|
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 August 17 2017 07:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:21 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
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. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. 1) The specifics of "which race" aren't relevant to my argument. You may pick whichever race has the highest crime rates. No matter which race it happens to be, the point was that stereotypes from empirical distributions increasing utility/efficiency aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skill sets, and that fairness vs utility is hard to paint as a moral dichotomy (as a realistic human being with interests in maximizing utility). 2) Doesn't this only feed into my point about the term "racist" being diluted? I hope it's clear that I didn't make the statement with the intention to demean black people. I was only extending my argument that I made with Mahjong into a politically sensitive arena. The fact that the analysis may have been wrong due to incorrect facts (which I could debate, but there's no need) does not make an analysis "racist." It makes the analysis "faulty." To accuse something (or someone) of "racism" requires knowledge of their intent, and I think it was quite clear from my chain of posts that I wasn't intending to be racist against blacks.
If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones.
While true, it's orthogonal to my point. I don't know that perfect insight into intent is necessarily important. If they ought to reasonably have known that the outcome would have been discriminatory and they chose to pursue the action anyway we ought to be able to read the intent from the decision without getting into the whole "how can you prove that deep down in his heart he is a racist" bullshit. If someone keeps choosing to do racist things then I don't think it's unreasonable to draw a conclusion from that.
I agree that perfect knowledge isn't needed, but I think "racism" is a pretty bold charge and requires a reasonable degree of certainty. Whether that's met for Sessions of xDaunt is a discussion I'm not getting into because it's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Like I said in my posts, a lot of alleged racists are probably racist.
I don't think it's contentious at all that GH's characterization of the analysis as "racist" was misapplied based on his knowledge though, and the fact that it came up in a discussion about the overuse of the term "racist" only goes to show how instinctive it is for some people to use the phrase "racist" whenever e.g. blacks are involved, despite there clearly being a lack of actual racism involved. Hence, how the term "racist" has become so diluted.
Moreover, Sessions/xDaunt status of racist/non-racist still don't demonstrate any counterargument to my point that the progressive assertion that "stereotype = bad/immoral" is closer to a religious position than one based in logic.
|
On August 17 2017 07:51 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian. His listing of races has native american as last of four.
If I may lightly rant: the entire idea of people pointing out their heritages anything less than half is so fucking stupid. Good lord, as if being 1/8 polish or whatever has any impact on anything. People talking about "dur, uh, I am 1/8 german, 1/4 English, part native american and uh, and uh" I just roll my eyes.
|
On August 17 2017 07:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:51 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian. English, Irish Mexican, and Native American, per his blog. Think the English and Irish are pretty dominant. Hrm, he always talks about the Native American part. Regardless, it's neither here nor there as to why his version of the alt right isn't about white supremacism.
Gee I fucking wonder why? I've never see someone from the right lean into their minority heritage to explain why all other minorities are doing it wrong.
And his version of the alt right just happens to use the exact terms used by white supremacist. But it's totally different.
|
On August 17 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:51 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian. His listing of races has native american as last of four. If I may lightly rant: the entire idea of people pointing out their heritages anything less than half is so fucking stupid. Good lord, as if being 1/8 polish or whatever has any impact on anything. People talking about "dur, uh, I am 1/8 german, 1/4 English, part native american and uh, and uh" I just roll my eyes.
My father is a naturalized US citizen born in Colombia and raised in Mexico City, yet I always check white/caucasion because there's no escaping the fact that I'm a large white guy lol
|
On August 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Except you're not leading him anywhere. You're asking him to find the conclusion you drew from the list. And what does Vox Day not being white have to do with it? If he's listing those as the tenets of the alt-right and he believes in him and isn't white... he still believes in them. Watch and learn. Look at what I asked farv.
Alright, I tried to engage you. I tried to discuss and argue points. But you refuse to do so. You're deflecting, you're being obtuse and now being condescending. How does the tenet about securing a future for white children not align with white supremacists? Multiple ethnostates? Because a few of the alt-right aren't white? Those multiple ethnostates would require people to leave to go to where Vox and others say "they belong". Does that mean that any African-Americans or Mexican-Americans can't live in America even if they've lived here their whole lives and speak better English than most neo-nazis? Who gets to decide where people "belong" and why do they have that power?
You keep getting called out to further explain these points, especially when provided with counter-arguments, but instead are just kind of flailing around and calling out SJW's or Antifa or getting upset at supposedly being called racist for posting things that do appear to be racist. I and some of the other posters are giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking for explanations. Why isn't it racist? Why do you believe it? What makes it the "right" choice for you? What's your evidence to back it up? Instead you've fallen into blaming the left and whining about being bullied for your opinions.
|
On August 17 2017 07:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:21 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
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. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. 1) The specifics of "which race" aren't relevant to my argument. You may pick whichever race has the highest crime rates. No matter which race it happens to be, the point was that stereotypes from empirical distributions increasing utility/efficiency aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skill sets, and that fairness vs utility is hard to paint as a moral dichotomy (as a realistic human being with interests in maximizing utility). 2) Doesn't this only feed into my point about the term "racist" being diluted? I hope it's clear that I didn't make the statement with the intention to demean black people. I was only extending my argument that I made with Mahjong into a politically sensitive arena. The fact that the analysis may have been wrong due to incorrect facts (which I could debate, but there's no need) does not make an analysis "racist." It makes the analysis "faulty." To accuse something (or someone) of "racism" requires knowledge of their intent, and I think it was quite clear from my chain of posts that I wasn't intending to be racist against blacks.
If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones.
While true, it's orthogonal to my point. I don't know that perfect insight into intent is necessarily important. If they ought to reasonably have known that the outcome would have been discriminatory and they chose to pursue the action anyway we ought to be able to read the intent from the decision without getting into the whole "how can you prove that deep down in his heart he is a racist" bullshit. If someone keeps choosing to do racist things then I don't think it's unreasonable to draw a conclusion from that. Take our good friend xDaunt. He will argue forever about how a white police officer who shoots an unarmed black guy on camera for no fucking reason deserves his day in court, and he'll do so rightly, everyone deserves their constitutional right to justice. And then he'll tell you he argues so very hard about this because he believes so passionately in the rights of free people and it deeply pains him to see the media pushing a narrative upon the public before the justice system has gotten to the bottom of it. And he'll insist that it has nothing to do with him empathizing with the white guy and that he'd do the same for anyone because he just really, really cares about the integrity of the system. But if you were to mention to our good friend xDaunt that Spanish speaking American citizens who are born in America are getting deported and are not being provided English speaking legal representation at their immigration hearings, which are being held in English, he'll blame the victims. Which is odd given his deep and abiding love for giving every American citizen their constitutional rights. But he'll more easily picture himself in the shoes of a white cop murdering a black citizen than as a Spanish speaking son of an immigrant and he'll pick his battles accordingly. But he knows in his heart he's not a racist and that's all that counts to him. The fact that he decides which issues he cares about on strict racial lines is less important than his beliefs about himself. Feels over reals. If you let intent into the issue then you'll get bogged down into feels, nobody intends to be a racist. Even the Nazis insist they're just race realists.
do you have a citation on the 3rd paragraph claim on xdaunt? I don't remember that one.
|
On August 17 2017 07:56 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 07:21 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
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. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. 1) The specifics of "which race" aren't relevant to my argument. You may pick whichever race has the highest crime rates. No matter which race it happens to be, the point was that stereotypes from empirical distributions increasing utility/efficiency aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skill sets, and that fairness vs utility is hard to paint as a moral dichotomy (as a realistic human being with interests in maximizing utility). 2) Doesn't this only feed into my point about the term "racist" being diluted? I hope it's clear that I didn't make the statement with the intention to demean black people. I was only extending my argument that I made with Mahjong into a politically sensitive arena. The fact that the analysis may have been wrong due to incorrect facts (which I could debate, but there's no need) does not make an analysis "racist." It makes the analysis "faulty." To accuse something (or someone) of "racism" requires knowledge of their intent, and I think it was quite clear from my chain of posts that I wasn't intending to be racist against blacks.
If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones.
While true, it's orthogonal to my point. I don't know that perfect insight into intent is necessarily important. If they ought to reasonably have known that the outcome would have been discriminatory and they chose to pursue the action anyway we ought to be able to read the intent from the decision without getting into the whole "how can you prove that deep down in his heart he is a racist" bullshit. If someone keeps choosing to do racist things then I don't think it's unreasonable to draw a conclusion from that. I agree that perfect knowledge isn't needed, but I think "racism" is a pretty bold charge and requires a reasonable degree of certainty. Whether that's met for Sessions of xDaunt is a discussion I'm not getting into because it's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Like I said in my posts, a lot of alleged racists are probably racist. I don't think it's contentious at all that GH's characterization of the analysis as "racist" was misapplied based on his knowledge though, and the fact that it came up in a discussion about the overuse of the term "racist" only goes to show how instinctive it is for some people to use the phrase "racist" whenever e.g. blacks are involved, despite there clearly being a lack of actual racism involved. Hence, how the term "racist" has become so diluted. Moreover, Sessions/xDaunt status of racist/non-racist still don't demonstrate any counterargument to my point that the progressive assertion that "stereotype = bad/immoral" is closer to a religious position than one based in logic.
the rules of society are reliant on far more than logic alone for the same reason that England developed courts that sat in equity rather than at law. The real work of keeping a society in order happens where gaps are filled in and when rules must be reinterpreted in light of unforeseen circumstances.
|
On August 17 2017 08:00 Odawg27 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:43 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Except you're not leading him anywhere. You're asking him to find the conclusion you drew from the list. And what does Vox Day not being white have to do with it? If he's listing those as the tenets of the alt-right and he believes in him and isn't white... he still believes in them. Watch and learn. Look at what I asked farv. Alright, I tried to engage you. I tried to discuss and argue points. But you refuse to do so. You're deflecting, you're being obtuse and now being condescending. How does the tenet about securing a future for white children not align with white supremacists? Multiple ethnostates? Because a few of the alt-right aren't white? Those multiple ethnostates would require people to leave to go to where Vox and others say "they belong". Does that mean that any African-Americans or Mexican-Americans can't live in America even if they've lived here their whole lives and speak better English than most neo-nazis? Who gets to decide where people "belong" and why do they have that power? You keep getting called out to further explain these points, especially when provided with counter-arguments, but instead are just kind of flailing around and calling out SJW's or Antifa or getting upset at supposedly being called racist for posting things that do appear to be racist. I and some of the other posters are giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking for explanations. Why isn't it racist? Why do you believe it? What makes it the "right" choice for you? What's your evidence to back it up? Instead you've fallen into blaming the left and whining about being bullied for your opinions.
Overall, it is a very fair critique that xDaunt does everything he can to be as "safe" as possible and to provide as little nuance regarding his views as possible. He spends his time trying to find holes in people's logic and then never opens himself up to the same vulnerabilities. He doesn't participate in the same way everyone else does. We FULLY flesh out our ideas and expose ourselves to the types of critique that he refuses to. It is an extremely unpleasant way to have discussions. Its not even remotely productive. If it wasn't for people responding to his criticisms, there would be nothing to discuss with him because he doesn't actually say anything FULL or substantial. Little things here and there, but not nearly to the extent that others do. He posts an article here or there, then lets people interpret it in a way he disagrees with, then addresses the critique. In the end, he never actually provided any ideas along the way.
|
On August 17 2017 07:21 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
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. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. 1) The specifics of "which race" aren't relevant to my argument. You may pick whichever race has the highest crime rates. No matter which race it happens to be, the point was that stereotypes from empirical distributions increasing utility/efficiency aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skill sets, and that fairness vs utility is hard to paint as a moral dichotomy (as a realistic human being with interests in maximizing utility), so life isn't as simple as "stereotypes = bad/immoral." 2) Doesn't this only feed into my point about the term "racist" being diluted? I hope it's clear that I didn't make the statement with the intention to demean black people. I was only extending my argument that I made with Mahjong into a politically sensitive arena. The fact that the analysis may have been wrong due to incorrect facts (which I could debate, but there's no need) does not make an analysis "racist." It makes the analysis "faulty." To accuse something (or someone) of "racism" requires knowledge of its intent, and I think it was quite clear from my chain of posts that I wasn't intending to be racist against blacks. Show nested quote +
If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones.
While true, it's orthogonal to my point.
I see your point, but I think you're missing mine. The reason you used the example that you did is because of conditioning of white supremacy. That's what makes it a racist analysis. Doesn't mean you're a member of the KKK, it means that your presumptions are racist and those are borne of a long history of white supremacist culture.
If you were familiar with and had an understanding of white supremacist culture you wouldn't have used that example.
As to your point of dilution. No. But I'm open to developing a lexicon that doesn't trigger those who feel it dilutes the term racist. It's such an inane thing to argue I'd rather it never be mentioned again as it's about catering to people who don't have the human decency and intellectual integrity to recognize fellow human beings as equally endowed by their creator to a right of life liberty and pursuit of happiness and the protections of their constitutional rights.
We're supposed to act as if it's an honest disagreement between decent people of different minds, when it's actually people who refuse to believe the bank of justice is bankrupt and people who deem their fellow man unworthy of the promises America keeps to them, because of phenotypical genetic traits and the socioeconomic fallout of our country's systematic destruction of their history, culture, families, intellectual development, bodies, and rights.
One could argue that the South should have seen reason and found Jesus and freed slaves on their own, but the truth of the matter was, where there was money to be made it took the unfriendly side of a lot of guns to get them to act right.
You may argue that had Lincoln just used the right words that the Civil War could have been avoided, but I would suggest that naive and obtuse.
|
United States41989 Posts
Did nobody else notice that Vox Day's quote was basically just the 14 from 1488? It's a little more Nazi that chanting Sieg Heil.
|
My gut reaction anymore is that if someone is out waving a nazi flag or praising the KKK, I know they're a racist. If they identify as a Trump supporter currently I merely think they're a racist.
There's some confusion about two kinds of racism here :
1. Overt, I hate people who aren't white and am proud of the fact and openly state it.
2. Subconscious bias.
Type 2 leads to people thinking certain policies are OK when they've been proven to have negative racial impacts. This is where I would group Mitt Romney - few people really thought he was an out and out racist, but they thought that he would enable racist policies unintentionally. In this case, calling out what was racist was more of an attempt to educate the politician and their supporters as to the effects of certain actions they may take. The GOP as a whole has had issues with this, but I don't view anyone who is in this group as being unworthy of engaging in with a dialogue and overall don't even think they're bad people.
Type 1 racism is flat out undefendable, and I no longer take anyone in this thread who is defending nazis, the alt-right, or the KKK as a person willing to engage in good-faith arguments or even good-faith discussion. This is like if the day after London's terror attacks or Orlando I was in the thread going "Well, Al Qaeda and ISIS have a very strong argument and are morally in the right, plus they practice the right religion anyways, and those gays at the nightclub didn't have to be so overt about pushing their lifestyle into other people's face, they had it coming, they were charging at him after he was shooting up the place". It's not morally defensible, and there's zero reason to listen to the arguments even hypothetically defending it.
|
United States41989 Posts
Does it really count as subconscious bias if someone makes them aware of their subconscious bias and they refuse to consider it? The conscious decision to accept a subconscious racial bias is pretty indicative of how big an issue they perceive that bias to be.
|
On August 17 2017 08:08 KwarK wrote:
Did nobody else notice that Vox Day's quote was basically just the 14 from 1488? It's a little more Nazi that chanting Sieg Heil.
I did, but when I posted about it I just quoted the 14 words without mentioning that they were known as such.
So going back to XDaunt's critique, unless Vox Day is advocating for whites to leave the US so that Native Americans can have their land back when he says that the Alt Right is opposed to the domination of native ethnic groups by another in the sovereign homelands of the dominated people - as opposed to the US being sovereign homelands of whites as the alt right seems to believe - he's using white supremacist language with a white supremacist meaning.
|
On August 17 2017 07:56 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 07:21 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
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. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. 1) The specifics of "which race" aren't relevant to my argument. You may pick whichever race has the highest crime rates. No matter which race it happens to be, the point was that stereotypes from empirical distributions increasing utility/efficiency aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skill sets, and that fairness vs utility is hard to paint as a moral dichotomy (as a realistic human being with interests in maximizing utility). 2) Doesn't this only feed into my point about the term "racist" being diluted? I hope it's clear that I didn't make the statement with the intention to demean black people. I was only extending my argument that I made with Mahjong into a politically sensitive arena. The fact that the analysis may have been wrong due to incorrect facts (which I could debate, but there's no need) does not make an analysis "racist." It makes the analysis "faulty." To accuse something (or someone) of "racism" requires knowledge of their intent, and I think it was quite clear from my chain of posts that I wasn't intending to be racist against blacks.
If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones.
While true, it's orthogonal to my point. I don't know that perfect insight into intent is necessarily important. If they ought to reasonably have known that the outcome would have been discriminatory and they chose to pursue the action anyway we ought to be able to read the intent from the decision without getting into the whole "how can you prove that deep down in his heart he is a racist" bullshit. If someone keeps choosing to do racist things then I don't think it's unreasonable to draw a conclusion from that. I agree that perfect knowledge isn't needed, but I think "racism" is a pretty bold charge and requires a reasonable degree of certainty. Whether that's met for Sessions of xDaunt is a discussion I'm not getting into because it's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Like I said in my posts, a lot of alleged racists are probably racist. I don't think it's contentious at all that GH's characterization of the analysis as "racist" was misapplied based on his knowledge though, and the fact that it came up in a discussion about the overuse of the term "racist" only goes to show how instinctive it is for some people to use the phrase "racist" whenever e.g. blacks are involved, despite there clearly being a lack of actual racism involved. Hence, how the term "racist" has become so diluted. Moreover, Sessions/xDaunt status of racist/non-racist still don't demonstrate any counterargument to my point that the progressive assertion that "stereotype = bad/immoral" is closer to a religious position than one based in logic.
so how do you determine the correct frame for your statistical stereotype calculations? if on a train, at a certain geophysical location, at a certain time, with certain people, what are the "correct" details to factor into your "rational" fears? average global crime rate? average US crime rate? average black crime rate? black crime rate in chicago? crime rate on trains? crimes by blacks on trains? crimes by blacks on trains within this neighborhood? crimes by blacks of this age within this neighborhood at this time of day?
the "racism" comes in precisely in determining this mental frame that is pre-conscious and inherently unjustifiable. this is the ideological ether that you live in but are apparently completely blind towards
btw im kind of annoyed youve started up this google memo nonsense again after going silent and ignoring my questions in the last go-around
|
On August 17 2017 08:14 KwarK wrote:
Does it really count as subconscious bias if someone makes them aware of their subconscious bias and they refuse to consider it? The conscious decision to accept a subconscious racial bias is pretty indicative of how big an issue they perceive that bias to be.
It's worth talking to them at least. They also have entire communities built around encouraging that bias and telling them that it isn't bias at all, so it's understandable as to why it can be difficult for them to accept that it's there or to change their view. For every sentence they encounter explaining why a specific policy is racist they've got a couple hundred from Limbaugh, Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Church Leaders, etc. countering it. Even if their arguments are a lot weaker, repetition works.
Once you're at the "nazis aren't so bad" or "the people against the nazis are the real facists" level then there's no worthwhile conversation to be had.
|
On August 17 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:51 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian. His listing of races has native american as last of four. If I may lightly rant: the entire idea of people pointing out their heritages anything less than half is so fucking stupid. Good lord, as if being 1/8 polish or whatever has any impact on anything. People talking about "dur, uh, I am 1/8 german, 1/4 English, part native american and uh, and uh" I just roll my eyes.
I knew a 3/4 white 1/4 black girl that got upset because anti-black shit was said around her. Having a black grandparent and what that meant was something she didn't take lightly because she could pass as being white.
|
On August 17 2017 07:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:46 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 07:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:37 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. He's probably doing that because he mentioned "multiple ethnostates" earlier as though that somehow mitigates the racism inherent to "a thing mingled is a thing weakened." So why does he advocate for multiple ethnostates? For the same reason Richard Lynn advocates on behalf of contemporary eugenics. What is the reason? I suspect it is not the same. call it "the determinacy of genetic rights"
No, that's not it, either. I only have my cellphone right now and will explain it later.
Edit: Unless Igne wants to take a shot. You're my last hope, dude.
|
On August 17 2017 08:34 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 17 2017 07:51 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian. His listing of races has native american as last of four. If I may lightly rant: the entire idea of people pointing out their heritages anything less than half is so fucking stupid. Good lord, as if being 1/8 polish or whatever has any impact on anything. People talking about "dur, uh, I am 1/8 german, 1/4 English, part native american and uh, and uh" I just roll my eyes. I knew a 3/4 white 1/4 black girl that got upset because anti-black shit was said around her. Having a black grandparent and what that meant was something she didn't take lightly because she could pass as being white.
I think that's understandable, though. One of her parents being half black means they are, in everyone's else's eyes, 100% black and they will experience all the negative effects of being black. They were probably defensive because of what their parents went through, not necessarily herself.
|
On August 17 2017 08:25 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 08:14 KwarK wrote:
Does it really count as subconscious bias if someone makes them aware of their subconscious bias and they refuse to consider it? The conscious decision to accept a subconscious racial bias is pretty indicative of how big an issue they perceive that bias to be. It's worth talking to them at least. They also have entire communities built around encouraging that bias and telling them that it isn't bias at all, so it's understandable as to why it can be difficult for them to accept that it's there or to change their view. For every sentence they encounter explaining why a specific policy is racist they've got a couple hundred from Limbaugh, Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Church Leaders, etc. countering it. Even if their arguments are a lot weaker, repetition works. Once you're at the "nazis aren't so bad" or "the people against the nazis are the real facists" level then there's no worthwhile conversation to be had.
The sad part is that far too many are on that level already. The US will probably still be a deeply divided country for many hundred years. If Trump actually destroys the US, and blames the left, he will still have a core of 20-30% supporting him, like Maron (a left despot, they do exist) still has in Venezuela. There is probably nothing that could be said or done to change their minds. The battle is over the rest, which is plenty enough to throw Trump, and punish the Republican party for their horrible change of direction, or get it on track again.
|
Fox, CNN, and MSNBC all said they haven't been able to get a single GOP senator or member of the house to come and defend Trump's statements on air. Specifically, Shepard Smith, Chuck Todd, and Wolf Blitzer
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
