|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 28 2016 07:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 07:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 28 2016 07:15 xDaunt wrote:
I quite enjoy Trump's constant trolling of the left. I hope he keeps it up. And the genius with his latest tweet is that it forces another uncomfortable conversation for the left on voter ID laws and illegal immigration. These are winning issues for Trump, and he knows it. I think you nailed it. You've elected a twitter troll that has a twitter troll respect for people (in the first place the people who voted for him) and the truth in general. And you think that's great. The sad thing is that you don't realize you are the one getting trolled. You are the one who elected him on absolute non sense, on erratic and completely ridiculous promises. It is you he is literally shitting on. But beside that, it's beautiful to see how much you believe in a mature democratic discussion and debate, if you believe that trolling at a Youtube forum level is a great way to advance your points at a national level. In this specific case, I think xDaunt understands that perfectly. He just sees that chaos as a means to an end. It'd be interesting to see how he explains it specifically, but I can see that he is perfectly aware of what dangers Trump poses and is willing to live with them for the sake of what needs to change on the left and right. I see your point and I guess you are right. Unfortunate that the chaos he seeks has the power of launching a thermonuclear strike in a few minutes. I think "chaos" and "thermonuclear" are two words that, ideally, should be kept separated by at least a few sentences. I'm being sarcastic but not even that much. In any case good night, I'm off to bed.
There is a danger. I'm quite sure that his staffers will temper his stupidity long enough to stop a worst case outcome (that already seems to be happening), but I wasn't one interested in taking the Trump approach to solving these problems. But now that that's what we're stuck with, we need to find a way to make it work. And to understand how fucked the system had to be to push people to elect an orange clown president, and make adjustments.
|
On November 28 2016 07:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:53 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 07:29 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 07:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 06:35 LegalLord wrote:
We lost before the General even began. I don't see how you can see the outcome of this election as having been anything other than highly contingent. What do you mean? I mean that anyone saying "of course Hillary lost" or some variation of insisting that Donald Trump winning was an inevitability lived through a different election than I did. Up to the last minute it could have gone either way, we might have never had a closer election than this (maybe 2000?). We the US public lost because we had to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, two candidates who are very much so not qualified for the office of president in the eyes of many.
Ah, I misunderstood.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 28 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. It's nice that you embrace your pettiness. Congrats on your victory I guess.. I'll freely acknowledge the pettiness of the sentiment expressed in my post. Will you acknowledge that the left's conduct gave rise to it?
Well to be fair the mainstream right is just as culpable as the mainstream left in making an easy narrative for Trump to abuse to his benefit.
|
On November 28 2016 08:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. It's nice that you embrace your pettiness. Congrats on your victory I guess.. I'll freely acknowledge the pettiness of the sentiment expressed in my post. Will you acknowledge that the left's conduct gave rise to it? Well to be fair the mainstream right is just as culpable as the mainstream left in making an easy narrative for Trump to abuse to his benefit.
I wasn't referring to the conditions that got Trump elected so much as I was referring to why his victory is so gratifying. But yes, I have not lost sight of the fact that the GOP establishment is taking it in the shitter as well, which I also like.
|
I don't think establishment types care as much about getting it up the ass every now and then like this election. By definition they have to redefine and compromise their values to remain on the cutting edge of relevence. At the best they'll just take the L as a lesson and learn from it the same they would from a win.
|
On November 28 2016 08:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 08:04 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. It's nice that you embrace your pettiness. Congrats on your victory I guess.. I'll freely acknowledge the pettiness of the sentiment expressed in my post. Will you acknowledge that the left's conduct gave rise to it? Well to be fair the mainstream right is just as culpable as the mainstream left in making an easy narrative for Trump to abuse to his benefit. I wasn't referring to the conditions that got Trump elected so much as I was referring to why his victory is so gratifying. But yes, I have not lost sight of the fact that the GOP establishment is taking it in the shitter as well, which I also like.
Not to dwell on this too much, but do you not think it significant that when you reached for an analogy for what Donald Trump is doing to this country, what you came up with was anal rape?
|
Canada11278 Posts
On November 28 2016 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:44 LegalLord wrote:
A victory for the second amendment people, to be sure. Somehow I doubt they'll see it that way, though it could finally lead to some decent gun laws.
The consistent ones see it as a victory more or less. Two weeks ago, I was reading articles with such titles as: "A Handy Guide For Liberals Who Are Suddenly Interested In Gun Ownership." Which, I think, is fair enough- if you really and truly believe that gun ownership is really, really important, then it's quite fair of them to say 'welcome aboard' when traditionally non-gun owning people start buying guns.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On November 28 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. It's nice that you embrace your pettiness. Congrats on your victory I guess.. I'll freely acknowledge the pettiness of the sentiment expressed in my post. Will you acknowledge that the left's conduct gave rise to it?
I consider myself part of the left and I don't think anything I said or did made me deserve president Trump.
That said, I certainly acknowledge that the 'you're evil or stupid for holding this pov' argument and variants thereof is entirely unproductive and likely to lead to segregation and backlash, and that this has been a frequent argument from many prominent voices from the left. I can even acknowledge that it makes sense to me that the elitism and nearly ubiquitous ridicule from the left, exemplified through every hollywood depiction of any rural american makes people so pissed off that their primary motivation becomes to send a hefty fuck you to these people. I further acknowledge that voting Trump is certainly a good way to send this message - I was genuinely saddened by his victory.
I still think that's a horrible argument for electing someone president. I can respect voting for him because you think he's gonna do a good job or because you like his policies, and I'm not saying that's not the case for you, but I think your mentality is well, just as unproductive as that which you are critical of.
In a way, it's like, I get that people have reason to be pissed off, sadly, that emotion is very rarely followed by rational political choices that lead to improvement, and I don't think the people who voted for him will get the societal change they voted for. Funnily enough I guess the joy of schadenfraude might be one area where he manages to bring you genuine life improvement, so enjoy it while it lasts I guess.. 
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better.
|
On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better.
When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting?
1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply.
2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it.
3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks.
4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere.
There's probably more, but let's just go with those four.
|
On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four.
Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far (other than somehow still being unaware of what they want).
The opposition to the name "Black Lives Matter" is quite silly. As we see "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" aren't affirming, but rather dismissing the idea that black lives matter. That's why you didn't see the blue lives matter crowd say much when a few white guys shot a bunch of cops.
The racial injustice and general police abuse in our system are connected but separate issues. You could stop all police abuse against white people and still have a huge problem with racially charged policing. But it's pretty obvious that only fixing racially charged policing against black people without addressing general police abuse is practically impossible.
Trying to remove race from the equation isn't progress, it's the opposite, no matter how many times people (who are uncomfortable with the racial situation American's have constructed) insist otherwise.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want).
That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though.
BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support.
Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now.
|
On November 28 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though. BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support. Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now.
Yeah BLM ends up as a catchall for all the negative stuff that comes out of oppression, as such, you see fit to paint the entire movement with it's worst contributors and say things like "I don't support BLM in the slightest" when you claim to support much/most of what they are actually calling for (as opposed to some people acting stupid at a bbq).
It's easy for folks to associate a video from years ago to BLM but not so much their clear demands for reform, it strikes me as disingenuous.
BLM isn't any worse than any group on the left or right, but it's easier for people to complain about their tactics than to recognize the widespread criminal behavior of police, and other systemic racism issues they are protesting. It's gross to me that people can actually complain about the protesters instead of being outraged they need to protest just to have their 4th amendment rights (among others) recognized.
|
On November 28 2016 08:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid. Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day. It's nice that you embrace your pettiness. Congrats on your victory I guess.. I'll freely acknowledge the pettiness of the sentiment expressed in my post. Will you acknowledge that the left's conduct gave rise to it? I consider myself part of the left and I don't think anything I said or did made me deserve president Trump. That said, I certainly acknowledge that the 'you're evil or stupid for holding this pov' argument and variants thereof is entirely unproductive and likely to lead to segregation and backlash, and that this has been a frequent argument from many prominent voices from the left. I can even acknowledge that it makes sense to me that the elitism and nearly ubiquitous ridicule from the left, exemplified through every hollywood depiction of any rural american makes people so pissed off that their primary motivation becomes to send a hefty fuck you to these people. I further acknowledge that voting Trump is certainly a good way to send this message - I was genuinely saddened by his victory. I still think that's a horrible argument for electing someone president. I can respect voting for him because you think he's gonna do a good job or because you like his policies, and I'm not saying that's not the case for you, but I think your mentality is well, just as unproductive as that which you are critical of. In a way, it's like, I get that people have reason to be pissed off, sadly, that emotion is very rarely followed by rational political choices that lead to improvement, and I don't think the people who voted for him will get the societal change they voted for. Funnily enough I guess the joy of schadenfraude might be one area where he manages to bring you genuine life improvement, so enjoy it while it lasts I guess..
That's enough of a qualified 'yes' for me at least. If we posited a center-right candidate that also rejected media characterization, it's entirely healthy to wish a Trump voter would take this option over Clinton ("fuck you middle America") and Trump. But the left advanced a fundamentally electable (/sarcasm) candidate that denied everyone a choice that isn't "fundamentally unproductive as that which you are critical of." It's the doppelgänger of voting for Clinton despite her obvious corruption; you can separate the negatives from considering her ultimately the better choice of the two. The "people that have reason to be pissed off" took the only rational choice left; emotional influence objectively had very little to do with it, if you can separate your own emotions from your analysis.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 28 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though. BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support. Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now. Yeah BLM ends up as a catchall for all the negative stuff that comes out of oppression, as such, you see fit to paint the entire movement with it's worst contributors and say things like "I don't support BLM in the slightest" when you claim to support much/most of what they are actually calling for (as opposed to some people acting stupid at a bbq). It's easy for folks to associate a video from years ago to BLM but not so much their clear demands for reform, it strikes me as disingenuous. BLM isn't any worse than any group on the left or right, but it's easier for people to complain about their tactics than to recognize the widespread criminal behavior of police, and other systemic racism issues they are protesting. It's gross to me that people can actually complain about the protesters instead of being outraged they need to protest just to have their 4th amendment rights (among others) recognized.
Let me rephrase it then: I don't support, as a whole, the group of people who call themselves BLM, because while I do sympathize with a lot of the things they want, the negative elements of that group shine through in a way that undermines their entire movement. A similar movement that wants the same things with more nuance and organizational effectiveness, I do support.
|
On November 28 2016 10:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though. BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support. Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now. Yeah BLM ends up as a catchall for all the negative stuff that comes out of oppression, as such, you see fit to paint the entire movement with it's worst contributors and say things like "I don't support BLM in the slightest" when you claim to support much/most of what they are actually calling for (as opposed to some people acting stupid at a bbq). It's easy for folks to associate a video from years ago to BLM but not so much their clear demands for reform, it strikes me as disingenuous. BLM isn't any worse than any group on the left or right, but it's easier for people to complain about their tactics than to recognize the widespread criminal behavior of police, and other systemic racism issues they are protesting. It's gross to me that people can actually complain about the protesters instead of being outraged they need to protest just to have their 4th amendment rights (among others) recognized. Let me rephrase it then: I don't support, as a whole, the group of people who call themselves BLM, because while I do sympathize with a lot of the things they want, the negative elements of that group shine through in a way that undermines their entire movement. A similar movement that wants the same things with more nuance and organizational effectiveness, I do support.
I think "shine through" betrays a bias in your information consumption, but I'll take that clarification as an improvement and let it rest.
|
On November 28 2016 10:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though. BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support. Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now. Yeah BLM ends up as a catchall for all the negative stuff that comes out of oppression, as such, you see fit to paint the entire movement with it's worst contributors and say things like "I don't support BLM in the slightest" when you claim to support much/most of what they are actually calling for (as opposed to some people acting stupid at a bbq). It's easy for folks to associate a video from years ago to BLM but not so much their clear demands for reform, it strikes me as disingenuous. BLM isn't any worse than any group on the left or right, but it's easier for people to complain about their tactics than to recognize the widespread criminal behavior of police, and other systemic racism issues they are protesting. It's gross to me that people can actually complain about the protesters instead of being outraged they need to protest just to have their 4th amendment rights (among others) recognized. Let me rephrase it then: I don't support, as a whole, the group of people who call themselves BLM, because while I do sympathize with a lot of the things they want, the negative elements of that group shine through in a way that undermines their entire movement. A similar movement that wants the same things with more nuance and organizational effectiveness, I do support.
by "shine through" do you mean the ones that you hear about?
if not, then i'd like to know what you meant by it.
|
On November 28 2016 06:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Ok, is this guy completely insane?
I mean, to my dear conservative fellows here, don't you find it a bit worrying that your president elect seems to have such a tenuous relationship with reality?
Because personally, the more it goes and the more I would qualify his erratic bullshit as terrifying.
Called it. We have been informing trump to recognize loose voter laws that cause fraud(illegals,dead, multi voters,felon votes). Around 12 states need reform and California is a major offender. I propose nationwide subsided voter ID for everyone so minorities are not suppressed and illegals are kept in check.
Gossip is Stein is being used inadvertently to crack this whole issue wide open so trump can ease into implementing his new stricter voter policies.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 28 2016 10:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 10:00 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:20 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 09:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 09:02 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe this is what GH was on about: if you want to send a message to a party disinclined to listen to you, then sometimes it's done in a way that isn't going to be well-regarded. Still doesn't make me support BLM in the slightest - but at least I can appreciate that specific argument a bit better. When you say you don't "support BLM" what is it you're not supporting? 1. Their tendency to overreach in their opposition to law enforcement. There are absolutely terrible police officers, and there are absolutely terrible law enforcement agencies which allow them to thrive. However, the blood of (presumably honest and innocent) police officers who died e.g. in Dallas, I blame the BLM rhetoric for. It's clear what "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is trying to imply. 2. Their tendency not to distinguish between criminals who got into a battle with the police and innocent people who do the same. I don't find it easy to sympathize with people who start fisticuffs with a police officer and get shot for it. 3. The name "Black Lives Matter." This has been argued a lot, but I will side with the side who says that black lives is an absolutely terrible way to frame it. What about others who suffer under police abuse? Sheriff Joe Arpaio for example certainly wasn't famous for his treatment of blacks. 4. A lack of clear demands. What concrete things do they want, and what are they ready to do to get it? Without a purpose it's not going anywhere. There's probably more, but let's just go with those four. Sounds like you do support them, just not the segments that go too far ( other than somehow still being unaware of what they want). That specific platform seems to be reasonable enough, yes. I may or may not agree with specifically what is performed there, yet I'm not certain that it represents all of BLM (wiki says it's "associated with BLM" which can mean anything). A balanced view of those demands is something I could certainly get behind though. BLM itself, though, is kind of a vague catch-all which as a whole I think does a lot of things that I can't say I can support. Anyways, I think that's enough clarification for the moment. I'm not really in the mood to restart that whole discussion right now. Yeah BLM ends up as a catchall for all the negative stuff that comes out of oppression, as such, you see fit to paint the entire movement with it's worst contributors and say things like "I don't support BLM in the slightest" when you claim to support much/most of what they are actually calling for (as opposed to some people acting stupid at a bbq). It's easy for folks to associate a video from years ago to BLM but not so much their clear demands for reform, it strikes me as disingenuous. BLM isn't any worse than any group on the left or right, but it's easier for people to complain about their tactics than to recognize the widespread criminal behavior of police, and other systemic racism issues they are protesting. It's gross to me that people can actually complain about the protesters instead of being outraged they need to protest just to have their 4th amendment rights (among others) recognized. Let me rephrase it then: I don't support, as a whole, the group of people who call themselves BLM, because while I do sympathize with a lot of the things they want, the negative elements of that group shine through in a way that undermines their entire movement. A similar movement that wants the same things with more nuance and organizational effectiveness, I do support. by "shine through" do you mean the ones that you hear about? if not, then i'd like to know what you meant by it.
That which is most apparent to those who are not particularly inclined to support nor oppose them, whose cooperation is necessary to create a consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
