|
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 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh?
You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know.
(Just let that sink in for a moment)
If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company).
That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting.
But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want".
What's that?
|
On November 28 2016 13:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 12:00 zlefin wrote:On November 28 2016 11:54 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2016 11:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 28 2016 11:41 Sermokala wrote:I do find that people on the left of the politcal spectrum have a far worse view of the world then people on the right. I find the people on the right actually want to be"here" and enjoy where they are far more then the people on the left. On November 28 2016 11:40 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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. He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario. If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer? I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election. Which is why it makes little sense to admonish them for rejecting Romney almost as enthusiastically as Trump when you yourself have not spared anything to use for a dem candidate that would be far worse than Obama appeared to you in 2008, for which there's plenty of room. He was still infinitely more experienced and eloquent and respectful of your positions than a democrat version of Trump would be. You're just not expecting that to happen, just as they didn't. Romney and Kerry committed the same sins in US politics, they were both dreadfully boring. did you see the general mood of the two campaigns? The dems were the ones all hopeful and optimistic. It's the Right that has been super negative the last few years (probably a result of what party was in power as president). Dems think the US is fine but that we need to keep pushing to 'perfect' the union so to speak. The right thinks the country needs to be "made great again". I don't agree with you. The last thing I would say about the dems in the last election was "hopeful and optimistic". I don't remember anything positive said about Hillary in a vacum nor did I see anything optimistic about what was coming for the nation. A lot of "this is where our country is if Trump is a candidate that has support" and "Vote for Hillary or you'll get trump". While the trump campaign was a lot of talking about what they would do when (barely if) they get elected and in power in washington. do you realize the trump campaign was also very pessimistic and bleak about the world? I agree clinton campaign under-talked about what they'd do in washington and needed more projection of hope in their campaign, but there's limits to that, as people repeatedly ignored policy discussions; so their actual plans don't mean much if noone listens. I disagree, Trump's campaign was painting specific problems that was keeping america from being great again. That means consistently that America was great and can be again. If that isn't selling hope I don't know what is. Policy discussions aren't ment for the campaign trail they're ment for before and after elections. You gotta sell your plans to people and not just define yourself by your opposition like how the hillary campaign ran things.
it also means that it was bad now; despite evidence to the contrary. That things were terrible/poor now. It was based on fear, and not a reflection of reality. It goes on and on about how things are bad.
It was selling hope, I agree on that, but it created that hope in part by saying things are terrible. and by pushing narratives that simply weren't true like on crime.
I also rather dislike the selling of false hope.
While I agree policy discussions aren't so popular on the campaign trail, I'd say they should be more popular, because they matter a lot. Deciding on the correct policies is very important.
legal -> I agree that ran too many ads of the wrong type, at least from what I saw of them.
|
On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that?
The problem is that the two of you are arguing from totally different viewpoints, and thus you have a problem understanding each other.
You are saying that it would be nice if people were more interested and would care about what you think.
ChristianS is saying "These are the people you have, and if you want their support, YOU have to convince THEM. They currently do not care. You complaining that they do not care and do not inform themselves does not help, because that is not going to change the fact that they are not informed. It is hard to communicate a message to the general populace in a way that makes them care. BLM has so far not suceeded in doing that. Now you can complain that the people are the wrong people, and better people would have understood you so far. But that does not help. You have to work with the people that actually exist, not the people that you would like to have, if your want to make progress towards a goal. If your goal is only to complain, than that does not matter."
|
given that our President-Elect is claiming that millions of votes were tabulated fraudulently, I guess it's time to push for a national recount 
|
On November 28 2016 22:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? The problem is that the two of you are arguing from totally different viewpoints, and thus you have a problem understanding each other. You are saying that it would be nice if people were more interested and would care about what you think. ChristianS is saying "These are the people you have, and if you want their support, YOU have to convince THEM. They currently do not care. You complaining that they do not care and do not inform themselves does not help, because that is not going to change the fact that they are not informed. It is hard to communicate a message to the general populace in a way that makes them care. BLM has so far not suceeded in doing that. Now you can complain that the people are the wrong people, and better people would have understood you so far. But that does not help. You have to work with the people that actually exist, not the people that you would like to have, if your want to make progress towards a goal. If your goal is only to complain, than that does not matter."
You're partially right.
I'm arguing that the people who don't know are objectively acting in bad faith. We're not even talking about people arguing whether they agree or disagree, we are (or at least I was) talking about whether people claiming they cared to know what BLM wanted we're claiming so in good faith, I'm saying they aren't. That's true.
The excuses folks want to make as to why they are acting in bad faith, and how we can get them to stop is separate from whether they are operating on a sincere foundation.
Said another way, when someone says "I don't even know what BLM wants" what they are actually saying is
"the plight of millions across the country, that has driven countless people into the streets across the country, and has been confirmed specifically regarding police abuse in every city in which it has been investigated, has not earned enough of my attention to warrant a simple google search as to inquire their desires"
Put another way, if you don't know you don't really care about black experiences in America. Blaming a media and culture that makes NRA easier to claim to understand (I find this claim highly dubious), is frustratingly oblivious.
It's worth restating, if you don't know what BLM wants, you don't really care about the plights of Black Americans. Yet if you ask the same people who say it's BLM's fault they don't know, if they care about crimes committed against black people by the government, equal protection from and by the law, etc... they'll say yes. That's how/why I'm pointing out people claiming their ignorance is a result of bad messaging are arguing in bad faith.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Sorry dude, to put it bluntly it's not my issue. While I might sympathize on some level, it doesn't affect me directly nor does it affect enough people close to me for me to pay attention. While I and others like me could sympathize, the onus is on you to make the case.
For another example, do you know the details of the Ukrainian refugees in the wake of the civil war, what the major problems that affect them are, what the major policies of interest are there, and the like? I do; I have enough family and friends directly involved there for it to be something I've looked into in depth. But it's not common knowledge for people who aren't particularly inclined to care, even if they might sympathize with what happened there. You could try Google searching, but as with every other topic with many sides to it, you have to ask the right questions to get the results you want.
I will admit that I don't care as much as black people do about their own plight. And guess what? Most people don't. Yet they need enough of those kind of wishy-washy supporters to have a consensus, or they won't be able to have any policy success. Blaming people for not caring is not the way to deal with that.
|
On November 28 2016 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Sorry dude, to put it bluntly it's not my issue. While I might sympathize on some level, it doesn't affect me directly nor does it affect enough people close to me for me to pay attention. While I and others like me could sympathize, the onus is on you to make the case.
For another example, do you know the details of the Ukrainian refugees in the wake of the civil war, what the major problems that affect them are, what the major policies of interest are there, and the like? I do; I have enough family and friends directly involved there for it to be something I've looked into in depth. But it's not common knowledge for people who aren't particularly inclined to care, even if they might sympathize with what happened there. You could try Google searching, but as with every other topic with many sides to it, you have to ask the right questions to get the results you want.
I will admit that I don't care as much as black people do about their own plight. And guess what? Most people don't. Yet they need enough of those kind of wishy-washy supporters to have a consensus, or they won't be able to have any policy success. Blaming people for not caring is not the way to deal with that.
What boils down to " yeah I'm really not any more concerned about the constitutional rights of Americans if their skin is black, than I am about Ukrainian refugees" is what it is.
But then don't tell me you don't have racist positions.
|
That isn't really a fair accusation for you to throw at LL. It is fairly common that people who have no personal experience or don't know someone who does with certain issues, don't know much about it or have a hard time understanding it. Look at mental health stigma and gay rights as prime examples. That isn't to say that the problems aren't real or the cause isn't noble, but expecting that everyone be behind it or understand it fully when they have no personal involvement isn't realistic. And then saying someone is racist because of it is a step further~
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 29 2016 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Sorry dude, to put it bluntly it's not my issue. While I might sympathize on some level, it doesn't affect me directly nor does it affect enough people close to me for me to pay attention. While I and others like me could sympathize, the onus is on you to make the case.
For another example, do you know the details of the Ukrainian refugees in the wake of the civil war, what the major problems that affect them are, what the major policies of interest are there, and the like? I do; I have enough family and friends directly involved there for it to be something I've looked into in depth. But it's not common knowledge for people who aren't particularly inclined to care, even if they might sympathize with what happened there. You could try Google searching, but as with every other topic with many sides to it, you have to ask the right questions to get the results you want.
I will admit that I don't care as much as black people do about their own plight. And guess what? Most people don't. Yet they need enough of those kind of wishy-washy supporters to have a consensus, or they won't be able to have any policy success. Blaming people for not caring is not the way to deal with that. What boils down to " yeah I'm really not any more concerned about the constitutional rights of Americans if their skin is black, than I am about Ukrainian refugees" is what it is. But then don't tell me you don't have racist positions.
No, I absolutely wouldn't say that I don't have racist positions, even without the "ever-expanding definition of racism" issue. To say otherwise would be lying. I also care more about people more close to me genetically than I do about others, that much is also true.
If you believe that you can get you want with only "your kind of people" though, then your problem is the same one Hillary Clinton had. You need the kind-of-reluctant people's support too, or else all you will be is a fringe group.
|
On November 29 2016 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Sorry dude, to put it bluntly it's not my issue. While I might sympathize on some level, it doesn't affect me directly nor does it affect enough people close to me for me to pay attention. While I and others like me could sympathize, the onus is on you to make the case.
For another example, do you know the details of the Ukrainian refugees in the wake of the civil war, what the major problems that affect them are, what the major policies of interest are there, and the like? I do; I have enough family and friends directly involved there for it to be something I've looked into in depth. But it's not common knowledge for people who aren't particularly inclined to care, even if they might sympathize with what happened there. You could try Google searching, but as with every other topic with many sides to it, you have to ask the right questions to get the results you want.
I will admit that I don't care as much as black people do about their own plight. And guess what? Most people don't. Yet they need enough of those kind of wishy-washy supporters to have a consensus, or they won't be able to have any policy success. Blaming people for not caring is not the way to deal with that. What boils down to " yeah I'm really not any more concerned about the constitutional rights of Americans if their skin is black, than I am about Ukrainian refugees" is what it is. But then don't tell me you don't have racist positions.
I cannot follow your logic. Can you enlighten me on that?
|
On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that?
Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Please start posting better...
|
Speaking of 'alternative media', it's bizarre how many stories like this spread from some random guy's unsourced tweet to the president proclaiming it.
[..]
But while a number of pro-Trump websites have enthusiastically reported that three million illegal immigrants voted in the US election, none provide any reliable evidence to back it up.
Instead, the majority refer to a tweet posted in the days following the election by a man called Greg Phillips, who identifies himself as the founder of an "election fraud reporting app".
Mr Phillips wrote on 11 November: “Completed analysis of database of 180 million voter registrations. Number of non-citizen votes exceeds three million. Consulting legal team."
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” he added on 13 November, claiming to have analysed “180,000,000 voter registrations”.
Mr Phillips, who is also a Republican Party campaigner and founder of a technology consulting firm, has refused to share the source of his data.
When challenged to reveal the evidence behind his claims, Mr Phillips said: “No. We will release it in open form to the American people. We won’t allow the media to spin this first. Sorry.”
This information is yet to be published by Mr Phillips or his colleagues.
“In the absence of supporting data [...] the ‘three million non-citizens’ figure may just as well have been plucked out of thin air,” said fact-checking site Snopes, which investigated the claim.
One of the websites that reported Mr Phillips's tweets as news was Infowars, a site run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has previously called 9/11 an "inside job".
It was shared more than 50,000 times on Facebook, which has faced pressure to stem the spread of unverifiable 'fake news' on the social network.
[...]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-millions-illegal-aliens-voted-greg-phillips-three-million-tweet-infowars-alex-jones-a7443006.html
|
On November 29 2016 00:18 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that?
No, I'll be alright, you aren't dodging knowing what the NRA wants off the top of your head are you?
On November 29 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Sorry dude, to put it bluntly it's not my issue. While I might sympathize on some level, it doesn't affect me directly nor does it affect enough people close to me for me to pay attention. While I and others like me could sympathize, the onus is on you to make the case.
For another example, do you know the details of the Ukrainian refugees in the wake of the civil war, what the major problems that affect them are, what the major policies of interest are there, and the like? I do; I have enough family and friends directly involved there for it to be something I've looked into in depth. But it's not common knowledge for people who aren't particularly inclined to care, even if they might sympathize with what happened there. You could try Google searching, but as with every other topic with many sides to it, you have to ask the right questions to get the results you want.
I will admit that I don't care as much as black people do about their own plight. And guess what? Most people don't. Yet they need enough of those kind of wishy-washy supporters to have a consensus, or they won't be able to have any policy success. Blaming people for not caring is not the way to deal with that. What boils down to " yeah I'm really not any more concerned about the constitutional rights of Americans if their skin is black, than I am about Ukrainian refugees" is what it is. But then don't tell me you don't have racist positions. No, I absolutely wouldn't say that I don't have racist positions, even without the "ever-expanding definition of racism" issue. To say otherwise would be lying. I also care more about people more close to me genetically than I do about others, that much is also true. If you believe that you can get you want with only "your kind of people" though, then your problem is the same one Hillary Clinton had. You need the kind-of-reluctant people's support too, or else all you will be is a fringe group.
I'm glad you could follow (I expected as much). I respect your honesty, I wish others could be as adroit at owning their position.
Now given that I disagree with the position, I would be interested in finding out if you agree that: while you accurately describe a short term problem (our lifetimes give or take), that in the long run (when Generation Y/Millennial's grandkids will be in power) the demographics will be decidedly different?
On November 29 2016 00:07 Kickstart wrote:
That isn't really a fair accusation for you to throw at LL. It is fairly common that people who have no personal experience or don't know someone who does with certain issues, don't know much about it or have a hard time understanding it. Look at mental health stigma and gay rights as prime examples. That isn't to say that the problems aren't real or the cause isn't noble, but expecting that everyone be behind it or understand it fully when they have no personal involvement isn't realistic. And then saying someone is racist because of it is a step further~
I was going to let this lay, but since a mod came in and I think ambiguously suggested I "post better" I think I should clear this up.
I wasn't accusing LL of being a racist, I was pointing out (as he agreed) accurately, that the position is racist (and good ol'fashioned racist, not the sjw raycist), I don't think that makes him a terrible racist person. I think it means he holds a racist position, and unlike the rest of the people who hold it here, he's honest enough to own it, so on the contrary to perception, I respect him more so on this than some others that hold a similar position regardless of what way they typically lean politically.
Some things objectively are things, and as uncomfortable as it may be (this is some really low-impact stuff), we can't shy away from calling something what it is, just because it's "racism".
|
On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 00:18 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that? No, I'll be alright, you aren't dodging knowing what the NRA wants off the top of your head are you?
Don't know how to prove I didn't google anything, so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, although maybe off the top of my head is ignorant enough it'll be apparent I didn't cheat:
The NRA wants the right to bear arms not to be infringed, notably with little or no concern for what that has to do with a well-regulated militia. That makes them mostly a group of opposition - opposed to gun waiting periods, opposed to regulating gun shows, opposed to stringent background checks, opposed to limiting high capacity clips. It seems like the natural extreme of their position would be allowing private citizens to purchase RPGs and hellfire missiles and nukes, and I don't know where they draw the line with rhetoric. I assume they say something like "military-grade gear" shouldn't be legal, with the notable exception of ARs. Of course, where they draw the line with what weapons should be illegal doesn't seem to matter much, because they seem to spend most of their time opposing gun control measures rather than supporting measures that expand gun rights.
How'd I do?
+ Show Spoiler [@TanGeng] +
Couldn't figure out how to PM you from my phone, but was that warning directed at me? If you want me to stop engaging with GH or something I'll happily oblige, just want to clarify what you want.
|
On November 28 2016 23:06 farvacola wrote:given that our President-Elect is claiming that millions of votes were tabulated fraudulently, I guess it's time to push for a national recount
Case closed. He's the president-elect, after all. Let the games begin.
Surely he truly believes there are illegal votes and so would not be opposed to be a recount, to prove it and provide a basis for policy changes.
|
On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 29 2016 00:18 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that? No, I'll be alright, you aren't dodging knowing what the NRA wants off the top of your head are you? On November 29 2016 00:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 23:36 LegalLord wrote:
Sorry dude, to put it bluntly it's not my issue. While I might sympathize on some level, it doesn't affect me directly nor does it affect enough people close to me for me to pay attention. While I and others like me could sympathize, the onus is on you to make the case.
For another example, do you know the details of the Ukrainian refugees in the wake of the civil war, what the major problems that affect them are, what the major policies of interest are there, and the like? I do; I have enough family and friends directly involved there for it to be something I've looked into in depth. But it's not common knowledge for people who aren't particularly inclined to care, even if they might sympathize with what happened there. You could try Google searching, but as with every other topic with many sides to it, you have to ask the right questions to get the results you want.
I will admit that I don't care as much as black people do about their own plight. And guess what? Most people don't. Yet they need enough of those kind of wishy-washy supporters to have a consensus, or they won't be able to have any policy success. Blaming people for not caring is not the way to deal with that. What boils down to " yeah I'm really not any more concerned about the constitutional rights of Americans if their skin is black, than I am about Ukrainian refugees" is what it is. But then don't tell me you don't have racist positions. No, I absolutely wouldn't say that I don't have racist positions, even without the "ever-expanding definition of racism" issue. To say otherwise would be lying. I also care more about people more close to me genetically than I do about others, that much is also true. If you believe that you can get you want with only "your kind of people" though, then your problem is the same one Hillary Clinton had. You need the kind-of-reluctant people's support too, or else all you will be is a fringe group. I'm glad you could follow (I expected as much). I respect your honesty, I wish others could be as adroit at owning their position. Now given that I disagree with the position, I would be interested in finding out if you agree that: while you accurately describe a short term problem (our lifetimes give or take), that in the long run (when Generation Y/Millennial's grandkids will be in power) the demographics will be decidedly different? On November 29 2016 00:07 Kickstart wrote:
That isn't really a fair accusation for you to throw at LL. It is fairly common that people who have no personal experience or don't know someone who does with certain issues, don't know much about it or have a hard time understanding it. Look at mental health stigma and gay rights as prime examples. That isn't to say that the problems aren't real or the cause isn't noble, but expecting that everyone be behind it or understand it fully when they have no personal involvement isn't realistic. And then saying someone is racist because of it is a step further~ I was going to let this lay, but since a mod came in and I think ambiguously suggested I "post better" I think I should clear this up. I wasn't accusing LL of being a racist, I was pointing out (as he agreed) accurately, that the position is racist (and good ol'fashioned racist, not the sjw raycist), I don't think that makes him a terrible racist person. I think it means he holds a racist position, and unlike the rest of the people who hold it here, he's honest enough to own it, so on the contrary to perception, I respect him more so on this than some others that hold a similar position regardless of what way they typically lean politically. Some things objectively are things, and as uncomfortable as it may be (this is some really low-impact stuff), we can't shy away from calling something what it is, just because it's "racism".
This just goes back to the terminology being used, I don't think we disagree much. There is a problem when a person either doesn't care enough, isn't interested enough, or simply doesn't want to know about what other people experience or what their daily situations are like. On the other hand, just because this issue happens to involve people of color doesn't make the people who do this racist.
But there is a distinction to be made between those who are casually unaware and those who are rabidly against such movements. I'm arguing that labeling the casually unaware person a racist is a stretch. If we were talking about the people who are steadfast against something like BLM (or gay rights, etc), it might be fair to label them as bigots/racists/what have you.
|
On November 28 2016 21:43 On_Slaught wrote:
Why are people even still arguing with xDaunt? He literally said that all the news is false and you have to read between the lines. Which is to say that you need to interpret it the exact same as him or you're just wrong, unlike him, the Arbiter of Truth. It's an unwinnable battle that isn't worth fighting anymore.
Maybe because he has a point, I mean a real point beyond your slanted characterization of his point. Your mindset and worldview sets you on a train of "literally this" "which of course means that" leading to "unwinnable battles." Let me clue you in on a stubborn fact of conflicting worldviews. You'll read two political news stories and reach two different conclusions. This is especially true if you've spotted a journalistic trend of editorializing in news stories within what's called mainstream news outlets. If you've spotted no such thing, and think it's just partisan blindness, you'll disagree.
Maybe you'll even hilariously go to the extreme of "He literally said that all news is false." Who knows?
So step back aways. Well, lean in if you consider yourself the true scion of truth. Otherwise, recognize you're just in another political disagreement that's in current events right now. It's a debate and maybe this is your way of expressing your disagreement that it's a debate worth having.
|
There's an active shooter on OSU's campus, one shooter down and around 7 wounded afaik.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Now given that I disagree with the position, I would be interested in finding out if you agree that: while you accurately describe a short term problem (our lifetimes give or take), that in the long run (when Generation Y/Millennial's grandkids will be in power) the demographics will be decidedly different?
I think the demographics will change, yes, and right now they look to be less favorable for "whitey" in the long run. I wouldn't be quite so certain of it as the left is though - even on something that seems as stable as demographics, changes can occur that will reverse the trends.
The country will become more socially progressive in some ways, yes. We don't exactly know which social progressive policies will and will not survive 2-4 generations though. You can never tell for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
