|
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 February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans?
I fancy the idea that my ideas and opinions can't be reduced to a general, dismissive "the left". I am sure you appreciate that we consider your ideas in all their nuances and subtlelty instead of just talking about you by just refering to "the far right".
|
On February 03 2017 06:10 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 05:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2017 05:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 03 2017 05:17 ChristianS wrote:
Jesus Christ, so xDaunt spent the last ten pages or so arguing that the right has far fewer violent extremists than the left*, that the left just wants to end conversations, and that calling people racist, sexist, and xenophobic is anti-free speech.
For starters we just had an entire election in which we were perpetually told the right can't be generalized by their more extreme supporters. Looking at the fucking meme monsters of 8chan calling themselves Nazis and worshipping Donald Trump as Fuhrer we were supposed to say "oh, well, you know, not everybody on the right is like that, some of them are just upset about outsourcing or something." Now an unknown number of possibly-students at Berkeley start some riots and we're supposed to write off the entire left?
If we're gonna start holding political leaders responsible for the actions of some of their worse supporters Donald Trump has a fucking lot to answer for. If we're not, then stop trying to generalize the entire left by some stupid fuckers that punched somebody at a protest or something. The left doesn't want to shut down conversation, which is why they're doing so much talking right now.
Almost unrelated, but calling someone's position "racist," if used correctly, is supposed to be a substantive criticism of their position. The position conflicts with a generally agreed-upon belief that different races are equal and should be treated equally. Considering how many stupid fucking names conservatives have come up with for liberals over the years to marginalize them (Feminazi, blame-America-firster, SJW to name a few), this self-righteousness about branding opponents to marginalize them rings awfully hollow to me. Hell, that's basically Trump's signature move.
*citation very needed If you are on the Left and isn't doing anything to stop people from escalating violence on the Left, then you are part of the problem. If you are <in this country> and aren't doing anything to stop people from <committing X problem in this country>, then you are part of the problem. So thank you for being the cause of all problem in your country. I'm doing my part in stopping violent people from the Left by telling the Left to take care of their own because most of the time, if you don't identify with their politics, no matter how clear you are, they won't listen. Better make some of the sane Leftiest tell themselves to change.
That's amazing signaling there. Do you go around with a badge proclaiming you as part of the right? No one will listen to you because you can't help but shout out something like "Gun Rights" before any statement? It's incredible how everyone knows you aren't part of their political identity immediately.
|
|
|
Didn't realize how important racial anxiety was to this guy's message. Wow.
Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.
...
This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live.
But I thought Republicans were dominating Congress and state governships and legislatures since 2010?? lol
|
I thought the alt-right referred to self-identified white nationalists who idealize an authoritarian figurehead. This is as opposed to self-identified white nationalists who idealize a fascist authoritarian. They're not strictly the same, as Trump hardly seems like a fascist currently. He's an authoritarian which can be just as bad, though.
Am I wildly off on what the alt-right is here? Genuinely asking, because that's how I've seen them self-present. They may seem similar to nazis, but there are genuine political differences between the two.
On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans?
As an actual leftist, the difference between most "liberal" American democrats and a Republican to me is mainly that the republican is a lot more honest about their stated goals, but both want almost the exact same things economically. Socially I don't really care too much, as none of it directly affects me.
Yes, I'm dark skinned enough to have been asked which parent was the nigger growing up (I have a lot of very obviously visible Cherokee blood), but that's not really anything either political party can do anything about, it's a type of cultural issue that takes both sides working together to solve.
|
On February 03 2017 06:00 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +I think xDaunt is trying to point out a difference in the scope of what the - I'll call them this since you already did - "extremists" are doing, how mainstream and acceptable what they're doing is and what real effects they have. One side seems to keep rioting whereas the people on the other side that would supposedly be morally equivalent... you just called "meme monsters."
White Supremacists have caused quite a bit of violence over the years so I don't know what this sort of dismissiveness is based on.
Mainly, it's society that's dismissed white supremacists. That's why you had to say "over the years," yes? Where are they today in comparison to antifa and all the other revolutionary factions?
|
On February 03 2017 06:12 plasmidghost wrote:
Politics in America has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides, I think we're heading for full-scale rioting. Sad thing is, I'm very left-leaning (usually) and I believe that it's going to be the losing side if things go beyond rioting since the military's almost definitely going to side with Trump
Well it's pretty bleak from either sides. A de-escalation effort isn't worth anything right now because the right would just continue to gerrymander & voter suppress their way to dominance.
For example:
http://wtkr.com/2017/01/24/bill-would-end-virginias-winner-take-all-electoral-vote-system/
This bill is interesting to me because I'm very opposed to winner-take-all but am vehemently opposed to congressional districts.
Mainly, it's society that's dismissed white supremacists. That's why you had to say "over the years," yes? Where are they today in comparison to antifa and all the other revolutionary factions?
Burning down mosques and shooting protesters (well the shooter was merely a Milo fan not a supremacist)?
|
On February 03 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:Didn't realize how important racial anxiety was to this guy's message. Wow. Show nested quote +Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.
...
This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. But I thought Republicans were dominating Congress and state governships and legislatures since 2010?? lol
Demographics are Destiny is an important concept in progressive political discourse, and this thread in the last thousand pages has had dozens of pages referring to the political views of new immigrants from traditionally third-world countries. Give it a read.
Oh, and because everybody is getting touchy on labels now, read the article and tell me if you think "racial anxiety" is a fair characterization of the message. We've heard from people in this thread, real living breathing typing people, that reduce Milo to nothing but hate, so I'm just interested if Doodsmack is an outlier or mainstream. Just in the interest of understanding your levels of empathy and reflection.
|
On February 03 2017 06:12 plasmidghost wrote:
Politics in America has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides, I think we're heading for full-scale rioting. Sad thing is, I'm very left-leaning (usually) and I believe that it's going to be the losing side if things go beyond rioting since the military's almost definitely going to side with Trump
Not just the US. Frankly we're probably better than most of Europe on that matter because we have only two parties.
|
On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans?
I'm a social democrat so yeah I'm a leftist, but liberals from Europe are not leftists. François Fillon (french presidential candidate) is described as "ultraliberal" to express that he's really really right wing.
|
On February 03 2017 05:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:42 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 04:37 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2017 03:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:03 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:45 Logo wrote:On February 03 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:33 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
How is distilling Milo down to "hate and meanness" a legitimate criticism? It's more legitimate than the hot air your blew in return. And yes, having read/listened to Milo that's honestly a good summary. It might as well be his slogan. No, it's not a legitimate criticism because it completely misses the underlying cultural argument within Milo's message. Sure, Milo's bombastic (or, if you prefer, an asshole), but underneath the presentation is a real message. Couldn't this back and forth be happening with the exact same words but 'SJW' (or someone in particular on the left) swapped in for Milo and the poster names reversed? Not really. The key difference is that the Right isn't looking to end the conversation like the Left/SJW's do. So the numerous anti-protest bills being submitted by republicans in various states don't represent trying to end the conversation? Those are content-neutral law and order bills. Their effect is no where near as insidious as branding the opposition as racists, sexists, and homophobes. Unlike the government, people have the right to call the opposition nasty names. The government is bound by the 1st amendment. Sure, but this is irrelevant to my underlying point regarding what the Regressive Left does. I'm not challenging the right of the Regressive Left to call people nasty names. Ok, I guess we can ignore the whataboutism of the protest bills, because they are irrelevant to the original point. How is the alt-right not trying to shut down any conversation? Their appeal to their god-given right to discriminate is no less of a conversation stopper than calling them bigots is. It's about as useful as insisting that a 9/11 truther is trying to open up discussion about what happened on 9/11. We are starting from completely different premises that we cannot agree on. So until we can have an honest discussion about the premises, there's no point in discussing it. And I guess that's something Biff was trying to tell you: Milo's message is completely lost on us, because he starts from something we consider just plain incorrect and builds a big mean spiteful monstrosity on top of it. The good thing about Western culture is that there *should* be space for both opinions to coexist quite peacefully. I can happily think that gays have a right to wedding cakes, and you can happily think that bakers shouldn't have to bake cakes for events that oppose their core values. What is dangerous is that recent events are overruling common sense and good citizenship. It isn't your god given right to get a wedding cake from Baker X, and it also isn't your god-given right to deny your employees birth control methods in their health plan. We threw the fundaments of society out the window when we started treating conflicts like this as something we need to *win*, rather than something that needs to be *resolved*.
I don't think that you have a particularly good sense of where Milo is coming from if you think that the starting premise is a "god given right to discriminate."
|
On February 03 2017 06:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:00 Logo wrote:I think xDaunt is trying to point out a difference in the scope of what the - I'll call them this since you already did - "extremists" are doing, how mainstream and acceptable what they're doing is and what real effects they have. One side seems to keep rioting whereas the people on the other side that would supposedly be morally equivalent... you just called "meme monsters."
White Supremacists have caused quite a bit of violence over the years so I don't know what this sort of dismissiveness is based on. Mainly, it's society that's dismissed white supremacists. That's why you had to say "over the years," yes? Where are they today in comparison to antifa and all the other revolutionary factions?
I mean we had the guy in Canada 4 (?) days ago... I'm not sure this is the best time to argue this
|
On February 03 2017 06:15 Nevuk wrote:I thought the alt-right referred to self-identified white nationalists who idealize an authoritarian figurehead. This is as opposed to self-identified white nationalists who idealize a fascist authoritarian. They're not strictly the same, as Trump hardly seems like a fascist currently. He's an authoritarian which can be just as bad, though. Am I wildly off on what the alt-right is here? Genuinely asking, because that's how I've seen them self-present. They may seem similar to nazis, but there are genuine political differences between the two. Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? As an actual leftist, the difference between most "liberal" American democrats and a Republican to me is mainly that the republican is a lot more honest about their stated goals, but both want almost the exact same things economically. Socially I don't really care too much, as none of it directly affects me. Yes, I'm dark skinned enough to have been asked which parent was the nigger growing up (I have a lot of very obviously visible Cherokee blood), but that's not really anything either political party can do anything about, it's a type of cultural issue that takes both sides working together to solve.
It depends upon how you define "Alt Right." If you go by the broad, Breitbart definition, then you're talking about a very large group of people who are all on the Right politically, but fall outside of traditional conservatism. I am "Alt Right" under this definition. If you adopt the more restrictive definition that requires adherence to identitarianism (particularly racial identitarianism), then you're talking about a much smaller group of people (and I don't fall into this category).
|
On February 03 2017 06:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? I fancy the idea that my ideas and opinions can't be reduced to a general, dismissive "the left". I am sure you appreciate that we consider your ideas in all their nuances and subtlelty instead of just talking about you by just refering to "the far right".
Being from the nation that started this left right nonsense I would hope you would be able to appreciate that its not a generalization but a relative term to place someone on the political spectrum in reference to ones peers. That it doesn't apply the same for every society in every country but instead is relative based on the realm that the conversation is happening around. This being the Us politics thread that means that the spectrum would revolve around the US's relative spectrum of political leanings.
Theres a reason why we all adopted it from the french.
|
President Donald Trump pledged to repeal a decades-old provision of tax law that prevents pastors from endorsing candidates, recommitting to a campaign promise during a speech at his first National Prayer Breakfast in which he veered into politics and pop culture and even used a mild profanity.
“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and openly without fear of retribution,” Trump said during the event, referring to a 1954 measure pushed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. “I will do that, remember.”
Religious leaders have long complained that the Johnson Amendment restricts their free speech. Trump would need an act of Congress to repeal the law.
Trump’s address to faith leaders came as the administration cracks down on U.S. policy for admitting refugees and after Trump nominated a justice for the Supreme Court, Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch, that he has promised is opposed to abortion. The speech was unconventional from the start, as Trump used his opening comments to joke about the politics of the Senate chaplain and television ratings for "The Apprentice," the reality show the president starred in and produced.
Source
Going to have to say that I'm pretty strongly opposed to this on principle. But we have social conservatives so such is life.
|
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal.
|
On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal.
Why can't both be true? Richard Spencer coined the term "Alt Right" and was one of its intellectual founders. However, he is also part of the white nationalism crowd and has attracted criticism from other Alt Right members for doing stupid shit like nazi salutes at rallies.
|
On February 03 2017 06:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +President Donald Trump pledged to repeal a decades-old provision of tax law that prevents pastors from endorsing candidates, recommitting to a campaign promise during a speech at his first National Prayer Breakfast in which he veered into politics and pop culture and even used a mild profanity.
“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and openly without fear of retribution,” Trump said during the event, referring to a 1954 measure pushed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. “I will do that, remember.”
Religious leaders have long complained that the Johnson Amendment restricts their free speech. Trump would need an act of Congress to repeal the law.
Trump’s address to faith leaders came as the administration cracks down on U.S. policy for admitting refugees and after Trump nominated a justice for the Supreme Court, Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch, that he has promised is opposed to abortion. The speech was unconventional from the start, as Trump used his opening comments to joke about the politics of the Senate chaplain and television ratings for "The Apprentice," the reality show the president starred in and produced.
SourceGoing to have to say that I'm pretty strongly opposed to this on principle. But we have social conservatives so such is life.
It seems like nothing but terrible things can come from this, but it's also consistent with other laws isn't it? Like I'm surprised such a thing exists still given Citizens United.
Ironically it opens up Trump to more attacks doesn't it? Since he's currently actively involved in a campaign 501c3 charities are restricted in how they can criticize him.
-----
Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On February 03 2017 06:15 Nevuk wrote:I thought the alt-right referred to self-identified white nationalists who idealize an authoritarian figurehead. This is as opposed to self-identified white nationalists who idealize a fascist authoritarian. They're not strictly the same, as Trump hardly seems like a fascist currently. He's an authoritarian which can be just as bad, though. Am I wildly off on what the alt-right is here? Genuinely asking, because that's how I've seen them self-present. They may seem similar to nazis, but there are genuine political differences between the two. Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? As an actual leftist, the difference between most "liberal" American democrats and a Republican to me is mainly that the republican is a lot more honest about their stated goals, but both want almost the exact same things economically. Socially I don't really care too much, as none of it directly affects me. Yes, I'm dark skinned enough to have been asked which parent was the nigger growing up (I have a lot of very obviously visible Cherokee blood), but that's not really anything either political party can do anything about, it's a type of cultural issue that takes both sides working together to solve.
I'm not sure if this was basically a reply to me because I talked on the last page about how we shouldn't lump alt-righters into one group with the reddit nazis who call themselves alt-righters.
I agree with you. I just wanted to show that we shouldn't call everyone on one side of a spectrum left/right/alt-right whatever because there are usually big differences between the people in the groups they are lumped in.
|
On February 03 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Why can't both be true? Richard Spencer coined the term "Alt Right" and was one of its intellectual founders. However, he is also part of the white nationalism crowd and has attracted criticism from other Alt Right members for doing stupid shit like nazi salutes at rallies.
That's not how the article framed it. This framing would be "Richard Spencer, one of the true racists, was also an influential in the creation of the alt-right", and then "but he has been disavowed since." or "and he unfortunately continues to tarnish the name of the movement". What was there was "Here are some of the intellectuals of the alt-right, x y z and Richard Spencer. There is also a fringe group among the alt-right who are truly racist and we look down on them." The implication from the framing of the article is that Richard Spencer isn't one of them, since the same movement cannot both regard someone highly as a founder and an intellectual and look down on them for their ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
