbelieving all the news from particular sources. Smart people can tell that Trump is a real danger.
Smart people can tell this post is dumb.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 14 2016 15:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 15:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 14 2016 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 14 2016 14:23 TanGeng wrote:On November 14 2016 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 11:05 blade55555 wrote:If people did actual research instead of relying on facebook/twitter/msn/CNN/fox/etc, they would have known a lot of this already. Anyone who's legitimately worried that gay marriage will be overturned or legal people being deported are just plain stupid and letting the media's fear mongering work on them. Whether he'll be an actual good president we shall see, but I personally believe he has a better chance at it than Clinton ever did. He seems very passionate about improving America. He's not going to take the President Salary, plans on taking very very little (if any) vacations during his presidency. I hope he does good and I feel like he can, but only time will tell. Smart people can think critically and see the sensationalism in news, and come to a decision on their own. It requires reading the news no matter the source and applying a filter, rather than disbelieving all the news from particular sources. Smart people can tell that Trump is a real danger. People, smart or dumb, have blindspots, lack sensitivity and sympathy, be condescending, be over-confident, or actually be evil. I don't put a lot of faith in people that confidently style themselves as the smart group or declare that smart people should have one set of believes in such a subjective and complex matter as Trump presidency. Trump's salary and the such are symbolic gestures that he can afford to make. For tax payers even such symbolic gestures are well appreciated. You have to hope frugality, efficiency, and cost limitation applies across the board and not only to his very limited 400k salary. As for everything else, it is going to be a wait and see. On thing I do believe though, is that this is as much Trump's personal presidential victory as it is a Republican victory. While Trump will have to reward his most loyal backers with a voice in his term, Trump has a great amount of personal reputation at stake in the presidency. For the sake of all of us, I hope that brings out the best in Trump with a good balance between ambitious change and practical prudence. Trump's narcissism is our best hope. The guy wants adulation, that's one of the few things we know for sure about the guy. Shouldn't take long for him to read his audience and realize that what it will take to get it. It's going to be policies focused on working Americans. It's mostly a matter of whether he opens his audience to all of the US or stays focused on the right. So far he's showing several signs of moving toward reasonable, that's a death sentence for the Democratic establishment. If people are wondering, Ellison has been receiving scrutiny for being more pro-Israel than his Muslim religion would let on. The endorsements from Reid and Schumer were not helpful for anyone involved. Gabbard is a favorite with Nina Turner right there with her. Personally I'd like to see Nina with the DNC while boning up on FP for a run in 2020. I'd like less "God" in her platform, but at least it's the important parts of Christianity that she's focused on, as opposed to the old-school fundamentalist stuff. I honestly think that the Democratic progressive wing really should not be looking for a less pro-Israel stance and I think this is a big problem in their ideology. When Bernie Sanders added James Zogby to the Dem platform committee that was definitely one of the biggest "what the fuck, Bernie?" moments I had. The Dems certainly pay lip service to the idea of being pro-Israel but hisstorically it's pretty clear that they want Israel to obey its wishes. Religiosity isn't a bad thing to have more of in a Dem platform. For all intents and purposes it is, at least in principle, a good virtue to have. Personally I think apartheid in Israel is unsustainable. From that starting point, I have little interest in any solution that ends in Palestinian people living under a government they can't control. Which means either Israel eventually loses the demographic war, or we get a two-state solution (this presumes Palestinian genocide isn't a feasible solution). That being some base positions, it means neither the Republican or Democratic positions on Israel are sustainable. Both end up with us funding an apartheid state and/or fueling the rage against us in the ME. I know it's a dick move and all, but where's Israel turning without us? Toward nuclear holocaust? Doubt it.
I'm not super into starting an Israel discussion (it would end stupidly), but to make the point rather concisely I am highly skeptical of any form of coercive pressure similar to what the Democrats are advocating that overstates the willingness of the non-Israeli parties to cooperate. One side openly says they want to murder the other, the other side acts like a paranoid militiaman. Neither is great but one is evidently more willing to act in good faith than the other. There's no great solution to a country being formed in the middle of a perpetual war zone through war, but I like the Republican approach in principle better than the Dem one.
As far as I can tell Israel has been fostering better relations with the Easternlands in recent years, including China, Russia, and India. I think they perceive the waning US willingness to support them and are realigning accordingly. No ally is perfect and they have plenty of disagreements with each of them but if the US treats Israel as a client state it will drift away from the US.
|
On November 14 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote:
So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. Wouldn't you agree that siding with the more radical element and basically saying "they are better then you guys on the left" is something that provokes divisiveness? I find the "unwarranted divisiveness" kind of suspect as well considering the response of some right wingers after Obama was elected.
I'll agree that taking sides furthers the divisiveness, but my point is that I don't see the alternative. The alt right is a reaction to the current state and actions of the left. I know it's childish, but the left "started it," and they won't back off. That's the problem.
And the reaction to Obama's election from the right is no where near as toxic as what we're seeing from the left to Trump's election. There were no riots when Obama was elected. The entirety of pop culture and the mainstream media didn't decry Obama's election. No, the left's response to Trump's election is quite different.
If you want to truly "unite" then you should not say "i'm with crazy because they are on my side". Both sides should not promote their radicals. If more people said you know what you are on my side but you are being outrageous then the fringe maintains itself as the fringe. No one will do it though it seems because, as I said before, politics has become a war of ideologies opposed to an exchange of ideas to make something greater happen. Its like the god damn cold war but with ideas and no one wants to willingly disarm their nuclear (radicals) option.
I don't agree with people like Maher who want liberals to take the gloves off and get mean. I want the majority to realize they have more in common with those on the other side of the spectrum then their own fringe.
This is all well and good. But how can there be any hope for unity when the left is relentlessly demonizing the right? All that I and other generally well-meaning right-leaning people hear from the left is that we're all a bunch of racists, bigots, homophobes, and every other deplorable-worthy label that you can think of. Like I have said for a long time, the left is the group that prevents unity by poisoning the debate. This thread -- especially some the shittier conversations that have occurred in it -- is the perfect microcosm of the larger problem.
|
On November 14 2016 14:39 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote:
So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. This isn't about partisanship. This stands on its own as disturbing, without injecting an ounce of partisan hysteria into it. The alt-right describe themselves as proponents of White Nationalism. Breitbart is a de-facto alt-right website. Bannon is the executive chairman of Breitbart.
Yes, it very much is about partisanship. Partisanship and the reckless polarization of the debate is at the heart of the problem.
Also, you should read up more on the alt right. There's a lot more to it than simple white nationalism. Only some elements of the alt right are white nationalists. Many are not.
|
On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race.
Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"?
|
On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"?
You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party?
|
On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party?
Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction.
|
On November 14 2016 15:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote:
So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. Wouldn't you agree that siding with the more radical element and basically saying "they are better then you guys on the left" is something that provokes divisiveness? I find the "unwarranted divisiveness" kind of suspect as well considering the response of some right wingers after Obama was elected. I'll agree that taking sides furthers the divisiveness, but my point is that I don't see the alternative. The alt right is a reaction to the current state and actions of the left. I know it's childish, but the left "started it," and they won't back off. That's the problem. And the reaction to Obama's election from the right is no where near as toxic as what we're seeing from the left to Trump's election. There were no riots when Obama was elected. The entirety of pop culture and the mainstream media didn't decry Obama's election. No, the left's response to Trump's election is quite different. Show nested quote +If you want to truly "unite" then you should not say "i'm with crazy because they are on my side". Both sides should not promote their radicals. If more people said you know what you are on my side but you are being outrageous then the fringe maintains itself as the fringe. No one will do it though it seems because, as I said before, politics has become a war of ideologies opposed to an exchange of ideas to make something greater happen. Its like the god damn cold war but with ideas and no one wants to willingly disarm their nuclear (radicals) option.
I don't agree with people like Maher who want liberals to take the gloves off and get mean. I want the majority to realize they have more in common with those on the other side of the spectrum then their own fringe. This is all well and good. + Show Spoiler +But how can there be any hope for unity when the left is relentlessly demonizing the right? All that I and other generally well-meaning right-leaning people hear from the left is that we're all a bunch of racists, bigots, homophobes, and every other deplorable-worthy label that you can think of. Like I have said for a long time, the left is the group that prevents unity by poisoning the debate. This thread -- especially some the shittier conversations that have occurred in it -- is the perfect microcosm of the larger problem.
This is not exclusive to the left at all, pretending otherwise is part of the problem. Both sides talking down to the other while standing silent on their own issues. The only type of self reflection from the sides (outside of the odd blog or editorial) is what we can fix so we can win next time, its not part of the bigger national conversation.
|
On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction.
In what way are minorities still kept from having their equal seat? In recent years many of the most powerful positions that can possibly be attained have been held by minorities.
|
On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction.
Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right.
|
On November 14 2016 16:16 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 15:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote:
So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. Wouldn't you agree that siding with the more radical element and basically saying "they are better then you guys on the left" is something that provokes divisiveness? I find the "unwarranted divisiveness" kind of suspect as well considering the response of some right wingers after Obama was elected. I'll agree that taking sides furthers the divisiveness, but my point is that I don't see the alternative. The alt right is a reaction to the current state and actions of the left. I know it's childish, but the left "started it," and they won't back off. That's the problem. And the reaction to Obama's election from the right is no where near as toxic as what we're seeing from the left to Trump's election. There were no riots when Obama was elected. The entirety of pop culture and the mainstream media didn't decry Obama's election. No, the left's response to Trump's election is quite different. If you want to truly "unite" then you should not say "i'm with crazy because they are on my side". Both sides should not promote their radicals. If more people said you know what you are on my side but you are being outrageous then the fringe maintains itself as the fringe. No one will do it though it seems because, as I said before, politics has become a war of ideologies opposed to an exchange of ideas to make something greater happen. Its like the god damn cold war but with ideas and no one wants to willingly disarm their nuclear (radicals) option.
I don't agree with people like Maher who want liberals to take the gloves off and get mean. I want the majority to realize they have more in common with those on the other side of the spectrum then their own fringe. This is all well and good. + Show Spoiler +But how can there be any hope for unity when the left is relentlessly demonizing the right? All that I and other generally well-meaning right-leaning people hear from the left is that we're all a bunch of racists, bigots, homophobes, and every other deplorable-worthy label that you can think of. Like I have said for a long time, the left is the group that prevents unity by poisoning the debate. This thread -- especially some the shittier conversations that have occurred in it -- is the perfect microcosm of the larger problem. This is not exclusive to the left at all, pretending otherwise is part of the problem. Both sides talking down to the other while standing silent on their own issues. The only type of self reflection from the sides (outside of the odd blog or editorial) is what we can fix so we can win next time, its not part of the bigger national conversation.
Sure, it's not exclusive to the left, but which side has the far bigger blowhorn? Which side owns pop culture, academia, and major media? The left weaponized its vast influence, spawning the current divide. And it's not like the left is slowing down it's attack. To the contrary, it's getting worse.
|
On November 14 2016 16:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 16:16 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 15:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote:
So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. Wouldn't you agree that siding with the more radical element and basically saying "they are better then you guys on the left" is something that provokes divisiveness? I find the "unwarranted divisiveness" kind of suspect as well considering the response of some right wingers after Obama was elected. I'll agree that taking sides furthers the divisiveness, but my point is that I don't see the alternative. The alt right is a reaction to the current state and actions of the left. I know it's childish, but the left "started it," and they won't back off. That's the problem. And the reaction to Obama's election from the right is no where near as toxic as what we're seeing from the left to Trump's election. There were no riots when Obama was elected. The entirety of pop culture and the mainstream media didn't decry Obama's election. No, the left's response to Trump's election is quite different. If you want to truly "unite" then you should not say "i'm with crazy because they are on my side". Both sides should not promote their radicals. If more people said you know what you are on my side but you are being outrageous then the fringe maintains itself as the fringe. No one will do it though it seems because, as I said before, politics has become a war of ideologies opposed to an exchange of ideas to make something greater happen. Its like the god damn cold war but with ideas and no one wants to willingly disarm their nuclear (radicals) option.
I don't agree with people like Maher who want liberals to take the gloves off and get mean. I want the majority to realize they have more in common with those on the other side of the spectrum then their own fringe. This is all well and good. + Show Spoiler +But how can there be any hope for unity when the left is relentlessly demonizing the right? All that I and other generally well-meaning right-leaning people hear from the left is that we're all a bunch of racists, bigots, homophobes, and every other deplorable-worthy label that you can think of. Like I have said for a long time, the left is the group that prevents unity by poisoning the debate. This thread -- especially some the shittier conversations that have occurred in it -- is the perfect microcosm of the larger problem. This is not exclusive to the left at all, pretending otherwise is part of the problem. Both sides talking down to the other while standing silent on their own issues. The only type of self reflection from the sides (outside of the odd blog or editorial) is what we can fix so we can win next time, its not part of the bigger national conversation. Sure, it's not exclusive to the left, but which side has the far bigger blowhorn? Which side owns pop culture, academia, and major media? The left weaponized its vast influence, spawning the current divide. And it's not like the left is slowing down it's attack. To the contrary, it's getting worse.
And which side owned the majority of the actual political power the last 16 years? Outside of having a president and a super majority for 2 years the right has pretty much cleaned up in power, especially outside of the federal government. And while they have scored some signiture victories I would argue that there definitely is a huge right wing influence that has permeated throughout. So yes ooh pop culture is dominated by the left wing but translation to actual power has been less than impressive. The US is no where near a leftist paradise and is still highly right to most of the western world.
On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right.
Could you be more specific here. I as a white male never really feel crapped on by the left at all. Most of what you are talking about is social justice issues and most of those efforts are geared towards raising awareness of the inequalities in the system and how people can change it. Sure there are some rather aggressive, bitter, and even angry messengers out there but it's like any other movement that isn't a collective. You get all kinds of individual actors yelling and it's impossible to control. So maybe sometimes their messenging hasn't been good and comes off wrong to people not necessarily on that side already?
|
Agree with a lot of social justice messaging as being quite tone-deaf. I think a lot of people take it too personally though, and it's absolutely *ridiculous* to somehow use it as justification for not condemning fringe elements of a white supremacist movement in a prominent position of US government. Believe me, I've been pissed off by plenty of SJW bullshit but that doesn't mean I'm gonna ignore how disturbing this is.
|
On November 14 2016 15:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote:
So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. Wouldn't you agree that siding with the more radical element and basically saying "they are better then you guys on the left" is something that provokes divisiveness? I find the "unwarranted divisiveness" kind of suspect as well considering the response of some right wingers after Obama was elected. I'll agree that taking sides furthers the divisiveness, but my point is that I don't see the alternative. The alt right is a reaction to the current state and actions of the left. I know it's childish, but the left "started it," and they won't back off. That's the problem. And the reaction to Obama's election from the right is no where near as toxic as what we're seeing from the left to Trump's election. There were no riots when Obama was elected. The entirety of pop culture and the mainstream media didn't decry Obama's election. No, the left's response to Trump's election is quite different.
How about the fact that your Republican right candidate, current presidential-elect spent the last 5 years of Obama's administration trying to de-legitimize Obama's American citizenship, using some American's fear and hatred of Muslims? I'm surprised that even more people aren't rioting in response to that ridiculousness.
Not toxic? Really? Protesting Trump right now is more toxic? Have you looked at the shit people said about Obama during the 2008 and 2012 elections and throughout his entire presidency? Have you been living in the USA for the last 8 years, or are you just conveniently ignoring that people still continue to believe that Obama's Muslim, or that he's anti-Christian, or that he's anti-American, or that he's the worst president ever, or whatever the Tea Party has been doing?
Do you know why the left didn't protest his election? Because the left was happy he was elected, and probably because nothing seemed amiss about it. Do you know who actually decr Obama's election? Maybe it was the right who said and keep saying that the 2008 and 2012 elections were rigged? Are you kidding me with this argument? Maybe the right doesn't have any influence because they keep spouting awful shit all the time.
Stop with your holier-than-liberals attitude and trying to point the finger all the time. This entire blame game is absolutely ridiculous. This excessive racist shit has been happening on both god damn sides for at least the last 8 years. All this crap just makes people on both sides angrier instead of leading to solutions.
|
On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party?
Are you seriously whitewashing white nationalism? It's not white identity politics. White identity politics would be acknowledging the problems of the white community (opioid addiction in the suburbs, loss of jobs in the heartland, etc) as explicitly white problems and coming up with policies targeted at white people to deal with these problems. Beyond being a bit silly, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. White nationalism is to say that white people are better than others (jews, and blacks traditionally, but I'm sure Hispanics are included now), and policy should be to elevate whites in their rightful position of dominance.
EDIT: just to be clear, white nationalism is a form of white identity politics. It just happens to be the most radical form, and you don't have to be a white nationalist to "defend whitey".
|
On November 14 2016 15:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 14:36 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 14:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 14:07 HolyArrow wrote:
So, does anyone else find it very troubling that the executive chairman of an alt-right news website is going to be chief strategist and senior counselor of the President of the United States? The alt-right is like one step away from a White Supremacist movement. Nope. Not troubling at all. I find it welcome -- even more so in light of the unwarranted divisiveness that I keep seeing from the left (see my rant about SNL from last night, and I could apply the same rant to much of pop-culture right now). The left's continuing hysterical reaction to Trump's election is forcing me to pick a side, and I sure as hell am not going to side with the left. Wouldn't you agree that siding with the more radical element and basically saying "they are better then you guys on the left" is something that provokes divisiveness? I find the "unwarranted divisiveness" kind of suspect as well considering the response of some right wingers after Obama was elected. I'll agree that taking sides furthers the divisiveness, but my point is that I don't see the alternative. The alt right is a reaction to the current state and actions of the left. I know it's childish, but the left "started it," and they won't back off. That's the problem. And the reaction to Obama's election from the right is no where near as toxic as what we're seeing from the left to Trump's election. There were no riots when Obama was elected. The entirety of pop culture and the mainstream media didn't decry Obama's election. No, the left's response to Trump's election is quite different. Show nested quote +If you want to truly "unite" then you should not say "i'm with crazy because they are on my side". Both sides should not promote their radicals. If more people said you know what you are on my side but you are being outrageous then the fringe maintains itself as the fringe. No one will do it though it seems because, as I said before, politics has become a war of ideologies opposed to an exchange of ideas to make something greater happen. Its like the god damn cold war but with ideas and no one wants to willingly disarm their nuclear (radicals) option.
I don't agree with people like Maher who want liberals to take the gloves off and get mean. I want the majority to realize they have more in common with those on the other side of the spectrum then their own fringe. This is all well and good. But how can there be any hope for unity when the left is relentlessly demonizing the right? All that I and other generally well-meaning right-leaning people hear from the left is that we're all a bunch of racists, bigots, homophobes, and every other deplorable-worthy label that you can think of. Like I have said for a long time, the left is the group that prevents unity by poisoning the debate. This thread -- especially some the shittier conversations that have occurred in it -- is the perfect microcosm of the larger problem.
Considering Republicans keep saying that the Media is left biased it's rather obvious why they didn't decry Obama. Except Fox who did so plenty.
I will take some minor protests over the entirety of the Republican leadership making a public statement that they will never work with Obama before he is even sworn in.
Have you been paying attention to the shit Trump has been saying during the election? Have you missed the constant issues people have had with his statements?
And your shocked that people react negatively to him being elected?
Why does the left keep calling the right racists? Because they support candidates holding racist views?
Why do we keep calling the right homophobes? Because they keep supporting candidates who want to overturn gay marriage?
You are aware congress has done nothing for 6 years running because the President was a black Muslim terrorist right? How on earth can you call the left the divisive party with a strait face.
|
On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right.
Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of.
|
On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 15:58 HolyArrow wrote:On November 14 2016 15:19 Falling wrote:
Ah. I was vaguely curious as to the subreddit ties or lack thereof to White Nationalists, but there they are in the related sites section: DailyStormer and the Occidental sites. From their rules and required readings, it would appear the subreddit is concerned about Jewry and its undermining of the white race. Yup. It's especially troubling to see people constantly try to handwave this stuff: "Don't be so closed minded." "The left needs to stop being so divisive." Divisive? White Nationalism is divisive by definition. How can people be in any way okay with this shit yet also scold others for "being divisive"? You realize that "white nationalism" is basically synonymous with white identity politics, right? And do you further understand that one of the main arguments for white identity politics is that it is a necessary response to the minority identity politics that has been driven by the democratic party? Its a reaction but not one driven by rationality. Minorities fighting for their equal seat at the table along with the majority white should not warrant such a reaction. Not all of the arguments in favor of white nationalism are entirely rational. But the fact remains that the left has gratuitously crapped on whitey for some time now, which has fueled the alt right. Please give me concrete examples of how "the left" has "crapped on whitey". And lets start with specifying what "the left" is, because I'm sure you'll give me shitty fringe groups yelling from the margins, rather than actual political outcomes. I can't think of a single politician of note who has "crapped on whitey". Hell, even safe spaces on liberal campuses, despite being mindbogglingly stupid, don't crap on whitey, and that's about as close an outcome I can think of.
Well it's a structural problem of right wing thought (and I mean it in a very general sense) to believe that the problem with a group involves the responsibility of everyone in the group. They simply don't understand that saying that "Trump has been elected by angry white men" does not mean we are racist against white men or "shitting" on them.
But that's also, the other way round, how you arrive from "there is a problem with radical islam" to "muslim are evil and need to be banned".
|
Again, Trump has some things that he cares about, and we can be certain he's going to do something about them. That includes cutting taxes for the rich (a bad thing), deregulating a lot of things (a bad thing) including things on climate change (a bad thing).
In the rest of the cases, he doesn't really care about what's going to happen. So no, he's not going to push social conservatism. That's a good thing. He's not going to push building his wall or keeping the muslims out. That's a good thing. The thing is, it's not like he's going to be against those things, he just doesn't care. If his entirely republican government pushes him to do one of those things, for example something related to social conservatism (as I don't believe they're going to push for a wall), there's no reason to assume he will push vividly against it.
The notion that everything's cool cause Trump isn't super right wing is absurd. It relies on me ignoring all the things that he actually wants to do, and then trusting him to go against his own governing body because he doesn't care about some other things. Those are not reassuring ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
