|
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. |
Zurich15313 Posts
BUT THAT'S ONLY 39 MINUTES!?!!
|
60 minutes is the name of the news program.
|
On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote:On November 15 2016 05:32 Incognoto wrote:
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted.
I'm pretty sure any claim of Trump's incompetence is directed more at the fact that he didn't seem to grasp the gravitas of the position by
A) Not preparing for any of the debates (his words not mine)
B) Not being well versed in foreign policy beyond building a wall, and barring immigration from muslim countries
C) Lying with extreme frequency about the most minute of topics
D) Contradicting himself whether he was on video or audio tape
|
E) After meeting with Obama not knowing that the entire White House staff leaves and doesn't stay after Obama leaves office.
|
On November 15 2016 05:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2016 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 15 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2016 04:38 Acrofales wrote:On November 15 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 20:06 Acrofales wrote:On November 14 2016 16:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 16:12 Slaughter wrote:On November 14 2016 16:01 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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". I'm legitimately puzzled why you're even asking this question. The left's policies have, either directly or indirectly, been negatively impacting the white working class for a a generation on economic and cultural levels. I think Bernie said it best this weekend: “I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party can’t talk to the people where I came from,” he added. Source. Why do you think that he would even make such a statement? The proof is in the pudding, don't you think? 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. Let's keep it simple: "the left" is everything left of the political center in the US. My complaints have little to do with fringe groups so much as they have to do with what has become mainstream leftist politics in the US, which are inseparable from the democrat party. Yup. As I thought. You can't actually do what I asked you to do. Now I will watch as you say Obamacare and we then have a 10-page discussion over the effects, the intended effects and the goal of Obamacare. So to preempt that discussion, let's skip Obamacare and go to any one of the other policies that crapped on whitey, because you still seem to insist that they are both numerous and obvious. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in proving that 1+1=2. The left's alienation of whites is obvious to everyone but you. But because I'm a good sport, I'll offer just a few of the affronts off the top of my head: Trade policy Monetary policy Energy policy SJW activism (ie the popular demonization of white people) Militant secularist policy (ie pushing "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion") The Left's intentional targeting of minority groups for political support and downplaying of the importance of white voters If you could be fucking bothered, you could just run a google search for "how the left alienated white voters" and find all sorts of answers to your question. I dont think any of these examples are particularly good, with the very small exception of energy policy and pandering to minority groups, which likely has a bigger role to play in the "feeling" of disenfranchisement by the white democratic constituency. Trade policy (ill assume you mean the likes of nafta as this is a broad brush to paint with) brought down prices of goods, so while jobs may have been lost assuming a net negative effect, and even more so assuming that negative effect had a larger impact in the white population specifically is a bit of a stretch. Monetary policy is extremely vague and I think in general it is impacting all races equally. Energy policy ehhhh. I guess... we have been rough on the standards for the generated power which has definitely affected mining towns that tend to be overwhelmingly white. SJW, I dont think white people are demonized, I think racists, sexists, and general bullies get called out for their poor behavior. Sometimes they are white, sometimes they are not. doesn't make them lest sexist, or racist, and it doesn't make the SJW's complain any less. Secular policy has zero bearing on the color of your skin. so dont lump in jesus getting ignored with whitey getting ignored. and while we're talking about it, your framing of "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom to exercise any religion" is silly. All most people ask for is not to be bound by the religious rules of someone else's God. If your laws are full of references to your religion how am i free to follow my own. sure there are lines that must be drawn across common grounds, and sure there are people who take that ideal too far, but in general this has nothing to do with white or non white so it doesn't belong here. like i said, theres a little too much pandering going on on both sides. The republicans pander to the religious right because they can use their social conservativism to court their votes. and the left is doing the same to black and hispanic voters on social equality etc. Do you realize how ridiculous this post is? It doesn't matter what you think regarding the validity of the above-listed grievances. What matters is what Average Joe White Voter thinks. Rationalize away the flight of the white working class from the Democrat Party all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the white working class has very clearly abandoned the Democrat Party en masse. I was about to make a post along similar lines to the one Trainrunnef made (except that I would have dismissed energy policy because (1) Fracking, (2) Ending dependence on coal has nothing to do with "crapping on whitey" and everything to do with ensuring "climate doesn't crap on whitey in the future", and (3) Subsidies for biofuel and renewables go overwhelmingly to whiteys too; probably in an even larger percentage than income from coal. They just go to different whiteys. In general your post seems to think that all whiteys live in rural Oklahoma or something, whereas the majority of whiteys live in metropolitan areas, where they are not other-fearing coalminers, but instead enjoy their cheap goods from China, have a bbq with their gay neighbours; all paid for by their average-income desk jobs.
Really what we're talking about is working class white people. So no, "whitey" isn't limited to rural Oklahoma. And clearly not all members of the white working class are going to be affected equally, it at all, by all of the items that I listed. I was merely listing a number of items that have adversely affected white people and driven white people away from the democrat party.
However, you already preempted that, so I don't have to go into more detail. Because you moved the post from showing that "the left" "crapped on whitey" to rural America feeling disenfranchised by "the left", which is something else entirely. Rural white America has overwhelmingly been abandoned by politics, probably since the era of Reagan. Neither of the Bushes, nor Clinton, nor Obama did much of anything for them. Blaming that on "the left" rather than on "the establishment" is a gross misrepresentation, although "the right" certainly has done a good job of shoveling all of the blame onto "the left".
This isn't even really half true. I'm not going to pretend that various republican politicians haven't forsaken the interests of rural America, but it is ridiculous to put their transgressions on the same level of the outright antagonization that has come from the left. And this is particularly true when considering the cultural issues, where republicans still are, and largely have been, champions for rural America.
In closing, equating "whitey" with "rural America" and "the left" with "the establishment", are two categorical errors in your statement, even without going into details on any of the policies you suggested are "crapping on whitey".
Like I said, the argument isn't limited to rural America. Clearly rural America is going to have the most grievances, but other white populations will share in some of those grievances and have others themselves.
|
On November 15 2016 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote:On November 15 2016 05:32 Incognoto wrote:
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted. everyone, left AND right and elsewhere makes that assumption. so I dispute your use of the "They" which references merely the Left. technically quibble: I don't think your use of the word "tautological" is correct there. as to your larger point. I'd say no; people don't actually protest over competence; at laest not prior to the point where it has been demonstrated in a severely hurtful way. He used it correctly; the logic he's indicting is self-referential in its method of proof, rendering it impossible to disprove on its own terms.
In case of basic gay and minority rights the argument is ironically simply an appeal to non-interference, which at least traditionally used to be a Republican/Conservative ideal and most people would argue that it simply has not been extended to people who deserve it. That isn't really tautological in any meaningful sense of the word.
"we hold these truths to be self-evident.." is how it goes, right? It isn't really tautological if it's your official traditional motto
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2016 06:14 zatic wrote:BUT THAT'S ONLY 39 MINUTES!?!!
That's how you know you would have gotten 20 minutes of commercials >:D
|
On November 15 2016 06:19 TanGeng wrote:That's how you know you would have gotten 20 minutes of commercials >:D
I miss the days when it was 17 minutes of commercials and 3 minutes of an old confused white guy yelling angrily.
|
On November 15 2016 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:13 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote:On November 15 2016 05:32 Incognoto wrote:
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted. everyone, left AND right and elsewhere makes that assumption. so I dispute your use of the "They" which references merely the Left. technically quibble: I don't think your use of the word "tautological" is correct there. as to your larger point. I'd say no; people don't actually protest over competence; at laest not prior to the point where it has been demonstrated in a severely hurtful way. He used it correctly; the logic he's indicting is self-referential in its method of proof, rendering it impossible to disprove on its own terms. In case of basic gay and minority rights the argument is ironically simply an appeal to non-interference, which at least traditionally used to be a Republican/Conservative ideal and most people would argue that it simply has not been extended to people who deserve it. That isn't really tautological in any meaningful sense of the word. "we hold these truths to be self-evident.." is how it goes, right?
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:
everyone, left AND right and elsewhere makes that assumption.
so I dispute your use of the "They" which references merely the Left.
The Left (or liberals, if you're prefer that) generally equates intelligence and morality more strongly, or rather they assume they are one and the same. In fact, the Right is usually more assertive about disassociating the two. Almost all anti-intellectual attitudes in American history come from that distinction.
On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:
technically quibble: I don't think your use of the word "tautological" is correct there.
No, it's correct. I'm claiming that left-wing ideology usually conflates intelligence and morality to the point that they are inseparable. Which is why so much criticism of white Trump voters has focused on their education.
On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:
as to your larger point. I'd say no; people don't actually protest over competence; at laest not prior to the point where it has been demonstrated in a severely hurtful way.
I'm questioning whether the same protesters would be citing his lack of technical qualifications and repugnant personality if he shared the same beliefs.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character.
I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left.
But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand.
|
On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote:On November 15 2016 05:32 Incognoto wrote:
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted. Of course this is true of both left-wing and right-wing proponents, but the former more strongly equates intelligence and morality as one and the same.
Well I think obviously if you can find middle ground with a person, it's much easier to concede flaws if it looks like they wanted to work on them. The problem is that the left really doesn't like Trump and his views, and really don't think he's capable of holding office. If he can make himself look better by pushing left-popular agendas like expanding the space program and reversing his views on same-sex marriage and Muslim immigration and the wall, I'd like to think the left would have to concede their protesting.
It might not help if Trump doesn't actually stop the Republican House and Senate from passing annoying things, but the left would be able to relate to Trump, and would have to get angry at him for other reasons.
However, it would still be absolutely insane that a candidate could run with that kind of platform and win, and it's going to screw over politicians for an even long time ("hey the presidential nominee is just going to say one thing and do another").
|
Anyone care to place bets how long Bannon holds on? Will Bannon still be in Trump's cabinet by the end of 2017? I say no.
|
On November 15 2016 06:30 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone care to place bets how long Bannon holds on? Will Bannon still be in Trump's cabinet by the end of 2017? I say no.
Can we parlay that with WWIII?
|
Obama is a saint to cooperate anything beyond what's absolutely necessary with the birther in chief lol.
|
On November 15 2016 06:35 Doodsmack wrote:
Obama is a saint to cooperate anything beyond what's absolutely necessary with the birther in chief lol.
I hope in 4/8 years when Trump is gone, Obama tells us what went on in that first meeting.
|
On November 15 2016 06:29 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:03 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 15 2016 05:45 Logo wrote:On November 15 2016 05:32 Incognoto wrote:
I really hate the #notmypresident
That's how democracy works. You don't get to protest Trump, if you're that down and out because he got elected, then vote in two years for Congress, donate to a cause you think needs help, engage in political discussions with people of differing views instead of comforting yourself with your friends in an echo-chamber.
Vandalism doesn't help Yes this is how democracy works. This is exactly how it works. People dislike something so they use their first amendment right to speak out against it. If you talk to those people I bet you all of them outside of some small amount will admit that the election results are accurate. Many will probably give you some line about the electoral college/popular vote; only some of which will be a proper moderate view of it (regardless of if the Electoral College is bullshit Trump won it) though a few may also properly mention that the Electorates are supposed to in part be there to prevent dangerous populist candidates (which they no longer are which makes the whole system broken). They're protesting that they have a president-elect that doesn't represent them, that doesn't support them (based on his own quotes), that doesn't even seem to be particularly concerned about details of his duty. They're protesting that there is now a president-elect who has called for jailing political opponents, 'remembering enemies', expanding libel laws, etc. etc. America is not a place for fascist leaders and these people see a fascist. Now you can write up big long articles as people have about how head in the sand people have been on this (i.e ignoring Obama's expanding executive powers), but that doesn't mean some sort of ineligibility to participate. Vandalism doesn't help. It doesn't help anyone. I do wonder if we would be seeing protests over Trump's incompetence if he unequivocally supported gay marriage, minorities, and everything socially acceptable by the Left. They often have a tautological assumption that having their beliefs means one is intelligent, empathetic, and basically competent; if you don't share their beliefs, you are either ignorant or lack the necessary critical thinking skills/perception to be trusted. Of course this is true of both left-wing and right-wing proponents, but the former more strongly equates intelligence and morality as one and the same. Well I think obviously if you can find middle ground with a person, it's much easier to concede flaws if it looks like they wanted to work on them. The problem is that the left really doesn't like Trump and his views, and really don't think he's capable of holding office. If he can make himself look better by pushing left-popular agendas like expanding the space program and reversing his views on same-sex marriage and Muslim immigration and the wall, I'd like to think the left would have to concede their protesting. However, it'd still be absolutely insane that a candidate could run with that kind of platform and win, and it's going to screw over politicians for an even long time ("hey the president is just going to say one thing and do another").
To the last point I think one of the biggest things is just how much this election changed what is an acceptable campaign gaff and how accountable you are for having it.
We've gone from Howard Dean's Scream, Binder's full of women, and Dukakis in a Tank all being campaign defining moments to a campaign where someone can 1. Say Something, 2. Say they never said the thing, 3. Brush it off when people say there's tape/proof of them saying the thing and not have their campaign affected at all.
|
On November 15 2016 06:37 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:35 Doodsmack wrote:
Obama is a saint to cooperate anything beyond what's absolutely necessary with the birther in chief lol. I hope in 4/8 years when Trump is gone, Obama tells us what went on in that first meeting.
It's no coincidence that the birther in chief succeeded the first black president.
|
On November 15 2016 06:27 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:
everyone, left AND right and elsewhere makes that assumption.
so I dispute your use of the "They" which references merely the Left. The Left (or liberals, if you're prefer that) generally equates intelligence and morality more strongly, or rather they assume they are one and the same. In fact, the Right is usually more assertive about disassociating the two. Almost all anti-intellectual attitudes in American history come from that distinction. Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:
technically quibble: I don't think your use of the word "tautological" is correct there. No, it's correct. I'm claiming that left-wing ideology usually conflates intelligence and morality to the point that they are inseparable. Which is why so much criticism of white Trump voters has focused on their education. Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:08 zlefin wrote:
as to your larger point. I'd say no; people don't actually protest over competence; at laest not prior to the point where it has been demonstrated in a severely hurtful way. I'm questioning whether the same protesters would be citing his lack of technical qualifications and repugnant personality if he shared the same beliefs.
it in part depends on what you mean by "intelligence" in terms of the intelligence/wisdom distinction (simply using d&d as an easy to understand example)
while you may be right that it trends that way, and does seem somewhat so, do you have a citation for such?
I don't think at all they assume they are one and the same, that seems entirely unfounded.
ok, you are using the term correctly, but it's confusing because your claim is unfounded and not at all true in fact.
on your 3rd point, I'm not sure why you restated that thesis when I already gave an answer to it, though you added a clause on repugnant personality which changes a lot.
ti's also important to note that a lack of technical qualifications in this case is alleged to be a lack of actual qualifications. i.e. it's unclear if you're using lack of technical qualifications in the sense someone might when referring to someone who say, does not have the proper certificates to demonstrate knowledge of a field or have the standard formal way of talking about it, but can in fact do quite fine in it.
|
On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand.
Indeed. How can you even argue the moral merits if the other side asserts you're either (1) too dumb to understand you're arguing against science or (2) too clingy to your traditions to ever give fair hearing to unquestionable science? That's the kind of dismissiveness that drives people, reluctantly, into Trump's camp. At least you can start with calling ten more issues up for debate, and not get talked down to like Privilege Class is back in session. If dialogue has to go back to the ballot box for five to ten years, so be it. Whatever it takes to return the other side to the negotiating table they left when declaring a new era of enlightened social justice supported by demographic destiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
