|
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 19 2017 07:24 Uldridge wrote:
FUCK YOU DPB, YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!1
Also, I'd like to (re)address that these sorts of topics that do sort of deal with society, but on a more hypothetical level and also at times have more to do with ethics, philosophy and psychology that these matters could be discussed in a separate thread.
For now these issues are related to the American continent, but I think these are all pretty universal concepts.
Would it be worth it to discuss these topics in a different thread or no?
LGBT issues undoubtedly exist throughout the world, but I think it's also a topic that's relevant for the US Politics Mega-thread, considering recent military ban attempts and gay marriage and equity are contemporary issues in the United States.
|
On August 19 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:
Poor Bannon. That whole statement just wreaks of "I'm still totally fucking buff and didn't lose!"
I really don't buy this bullshit about how Bannon can do more outside the admin than within.
As a member of the administration anything he does will be connected to Trump. That limits in how open he can operate.
'Independently' he has a lot more freedom to to more extremes (like defend Trumps Nazi statements if he was so inclined)
Ofcourse there is a big chance that without him inside the establishment side of the administration will gain power and the war inside the WH will somewhat die down.
Trump will most likely be in frequent communication with Bannon still unless there was some true fall from grace, but without the ability to constantly whisper in his hear his ability to influence Trumps mood swings will drop off sharply.
|
On August 19 2017 07:26 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2017 06:24 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:
All right, I’ve seen the attack chopper meme enough to give people this heads up:
That joke and meme has a really weird history involving 4chan and some super transphobic stuff. So your mileage may vary on that joke when dealing with someone who is trans or is aware of the meme’s history. I’ve meet people who don’t care and folks who do not find it at all funny.
I don’t personally care, but I gave someone the impression I was a transphobic 4chan goon a couple years back and they thought I was an asshole for quite some time. So fair warning. Replace attack chopper with any inanimate/fantasy object/animal. I didn't mean attack chopper literally, nobody here did i think - it's used as a single phrase to describe an issue while having transgender people explicitly detached from that. So no, that was neither a joke, nor do i care if someone's offended by me using it after i explicitly and distinctively made the cut between "idiots" and "transpeople". I don't understand what the big deal is with calling someone a pronoun that they prefer. A few months ago I hung out with a friend of a friend who, in the most basic terms, looked like a cross-dressing man (she was in a dress and heels) and she introduced herself with a girl's name. I didn't assume anything and when gender identity came up in context, I very sincerely told her that I was inexperienced navigating the conversation and asked her how she identified. She was happy to have the conversation and thankful that I had asked, and she said she identified as a woman and preferred to be referenced as she/ her. I don't presume to know everything that goes on in a person's head, and I'm sure that my experiences and identity are not identical to everyone else's. If it's something that's that important to someone else and has no negative consequences other than getting used to a pronoun that might seem counterintuitive to me because of my lack of experience, then I really don't mind trying to be respectful of others' identity preferences. Those who complain about non-cisgendered people and the annoyances that come with respecting gender identity seem to use arguments very similar to anti- gay marriage arguments. Ew it's icky or different or against my religion. How could I tell my kids about this? What about random slippery slopes of marrying dogs and chairs and identifying as a dog or chair? Who the hell cares, it doesn't affect you, and either leave the situation alone or try to get to know someone before saying they're full of shit or a bad person. Why is it so hard to act humanely and compassionate and respectful these days? Before you butt into a discussion, read it first. Your entire post is worthless redundant, considering that this was already established by all parties in the discussion. ? I did read the discussion, and I was agreeing with the situation... I didn't say you or anyone else was wrong or saying anything inappropriately. My point, as I wrote, was that yeah, it really isn't that hard to respect someone's gender identity in the grand scheme of things. Your conversation reminded me of that anecdote that I wished to share. Just because someone wants to reply to you doesn't mean they're trying to refute something you said  If it contains questions like "Why is it so hard to act humanely and compassionate and respectful these days?" or starts with "i don't understand what the big deal is with calling someone the pronoun they prefer", then i disagree. You quoted a posting of mine that had nothing to do with what you said (again, already established long ago that i certainly would call a trans his preferred pronoun). So of course, i'd assumed you think i wouldn't. My bad then. Honest question, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by completely and deliberately misrepresenting statements that are unanimously agreed upon by all parties? You get a kick out of it or something?
My last sentence, asking "Why is it so hard to act humanely and compassionate and respectful these days?", was meant to be rhetorical, cuz... ya know... Nazis and Confederate flags and people being anti-LGBT and stuff? I didn't mean to imply that you don't know how to be compassionate (or else I would have asked "Why is it so hard for you to..."), and I'm sorry if you received it that way.
Also, you know that that second quote is from Uldridge, not me, right?
|
On August 19 2017 07:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 07:26 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 07:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2017 07:10 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 19 2017 06:24 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:
All right, I’ve seen the attack chopper meme enough to give people this heads up:
That joke and meme has a really weird history involving 4chan and some super transphobic stuff. So your mileage may vary on that joke when dealing with someone who is trans or is aware of the meme’s history. I’ve meet people who don’t care and folks who do not find it at all funny.
I don’t personally care, but I gave someone the impression I was a transphobic 4chan goon a couple years back and they thought I was an asshole for quite some time. So fair warning. Replace attack chopper with any inanimate/fantasy object/animal. I didn't mean attack chopper literally, nobody here did i think - it's used as a single phrase to describe an issue while having transgender people explicitly detached from that. So no, that was neither a joke, nor do i care if someone's offended by me using it after i explicitly and distinctively made the cut between "idiots" and "transpeople". I don't understand what the big deal is with calling someone a pronoun that they prefer. A few months ago I hung out with a friend of a friend who, in the most basic terms, looked like a cross-dressing man (she was in a dress and heels) and she introduced herself with a girl's name. I didn't assume anything and when gender identity came up in context, I very sincerely told her that I was inexperienced navigating the conversation and asked her how she identified. She was happy to have the conversation and thankful that I had asked, and she said she identified as a woman and preferred to be referenced as she/ her. I don't presume to know everything that goes on in a person's head, and I'm sure that my experiences and identity are not identical to everyone else's. If it's something that's that important to someone else and has no negative consequences other than getting used to a pronoun that might seem counterintuitive to me because of my lack of experience, then I really don't mind trying to be respectful of others' identity preferences. Those who complain about non-cisgendered people and the annoyances that come with respecting gender identity seem to use arguments very similar to anti- gay marriage arguments. Ew it's icky or different or against my religion. How could I tell my kids about this? What about random slippery slopes of marrying dogs and chairs and identifying as a dog or chair? Who the hell cares, it doesn't affect you, and either leave the situation alone or try to get to know someone before saying they're full of shit or a bad person. Why is it so hard to act humanely and compassionate and respectful these days? Before you butt into a discussion, read it first. Your entire post is worthless redundant, considering that this was already established by all parties in the discussion. ? I did read the discussion, and I was agreeing with the situation... I didn't say you or anyone else was wrong or saying anything inappropriately. My point, as I wrote, was that yeah, it really isn't that hard to respect someone's gender identity in the grand scheme of things. Your conversation reminded me of that anecdote that I wished to share. Just because someone wants to reply to you doesn't mean they're trying to refute something you said If it contains questions like "Why is it so hard to act humanely and compassionate and respectful these days?" or starts with "i don't understand what the big deal is with calling someone the pronoun they prefer", then i disagree. You quoted a posting of mine that had nothing to do with what you said (again, already established long ago that i certainly would call a trans his preferred pronoun). So of course, i'd assumed you think i wouldn't. My bad then. FUCK YOU DPB, YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!1
Honest question, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by completely and deliberately misrepresenting statements that are unanimously agreed upon by all parties? You get a kick out of it or something? My last sentence, asking "Why is it so hard to act humanely and compassionate and respectful these days?" was meant to be rhetorical, cuz... ya know... Nazis and Confederate flags and people being anti-LGBT and stuff? I didn't mean to imply that you don't know how to be compassionate, and I'm sorry if you received it that way. Also, you know that that last quote is from Uldridge, not me, right?
Yeah i know, asking him. 
I "know" you, we get along, no worries.
|
On August 19 2017 07:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
LGBT issues undoubtedly exist throughout the world, but I think it's also a topic that's relevant for the US Politics Mega-thread, considering recent military ban attempts and gay marriage and equity are contemporary issues in the United States.
Obviously, but couldn't that be where the US politics thread seeps into the other thread instead of having page after page after page of endless discussions about the same issues with some actual news snippets injected here and there..
Also @m4ini: relax, it was a joke lol
|
|
|
So how many people did what i did and read the first letters first to see if there's a hidden message?
edit: qq, no grid hotkeys in scrm?
|
It's okay Trump planned to remove one guy from the Evangelical Advisory Board anyway
|
Love that we are 8 months in and everyone is like "nope, this is just as fucked as I thought it would be". We are doomed.
|
On August 19 2017 07:50 Plansix wrote:
Love that we are 8 months in and everyone is like "nope, this is just as fucked as I thought it would be". We are doomed.
I actually consider it worse. I saw this coming, but i thought WH adversaries etc would've had enough influence to reign him in a bit.
|
On August 19 2017 07:50 Plansix wrote:
Love that we are 8 months in and everyone is like "nope, this is just as fucked as I thought it would be". We are doomed.
I was hoping people were exaggerating when they said Nazis would rise up and fuck shit up when Trump won. It took 7 months.
|
Bannon: 'The Trump Presidency That We Fought For, and Won, Is Over.'
With the departure from the White House of strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who helped shape the so-called nationalist-populist program embraced by Donald Trump in his unlikely path to election, a new phase of the Trump presidency begins. Given Trump’s nature, what comes next will hardly be conventional, but it may well be less willfully disruptive—which, to Bannon, had been the point of winning the White House.
“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” Bannon said Friday, shortly after confirming his departure. “We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”
Bannon says that he will return to the helm of Breitbart, the rambunctious right-wing media enterprise he ran until joining the Trump campaign as chief executive last August. At the time, the campaign was at its nadir, and Trump was trailing Hillary Clinton in the polls by double digits.
Although his influence with the president waxed and waned, Bannon’s standing in the Trump circle was always precarious. Among the senior advisers competing with Bannon in trying to shape Trump’s agenda, and his tone, were the president’s daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law, Jared. Bannon pointedly voiced criticism of those in the president’s sphere whom he considered to be globalists, or liberals (or both), and the president himself plainly bristled over the early attention that Bannon got from the press (including a Time magazine cover, which is said to have particularly irked Trump).
Bannon says that his departure was voluntary, and that he’d planned it to coincide with the one-year anniversary of his joining the Trump campaign as chief executive, on August 14, 2016.
“On August 7th , I talked to [Chief of Staff John] Kelly and to the President, and I told them that my resignation would be effective the following Monday, on the 14th,” he said. “I’d always planned on spending one year. General Kelly has brought in a great new system, but I said it would be best. I want to get back to Breitbart.”
the rest is here
|
On August 19 2017 07:17 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I really don't buy this bullshit about how Bannon can do more outside the admin than within.
Actually, that might be correct. As part of the WH, he had to be to some degree careful what he said and the "level of reality" had to match at least somewhat current events. Now he can go full conspiracy shit again, which would have gotten him fired beforehand.
Simply by not being in meetings, providing input and generally losing the president's ear throughout the day, he is going to lose an insane amount of influence. There is a *reason* Kelly etc pushed bannon out.
|
On August 19 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 01:09 Artisreal wrote:On August 19 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 19 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You are badly missing the point. I don't give a fuck who they are. But you seem to care that antifa counter-protested nazis. I'm just trying to understand your point of views. No, you really aren't. Give this a try. Stop using the terms BLM, Nazis, or Antifa, and use the generic term "Party A." What should the police do if "Party A" demonstrates peaceably? What should the police do if "Party A" tries to start a fight with "Party B?" What should the police do if Party A sets fires to buildings, cars, and loots stores? I swear, half of the Left has forgotten why there's a blindfold on Lady Justice. Except you can't use generic terms. Because these are Nazis. So "demonstrating peacefully" means "we are very nicely promoting the ideas of white supremacy and ethnic cleansing that our idol espoused". Looks like you need a refresher course in what free speech actually means. Yes, free speech means that Nazis get to promote white supremacism. It may also mean that they get to advocate ethnic cleansing (like I said, I don't know where the boundary on content is). If that truly constitutes free speech. My lord... It does in the US. We have a very hands off view on speech. Ethnic cleansing is not considered a direct threat. What about a crowd of skinheads yelling"fuck you, nigger" to black passers by? Clearly not a threat, because they aren't advocating anything, definitely not violence. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech. What constitutes a "reasonable threat" certainly takes race into consideration. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E6jCrb7.jpg)
you muggin me you know im muggin back
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 19 2017 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 07:17 m4ini wrote:I really don't buy this bullshit about how Bannon can do more outside the admin than within.
Actually, that might be correct. As part of the WH, he had to be to some degree careful what he said and the "level of reality" had to match at least somewhat current events. Now he can go full conspiracy shit again, which would have gotten him fired beforehand. Simply by not being in meetings, providing input and generally losing the president's ear throughout the day, he is going to lose an insane amount of influence. There is a *reason* Kelly etc pushed bannon out.
On the president.
Certainly not on Trumps base et cetera. Especially in regards to the GOP he can now "take the gloves off" and openly talk shit/dig skeletons (or make them up).
He might've lost influence on the president, but it's completely inarguable that Bannon can do more (including damage) from the outside than from the inside where he's already basically under surveillance of Kelly etc.
|
On August 19 2017 08:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 01:09 Artisreal wrote:On August 19 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 00:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
But you seem to care that antifa counter-protested nazis. I'm just trying to understand your point of views. No, you really aren't. Give this a try. Stop using the terms BLM, Nazis, or Antifa, and use the generic term "Party A." What should the police do if "Party A" demonstrates peaceably? What should the police do if "Party A" tries to start a fight with "Party B?" What should the police do if Party A sets fires to buildings, cars, and loots stores? I swear, half of the Left has forgotten why there's a blindfold on Lady Justice. Except you can't use generic terms. Because these are Nazis. So "demonstrating peacefully" means "we are very nicely promoting the ideas of white supremacy and ethnic cleansing that our idol espoused". Looks like you need a refresher course in what free speech actually means. Yes, free speech means that Nazis get to promote white supremacism. It may also mean that they get to advocate ethnic cleansing (like I said, I don't know where the boundary on content is). If that truly constitutes free speech. My lord... It does in the US. We have a very hands off view on speech. Ethnic cleansing is not considered a direct threat. What about a crowd of skinheads yelling"fuck you, nigger" to black passers by? Clearly not a threat, because they aren't advocating anything, definitely not violence. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech. What constitutes a "reasonable threat" certainly takes race into consideration. you muggin me you know im muggin back + Show Spoiler +
I love that most european people will look at that holster and go "hm, that's so weird to see a normal person run around like that" - completely missing the long barrel assault rifle hanging off the other shoulder.
edit: please do note the extended mag in the sidearm.
|
i watched an episode of married with children that was made in 1990. they were talking about trans bathrooms on the show. this has literally been a meme for close to 30 years.
|
On August 19 2017 08:37 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 08:32 IgnE wrote:On August 19 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 01:09 Artisreal wrote:On August 19 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 00:50 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No, you really aren't. Give this a try. Stop using the terms BLM, Nazis, or Antifa, and use the generic term "Party A." What should the police do if "Party A" demonstrates peaceably? What should the police do if "Party A" tries to start a fight with "Party B?" What should the police do if Party A sets fires to buildings, cars, and loots stores?
I swear, half of the Left has forgotten why there's a blindfold on Lady Justice. Except you can't use generic terms. Because these are Nazis. So "demonstrating peacefully" means "we are very nicely promoting the ideas of white supremacy and ethnic cleansing that our idol espoused". Looks like you need a refresher course in what free speech actually means. Yes, free speech means that Nazis get to promote white supremacism. It may also mean that they get to advocate ethnic cleansing (like I said, I don't know where the boundary on content is). If that truly constitutes free speech. My lord... It does in the US. We have a very hands off view on speech. Ethnic cleansing is not considered a direct threat. What about a crowd of skinheads yelling"fuck you, nigger" to black passers by? Clearly not a threat, because they aren't advocating anything, definitely not violence. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech. What constitutes a "reasonable threat" certainly takes race into consideration. you muggin me you know im muggin back + Show Spoiler + I love that most european people will look at that holster and go "hm, that's so weird to see a normal person run around like that" - completely missing the long barrel assault rifle hanging off the other shoulder.
You were in my head right there. Never noticed it until you said it and I saw this pic 4 times in the thread
|
On August 19 2017 08:36 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2017 07:17 m4ini wrote:I really don't buy this bullshit about how Bannon can do more outside the admin than within.
Actually, that might be correct. As part of the WH, he had to be to some degree careful what he said and the "level of reality" had to match at least somewhat current events. Now he can go full conspiracy shit again, which would have gotten him fired beforehand. Simply by not being in meetings, providing input and generally losing the president's ear throughout the day, he is going to lose an insane amount of influence. There is a *reason* Kelly etc pushed bannon out. On the president. Certainly not on Trumps base et cetera. Especially in regards to the GOP he can now "take the gloves off" and openly talk shit/dig skeletons (or make them up). He might've lost influence on the president, but it's completely inarguable that Bannon can do more (including damage) from the outside than from the inside where he's already basically under surveillance of Kelly etc.
Damage to who? The only people who buy what he is selling are already die-hard supporters through and through.
At best he can sabotage the GOP's own base by attacking congress and he could have easily done that while remaining in the WH.
If I were in charge of liberal media I would be running "Bannon says Trumps presidency is over" front and center to further drive a wedge between the two.
|
On August 19 2017 08:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 08:37 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 08:32 IgnE wrote:On August 19 2017 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 02:09 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 01:09 Artisreal wrote:On August 19 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2017 00:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Except you can't use generic terms.
Because these are Nazis. So "demonstrating peacefully" means "we are very nicely promoting the ideas of white supremacy and ethnic cleansing that our idol espoused". Looks like you need a refresher course in what free speech actually means. Yes, free speech means that Nazis get to promote white supremacism. It may also mean that they get to advocate ethnic cleansing (like I said, I don't know where the boundary on content is). If that truly constitutes free speech. My lord... It does in the US. We have a very hands off view on speech. Ethnic cleansing is not considered a direct threat. What about a crowd of skinheads yelling"fuck you, nigger" to black passers by? Clearly not a threat, because they aren't advocating anything, definitely not violence. It depends on his body language and if he is holding a weapon. A bunch of factors. If they reasonably feel like he was going to harm them, it isn't protected speech. What constitutes a "reasonable threat" certainly takes race into consideration. you muggin me you know im muggin back + Show Spoiler + I love that most european people will look at that holster and go "hm, that's so weird to see a normal person run around like that" - completely missing the long barrel assault rifle hanging off the other shoulder. You were in my head right there. Never noticed it until you said it and I saw this pic 4 times in the thread
I was in my own head, saw the picture a couple of times and only now realised.
Damage to who? The only people who buy what he is selling are already die-hard supporters through and through.
At best he can sabotage the GOP's own base by attacking congress and he could have easily done that while remaining in the WH.
If I were in charge of liberal media I would be running "Bannon says Trumps presidency is over" front and center to further drive a wedge between the two.
The GOP first and foremost.
And no, Breitbarts fake crap spreads like wildfire on facebook, social media etc. You don't need to be a trump supporter to get mad at a GOP politician. Republicans have to look into the future as well.
Sidenote, i am pretty convinced that he doesn't care about congress or the entire WH either. In regards to congress, again, he can take the gloves off now - he doesn't need to hold back like Trump who tweeted about the three GOPs who voted against the health bill. Imagine the reaction of Trump/Bannon if they wouldn't have been in the WH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
