|
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 States42539 Posts
On August 17 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:07 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:59 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:53 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong. Your post was like a breath of fresh air. Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. And you and others think any defense of him should be framed in racism. What, you you don't think he's Hitler incarnate? Way to defend racism, you racist sympathizer. Antifa, on the other end, is the natural consequence when you think speech is violence and call for deplatforming. Time to own up to your own sins, I think. Next week on forgetting the violent riots after Trump's election and the threats and physical assaults from free speech events... (Actually, you're about the quintessential case of what ninazerg addressed. You aren't allowed to defend Trump in any way shape or form because "you voted for someone who gave racists boners and defend the giver of racist-boners even after racists killed someone." Ahem, using political violence to shut down the speech of others is the problem here. You, farva, are part of the problem here.) Sounds like you need a safe space where people won't bring up the fact that you voted for someone who emboldened Nazis. TL doesn't appear to be that place. If you start out, buddy "we don't necessarily think that you're a racist," chances are you're dismissing the thought that any of his actions could be defensible. He'll do mostly things I disagree with, and a handful I agree with, and the difference between you and me is that I can tell one from the other. You're very interested tarring even reluctant defenders with the racism paintbrush, and thus emboldening antifa and sending moderates to the Trump 2020 camp. If a "moderate" decides to embrace Trump and his white supremacist platform because someone called him a racist, well, the person calling him a racist was right. Right and wrong don't change when someone calls you a name. I've been called a fascist for defending free speech by tumblr feminists on facebook before and yet here I am, still a feminist. If your support of racial equality is predicated upon nobody with a different skin colour to yours calling you names, well, you don't support racial equality, you just support people not calling you names. "Embracing" is the political partisanship talking. Daring to conditionally defend is meriting the charges that ninazerg talked about. Dismissing people you want to call racists is a societal malaise. Cool story about tumblr, though, it really does seem you've chosen your mode of emulation well.
Danglars, when I say you're being racist, or that Sessions is a racist, I'm not saying it as an easy way to be dismissive. I'm saying it because of the racism.
It's not a shortcut, it's not because I have no other arguments to fall back on, it's not being used as a slur to attack anyone I don't like, it's because of the racism.
There are lots of people on the left I don't like. And there are people like GH who will insist forever that game theory doesn't apply to first past the post elections to my endless frustration. I don't call them racists unless they're racist. Because of the racism.
Please, please believe that I'm not dismissing you as a racist so I don't have to address your opinions. It'd be great if we had the luxury of dismissing racists and their racist opinions, but there are millions of you and you vote and you influence policy and it's a problem that we can't ignore. I'm not trying to call you names. I'm trying to get you to a point in your life where you go "hey, I seem to be getting called racist a lot right now, maybe I should look into that".
But at some point some clever conservative commentator decided that he would become incredibly popular within his insular fan base by telling them that "racist" is nothing more than a slur and that you don't need to pay any attention to it when someone says it. Which, of course, is an incredibly comforting thing to hear in your position because it removes all personal accountability and need for introspection and places the blame firmly on the person calling you a racist. People fucking love lies that absolve them from blame and tell them what they always wanted to hear and so here we are, I say you're being racist, you immediately assume it's part of some attempt to dismiss you. It doesn't even cross your mind to take a look at your own beliefs and wonder why someone might think them racist.
|
We must be fair to the Home of the Alt-Right, per Bannon. We must accept their totally valid, not anti-Semitic publication and give them a fair shake.
|
@Kwark
I'm pretty sure that because of the tremendous dilution of the words racist and sexist and whatever else, it's become standard practice for most people that are called that to just dismiss them as slurs.
Obviously, not every one using the words uses it in the same context, but it's easy to get lost in context when these words are homeopatized like that.
|
On August 17 2017 05:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:09 farvacola wrote:
Why would anyone who witnessed the Republican tact of "obstruct everything Obama does" opt to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a nuanced (lol) perspective on Trump? Y'all can't cry out that the well is poisoned while doing your best to avoid admitting that you may have poured some in not long ago. Now it really seems like your caterwauling about obstruction was envy that Republicans got to do it first. The Democrats haven’t stone walled anything beyond a health care bill they were not allowed to work on. Unless you counter the Supreme Court nominee, which everyone should have seen coming after 2016.
Trumps appointments are now in line with Obamas for politics positions, but Schumer's invoked the 30hour rule for confirmations, obstructing to a pace that would have unconfirmed nominees four years later. Still up to their tricks.
|
United States42539 Posts
In context Breitbart noted he was Jewish to expand upon why he was opposed to Trump's Nazi apologism. They didn't call him (((Jewish))).
|
@uldridge
Maybe you're using homeopathy wrong?
It's supposed to become stronger the less of the substance is in a solution.
So using those words less means more impact. Which is kind of your point.
Though in my opinion it is really not used enough.
People are calling out more and more. And that's not them being overly sensitive but rather finally daring to do so.
|
On August 17 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:35 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:09 farvacola wrote:
Why would anyone who witnessed the Republican tact of "obstruct everything Obama does" opt to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a nuanced (lol) perspective on Trump? Y'all can't cry out that the well is poisoned while doing your best to avoid admitting that you may have poured some in not long ago. Now it really seems like your caterwauling about obstruction was envy that Republicans got to do it first. The Democrats haven’t stone walled anything beyond a health care bill they were not allowed to work on. Unless you counter the Supreme Court nominee, which everyone should have seen coming after 2016. Trumps appointments are now in line with Obamas for politics positions, but Schumer's invoked the 30hour rule for confirmations, obstructing to a pace that would have unconfirmed nominees four years later. Still up to their tricks.
Do you think I am stupid? Do we really need to go over how much judges were held up by McConnell? Do we need to compare it to the last 40 years of history? He reaps what he sows. Get new leadership in the senate and maybe things might be nicer. But right now, the Turtle gets exactly what he asked for.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/mitch-mcconnell-judges-225455
Remove McConnell from leadership and there might be some hope. But not until then.
|
On August 17 2017 05:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:07 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:59 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:53 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong. Your post was like a breath of fresh air. Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. And you and others think any defense of him should be framed in racism. What, you you don't think he's Hitler incarnate? Way to defend racism, you racist sympathizer. Antifa, on the other end, is the natural consequence when you think speech is violence and call for deplatforming. Time to own up to your own sins, I think. Next week on forgetting the violent riots after Trump's election and the threats and physical assaults from free speech events... (Actually, you're about the quintessential case of what ninazerg addressed. You aren't allowed to defend Trump in any way shape or form because "you voted for someone who gave racists boners and defend the giver of racist-boners even after racists killed someone." Ahem, using political violence to shut down the speech of others is the problem here. You, farva, are part of the problem here.) Sounds like you need a safe space where people won't bring up the fact that you voted for someone who emboldened Nazis. TL doesn't appear to be that place. If you start out, buddy "we don't necessarily think that you're a racist," chances are you're dismissing the thought that any of his actions could be defensible. He'll do mostly things I disagree with, and a handful I agree with, and the difference between you and me is that I can tell one from the other. You're very interested tarring even reluctant defenders with the racism paintbrush, and thus emboldening antifa and sending moderates to the Trump 2020 camp. If a "moderate" decides to embrace Trump and his white supremacist platform because someone called him a racist, well, the person calling him a racist was right. Right and wrong don't change when someone calls you a name. I've been called a fascist for defending free speech by tumblr feminists on facebook before and yet here I am, still a feminist. If your support of racial equality is predicated upon nobody with a different skin colour to yours calling you names, well, you don't support racial equality, you just support people not calling you names. "Embracing" is the political partisanship talking. Daring to conditionally defend is meriting the charges that ninazerg talked about. Dismissing people you want to call racists is a societal malaise. Cool story about tumblr, though, it really does seem you've chosen your mode of emulation well. Danglars, when I say you're being racist, or that Sessions is a racist, I'm not saying it as an easy way to be dismissive. I'm saying it because of the racism. It's not a shortcut, it's not because I have no other arguments to fall back on, it's not being used as a slur to attack anyone I don't like, it's because of the racism. There are lots of people on the left I don't like. And there are people like GH who will insist forever that game theory doesn't apply to first past the post elections to my endless frustration. I don't call them racists unless they're racist. Because of the racism. Please, please believe that I'm not dismissing you as a racist so I don't have to address your opinions. It'd be great if we had the luxury of dismissing racists and their racist opinions, but there are millions of you and you vote and you influence policy and it's a problem that we can't ignore. I'm not trying to call you names. I'm trying to get you to a point in your life where you go "hey, I seem to be getting called racist a lot right now, maybe I should look into that". But at some point some clever conservative commentator decided that he would become incredibly popular within his insular fan base by telling them that "racist" is nothing more than a slur and that you don't need to pay any attention to it when someone says it. Which, of course, is an incredibly comforting thing to hear in your position because it removes all personal accountability and need for introspection and places the blame firmly on the person calling you a racist. People fucking love lies that absolve them from blame and tell them what they always wanted to hear and so here we are, I say you're being racist, you immediately assume it's part of some attempt to dismiss you. It doesn't even cross your mind to take a look at your own beliefs and wonder why someone might think them racist.
Honestly, we've been through this before. I claim your various assertions (that conservative posters here are racist, Trump supporters are mostly racists, people who didn't vote Obama are mostly racist) are puerile. You defend that calling everybody racists is justified because everybody's actually racist, and the solution is for people to be less goddamn racist. Kind of like your tumblr example, I can get along just fine if political partisans like yourself think I hate black people or feminist protestors think I'm anti-woman. Both opinions are laughably insane and will hurt your coalitions and political causes the longer you hold them.
I'm working through my shock when people try to double-dip back into reasonable opinions ("we're not calling all Republicans barely removed from the KKK/neonazis/white supremacists"), after they've seen fit to label myself xDaunt and broad swaths of voting Americans racist bigots. It's not consistent, but I'm finding the rules get changed with every switch of political party in control.
|
On August 17 2017 05:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:22 Trainrunnef wrote:On August 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:59 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:53 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong. Your post was like a breath of fresh air. Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. And you and others think any defense of him should be framed in racism. What, you you don't think he's Hitler incarnate? Way to defend racism, you racist sympathizer. Antifa, on the other end, is the natural consequence when you think speech is violence and call for deplatforming. Time to own up to your own sins, I think. Next week on forgetting the violent riots after Trump's election and the threats and physical assaults from free speech events... (Actually, you're about the quintessential case of what ninazerg addressed. You aren't allowed to defend Trump in any way shape or form because "you voted for someone who gave racists boners and defend the giver of racist-boners even after racists killed someone." Ahem, using political violence to shut down the speech of others is the problem here. You, farva, are part of the problem here.) Sounds like you need a safe space where people won't bring up the fact that you voted for someone who emboldened Nazis. TL doesn't appear to be that place. If you start out, buddy "we don't necessarily think that you're a racist," chances are you're dismissing the thought that any of his actions could be defensible. He'll do mostly things I disagree with, and a handful I agree with, and the difference between you and me is that I can tell one from the other. You're very interested tarring even reluctant defenders with the racism paintbrush, and thus emboldening antifa and sending moderates to the Trump 2020 camp. I think the real difference is not that you can tell one from the other, but that your line as to where racism, and the support of racism starts is at a very different place. He may have specific defensible actions, but on a whole, this has proven to be a red line for some that shouldn't have been crossed. it is not your red line though, and where it starts is something only you can decide. Your reluctance to defend, does not absolve the defense. And the only thing that will push moderates to a Trump 2020 campaign is a shitty democratic candidate, which is exactly what happened last year. Imagine the vitriol from the right had the roles been reversed, and ANTIFA counter-protesters ran over some innocent confederate history buff at the protest and Clinton goes. “I think there is blame on both sides,” Fox News may have imploded from the comments section (if they still even have one idk). So read the quote chain please and tell me if you agree with my take on ninazerg, and the racist-boner angle on me personally. I already condemned his first statement, and your "he may have specific defensible actions" is about as much of an admission I think may ever be hoped for.
In terms of debating leftists i think that the biggest issue is that most arguments, for better or worse, come from an emotional place (anyone remember the bleeding heart leftist pejorative). Because of this the initial reaction on the left is going to be one of 3 - disgust, elation, pity.
In this particular case we are rubbing up against the disgust angle obviously, which is a particularly visceral response. In order to really make progress with a leftist in a disgust discussion you must agree on certain terms.
a) you are just as disgusted and state such in an open and sincere way
b) you may actually need to be more disgusted /jk
c) you can at no point attempt to play down the act or draw equivalences with the other side (aka whataboutism)
If you can manage to play by those two rules, then you can fundamentally put away the particular event and start to deal with the underlying rationale in a positive way. Even when you disagree if you can at least admit that you understand their POV and geniuinely do understand it your conversations will go alot further. In most of my discussions with people on my left or right I never even give my opinion, I just ask questions to try and tease out the reasoning and thought process because otherwise it is useless.
If I cant show you that I understand you and why you think what you think I have absolutely no chance to change your mind.
If we apply this thinking to what Trump has done, and further onto your defense of Trump,...
He definitely bypassed both of those rules, and you only followed one. You may think these rules stupid or childish, but when you are dealing with a fundamentally emotional argument (racism) you have to tread thin Ice whether you like it or not (and even more so when you claim to represent the party that has stood closest to true racists for the last 50 years)
And RE Trump:
I was speaking more hypothetically about the specific defensible actions as from my perspective and personal beliefs I haven't seen any yet that I agree with (it could be that I haven't looked hard enough), but I concede that he could at some point make a good decision, whether on accident or on purpose. Suffice it to say that I would have been happier with Ivanka...
|
United States42539 Posts
On August 17 2017 05:53 Uldridge wrote:
@Kwark
I'm pretty sure that because of the tremendous dilution of the words racist and sexist and whatever else, it's become standard practice for most people that are called that to just dismiss them as slurs.
Obviously, not every one using the words uses it in the same context, but it's easy to get lost in context when these words are homeopatized like that.
Have they been diluted though? At what point did we decide that racist was only to be applied to the folks wearing hoods, and not for the ones pressing for harsher sentences for "black" crimes? The guy who rewrote the Alabama constitution to enshrine white supremacy by denying "negroes" the vote (his stated intent), most people would probably agree that he was a racist. Sessions, who defends that constitution on the grounds of states rights while it denies the vote to significant parts of the black community, most conservatives would insist that he's not a racist. Same constitution. Same reasons. All that changed was he took off the hood and started saying thugs instead of niggers.
Racism is an old and enduring problem within American society. It hasn't gone away and the word hasn't been diluted by overuse. What has happened is that black people started being allowed to have input into what they believed to be racist and conservative America couldn't handle that and decided that it was just a slur now and didn't really mean anything.
|
On August 17 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:35 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:09 farvacola wrote:
Why would anyone who witnessed the Republican tact of "obstruct everything Obama does" opt to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a nuanced (lol) perspective on Trump? Y'all can't cry out that the well is poisoned while doing your best to avoid admitting that you may have poured some in not long ago. Now it really seems like your caterwauling about obstruction was envy that Republicans got to do it first. The Democrats haven’t stone walled anything beyond a health care bill they were not allowed to work on. Unless you counter the Supreme Court nominee, which everyone should have seen coming after 2016. Trumps appointments are now in line with Obamas for politics positions, but Schumer's invoked the 30hour rule for confirmations, obstructing to a pace that would have unconfirmed nominees four years later. Still up to their tricks. Do you think I am stupid? Do we really need to go over how much judges were held up by McConnell? Do we need to compare it to the last 40 years of history? He reaps what he sows. Get new leadership in the senate and maybe things might be nicer. But right now, the Turtle gets exactly what he asked for.
Obamas had like 180 confirmed at this point, GWB 130, and Trump's got about the same appointed but only about 50 confirmed. Start accepting the results of an election you lost, and let Trump have a shot at having his political appointees run things. It's literally that simple.
|
On August 17 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:35 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:09 farvacola wrote:
Why would anyone who witnessed the Republican tact of "obstruct everything Obama does" opt to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a nuanced (lol) perspective on Trump? Y'all can't cry out that the well is poisoned while doing your best to avoid admitting that you may have poured some in not long ago. Now it really seems like your caterwauling about obstruction was envy that Republicans got to do it first. The Democrats haven’t stone walled anything beyond a health care bill they were not allowed to work on. Unless you counter the Supreme Court nominee, which everyone should have seen coming after 2016. Trumps appointments are now in line with Obamas for politics positions, but Schumer's invoked the 30hour rule for confirmations, obstructing to a pace that would have unconfirmed nominees four years later. Still up to their tricks. Do you think I am stupid? Do we really need to go over how much judges were held up by McConnell? Do we need to compare it to the last 40 years of history? He reaps what he sows. Get new leadership in the senate and maybe things might be nicer. But right now, the Turtle gets exactly what he asked for. Obamas had like 180 confirmed at this point, GWB 130, and Trump's got about the same appointed but only about 50 confirmed. Start accepting the results of an election you lost, and let Trump have a shot at having his political appointees run things. It's literally that simple.
No. Start accepting that the way you won has consequences. That the way your party conducted itself has consequences. You are getting exactly what you were promised, which is a deeply divided country and leadership that has not interest in fixing it. Take some personal responsibility for once.
|
United States42539 Posts
On August 17 2017 06:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:43 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:07 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:59 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:53 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong. Your post was like a breath of fresh air. Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. And you and others think any defense of him should be framed in racism. What, you you don't think he's Hitler incarnate? Way to defend racism, you racist sympathizer. Antifa, on the other end, is the natural consequence when you think speech is violence and call for deplatforming. Time to own up to your own sins, I think. Next week on forgetting the violent riots after Trump's election and the threats and physical assaults from free speech events... (Actually, you're about the quintessential case of what ninazerg addressed. You aren't allowed to defend Trump in any way shape or form because "you voted for someone who gave racists boners and defend the giver of racist-boners even after racists killed someone." Ahem, using political violence to shut down the speech of others is the problem here. You, farva, are part of the problem here.) Sounds like you need a safe space where people won't bring up the fact that you voted for someone who emboldened Nazis. TL doesn't appear to be that place. If you start out, buddy "we don't necessarily think that you're a racist," chances are you're dismissing the thought that any of his actions could be defensible. He'll do mostly things I disagree with, and a handful I agree with, and the difference between you and me is that I can tell one from the other. You're very interested tarring even reluctant defenders with the racism paintbrush, and thus emboldening antifa and sending moderates to the Trump 2020 camp. If a "moderate" decides to embrace Trump and his white supremacist platform because someone called him a racist, well, the person calling him a racist was right. Right and wrong don't change when someone calls you a name. I've been called a fascist for defending free speech by tumblr feminists on facebook before and yet here I am, still a feminist. If your support of racial equality is predicated upon nobody with a different skin colour to yours calling you names, well, you don't support racial equality, you just support people not calling you names. "Embracing" is the political partisanship talking. Daring to conditionally defend is meriting the charges that ninazerg talked about. Dismissing people you want to call racists is a societal malaise. Cool story about tumblr, though, it really does seem you've chosen your mode of emulation well. Danglars, when I say you're being racist, or that Sessions is a racist, I'm not saying it as an easy way to be dismissive. I'm saying it because of the racism. It's not a shortcut, it's not because I have no other arguments to fall back on, it's not being used as a slur to attack anyone I don't like, it's because of the racism. There are lots of people on the left I don't like. And there are people like GH who will insist forever that game theory doesn't apply to first past the post elections to my endless frustration. I don't call them racists unless they're racist. Because of the racism. Please, please believe that I'm not dismissing you as a racist so I don't have to address your opinions. It'd be great if we had the luxury of dismissing racists and their racist opinions, but there are millions of you and you vote and you influence policy and it's a problem that we can't ignore. I'm not trying to call you names. I'm trying to get you to a point in your life where you go "hey, I seem to be getting called racist a lot right now, maybe I should look into that". But at some point some clever conservative commentator decided that he would become incredibly popular within his insular fan base by telling them that "racist" is nothing more than a slur and that you don't need to pay any attention to it when someone says it. Which, of course, is an incredibly comforting thing to hear in your position because it removes all personal accountability and need for introspection and places the blame firmly on the person calling you a racist. People fucking love lies that absolve them from blame and tell them what they always wanted to hear and so here we are, I say you're being racist, you immediately assume it's part of some attempt to dismiss you. It doesn't even cross your mind to take a look at your own beliefs and wonder why someone might think them racist. Honestly, we've been through this before. I claim your various assertions (that conservative posters here are racist, Trump supporters are mostly racists, people who didn't vote Obama are mostly racist) are puerile. You defend that calling everybody racists is justified because everybody's actually racist, and the solution is for people to be less goddamn racist. Kind of like your tumblr example, I can get along just fine if political partisans like yourself think I hate black people or feminist protestors think I'm anti-woman. Both opinions are laughably insane and will hurt your coalitions and political causes the longer you hold them. I'm working through my shock when people try to double-dip back into reasonable opinions ("we're not calling all Republicans barely removed from the KKK/neonazis/white supremacists"), after they've seen fit to label myself xDaunt and broad swaths of voting Americans racist bigots. It's not consistent, but I'm finding the rules get changed with every switch of political party in control.
This is exactly the kind of desperate attempt to avoid introspection I'm talking about. You completely refuse to consider why it is that you're routinely civil rights abuses against minority Americans and leap straight to "KwarK is just a political partisan", "the idea that I'm a racist is laughably insane", "millions of Americans can't all be bigots". You'll do whatever it takes to avoid asking the question "what is it I could have done or said that could be perceived as racist?".
|
On August 17 2017 06:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:53 Uldridge wrote:
@Kwark
I'm pretty sure that because of the tremendous dilution of the words racist and sexist and whatever else, it's become standard practice for most people that are called that to just dismiss them as slurs.
Obviously, not every one using the words uses it in the same context, but it's easy to get lost in context when these words are homeopatized like that. Have they been diluted though? At what point did we decide that racist was only to be applied to the folks wearing hoods, and not for the ones pressing for harsher sentences for "black" crimes? The guy who rewrote the Alabama constitution to enshrine white supremacy by denying "negroes" the vote (his stated intent), most people would probably agree that he was a racist. Sessions, who defends that constitution on the grounds of states rights while it denies the vote to significant parts of the black community, most conservatives would insist that he's not a racist. Same constitution. Same reasons. All that changed was he took off the hood and started saying thugs instead of niggers. Racism is an old and enduring problem within American society. It hasn't gone away and the word hasn't been diluted by overuse. What has happened is that black people started being allowed to have input into what they believed to be racist and conservative America couldn't handle that and decided that it was just a slur now and didn't really mean anything.
I'm not at all sure how you got from "Sessions is racist" to "the word 'racist' has not been diluted."
|
If Sessions isn’t racist, no one is.
|
One can take it as a sign that our schools are certainly not doing a good enough job of teaching students that our country almost tore itself apart over the fact that a significant number of Americans considered black people property when folks like Danglars are routinely surprised by the fact that some think racism is still a hugely pressing issue. Even if one is as suspicious as warranted of the notion that America has, as KwarK put it, an enduring race problem, there are signs everywhere that at least put folks on notice as to the possibility, from surprise that folks want to take down Jim Crow-era statues that were erected to appease "lost cause" Democrats to the incredibly disproportionate and systematic jailing of minorities.
|
United States42539 Posts
On August 17 2017 06:10 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 06:02 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 05:53 Uldridge wrote:
@Kwark
I'm pretty sure that because of the tremendous dilution of the words racist and sexist and whatever else, it's become standard practice for most people that are called that to just dismiss them as slurs.
Obviously, not every one using the words uses it in the same context, but it's easy to get lost in context when these words are homeopatized like that. Have they been diluted though? At what point did we decide that racist was only to be applied to the folks wearing hoods, and not for the ones pressing for harsher sentences for "black" crimes? The guy who rewrote the Alabama constitution to enshrine white supremacy by denying "negroes" the vote (his stated intent), most people would probably agree that he was a racist. Sessions, who defends that constitution on the grounds of states rights while it denies the vote to significant parts of the black community, most conservatives would insist that he's not a racist. Same constitution. Same reasons. All that changed was he took off the hood and started saying thugs instead of niggers. Racism is an old and enduring problem within American society. It hasn't gone away and the word hasn't been diluted by overuse. What has happened is that black people started being allowed to have input into what they believed to be racist and conservative America couldn't handle that and decided that it was just a slur now and didn't really mean anything. I'm not at all sure how you got from "Sessions is racist" to "the word 'racist' has not been diluted."
Racist guy writes a racist constitution explicitly built to deny blacks the vote and enshrine white supremacy. He says "I am writing this to deny negroes the vote and enshrine white supremacy". We can all get behind condemnation of that (except Danglars who insists that it's a state's rights issue).
Sessions shows up and defends that constitution, knowing that it was written by a racist with the express purpose of using it to deny the black population of Alabama the vote and knowing that it still does that to this day. He insists it's a part of the state's history and culture and shouldn't be changed. So we have an old white southerner insisting that the racist constitution that was written by a racist and does racist things is part of Alabama's history of racism and culture of racism (which is all 110% true) shouldn't be changed. But if we call him a racist then apparently we're diluting the word by overusing it and just trying to dismiss his heartfelt love for preserving racist cultures.
To make it clear what I'm talking about, the author of the 1901 Alabama constitution said this But if we would have white supremacy, we must establish it by law. That's the document Sessions insists mustn't be changed.
|
The reason terms like sexist/racist have become diluted is because they're currently used to blanket defend any socially progressive policy, even when socially progressive people (i.e. not racist) who disagree with the policy on its merits are the ones attacking it.
The existence of racists doesn't change the above statement. Nor does the fact that racists may attack a socially progressive policy for the same reason a non-racist such as above would, even if the racist's motivations may come from a different place.
EDIT: I've never argued Sessions is or isn't racist, so I'm not sure why what you're posting applies to what I said. What I said is that your argument makes no sense from a logical perspective. Perhaps you were responding to something earlier, the second part was supposed to be independent, and I missed something though.
|
Also he is super behind the War on Drugs, which was created by Nixon to jail blacks and hippies. He has renewed called to crack down on marijuana sales and growers, which are often black. And statistically, more blacks are convicted for marijuana possession and serve jail time because of it.
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to.
And the reason we are citing Sessions is because he is the walking example of someone who is racist that never says anything that would cause to you point to him and say "what a racist". He is the shining example of the modern racist, placed in government to remove the checks that are in place to prevent racism.
|
On August 17 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:35 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:09 farvacola wrote:
Why would anyone who witnessed the Republican tact of "obstruct everything Obama does" opt to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a nuanced (lol) perspective on Trump? Y'all can't cry out that the well is poisoned while doing your best to avoid admitting that you may have poured some in not long ago. Now it really seems like your caterwauling about obstruction was envy that Republicans got to do it first. The Democrats haven’t stone walled anything beyond a health care bill they were not allowed to work on. Unless you counter the Supreme Court nominee, which everyone should have seen coming after 2016. Trumps appointments are now in line with Obamas for politics positions, but Schumer's invoked the 30hour rule for confirmations, obstructing to a pace that would have unconfirmed nominees four years later. Still up to their tricks. Do you think I am stupid? Do we really need to go over how much judges were held up by McConnell? Do we need to compare it to the last 40 years of history? He reaps what he sows. Get new leadership in the senate and maybe things might be nicer. But right now, the Turtle gets exactly what he asked for. Obamas had like 180 confirmed at this point, GWB 130, and Trump's got about the same appointed but only about 50 confirmed. Start accepting the results of an election you lost, and let Trump have a shot at having his political appointees run things. It's literally that simple.
citation needed on trump having nominated just as many people. (last I heard, trump had a lot fewer confirmations in part because he's nominated a lot fewer people; also because he nominates a lot a of people who've had trouble passing the standards to get in).
and of course there's also all the other nonsense; like trump nominating people grossly unfit for the positions, but you don't care about that, you want ot tear down the government and ruin the country. elections have consequences; you chose to have a dumpster fire in the white house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
