|
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 30 2017 23:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:45 Ghostcom wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. Bullshit. I've counterprotested multiple Nazi rallies and everything went completely peaceful. They held their speeches, we held ours and then we all walked home unharmed. I will agree to anything that lets us not have this debate again. I both sides debate is winning me over by sheer attrition and nothing else. So you are right. There can be peaceful protests and Nazis can be peaceful. I was wrong and take it back.
Sometimes I genuinely have no idea what you're saying because you refuse to proof read your posts.
|
On August 30 2017 23:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:49 Artisreal wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. While I agree that such displays of hate/discrimination, lawful as they may be (e: in the US), have to be opposed time and again with the full capacity of civil disobedience, I disagree that it means to attack them not by words, but by force. There is this proverb that your goals have to be reflected in your ways. And I agree with that in the overarching majority of cases. It can be revealing to experience racial and gendered discricimination first hand as a white male, I don't dispute that. But from my perspective right now, it's more fruitful to mirror the opponent's actions on him, where they don't fear for their safety. Someone brought up the example of football hooligans clashing with one another and I quite liked that. Unless you're attacked first, bringing physical harm to your opponen will rarely trigger a reflection of their erroneous ways (look at the root cause). Otherwise you're just looking for a cause to beat someone up / have a fight. The guitarist in my wife’s band talked about Nazis in the punk scene. Every show he went to where they showed up, they were there to pick a fight with someone. The only option they had was to deny them access to the show. Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:54 Simberto wrote:On August 30 2017 23:45 Ghostcom wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. Bullshit. I've counterprotested multiple Nazi rallies and everything went completely peaceful. They held their speeches, we held ours and then we all walked home unharmed. EDIT: I know there is a difference between Denmark and the US, but that doesn't change the fact that nazi rallies can be counter-protested peacefully. Let the Nazis meet up to a protest with shields, riot gear, and rifles if they want (apparently that's legal in the US) - it doesn't excuse ANTIFA or any of the counterprotesters who chooses violence. If you peacefully counterprotest them they gain nothing. When you start punching you serve their cause. Yes, I agree that it is possible to peacefully counterprotest nazis. I did that multiple times already. However, i feel like that got easier by the fact that the police separates the two protest groups, and because no one had guns. I think it becomes a bit harder if you use the US system and have armed and armored nazis clash directly with the counterprotestors. (Which still sounds like an incredibly stupid way to handle that situation, and i still can't believe that that is how the US handles it.) It is hard to protect free speech and peaceful protest when the protesters show up armed for a fight with police and counter protesters.
I'm not quite sure which side you're talking about as protesters vs counter-protesters, but it seems pretty consistent that the white supremacist side of things doesn't expect a fight with police. Most of what I hear related to the police for these rally when there's white supremacist violence is, "they did nothing".
|
On August 30 2017 23:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:49 Artisreal wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. While I agree that such displays of hate/discrimination, lawful as they may be (e: in the US), have to be opposed time and again with the full capacity of civil disobedience, I disagree that it means to attack them not by words, but by force. There is this proverb that your goals have to be reflected in your ways. And I agree with that in the overarching majority of cases. It can be revealing to experience racial and gendered discricimination first hand as a white male, I don't dispute that. But from my perspective right now, it's more fruitful to mirror the opponent's actions on him, where they don't fear for their safety. Someone brought up the example of football hooligans clashing with one another and I quite liked that. Unless you're attacked first, bringing physical harm to your opponen will rarely trigger a reflection of their erroneous ways (look at the root cause). Otherwise you're just looking for a cause to beat someone up / have a fight. The guitarist in my wife’s band talked about Nazis in the punk scene. Every show he went to where they showed up, they were there to pick a fight with someone. The only option they had was to deny them access to the show. Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:54 Simberto wrote:On August 30 2017 23:45 Ghostcom wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. Bullshit. I've counterprotested multiple Nazi rallies and everything went completely peaceful. They held their speeches, we held ours and then we all walked home unharmed. EDIT: I know there is a difference between Denmark and the US, but that doesn't change the fact that nazi rallies can be counter-protested peacefully. Let the Nazis meet up to a protest with shields, riot gear, and rifles if they want (apparently that's legal in the US) - it doesn't excuse ANTIFA or any of the counterprotesters who chooses violence. If you peacefully counterprotest them they gain nothing. When you start punching you serve their cause. Yes, I agree that it is possible to peacefully counterprotest nazis. I did that multiple times already. However, i feel like that got easier by the fact that the police separates the two protest groups, and because no one had guns. I think it becomes a bit harder if you use the US system and have armed and armored nazis clash directly with the counterprotestors. (Which still sounds like an incredibly stupid way to handle that situation, and i still can't believe that that is how the US handles it.) It is hard to protect free speech and peaceful protest when the protesters show up armed for a fight with police and counter protesters.
I actually thought about including a section where Nazis deliberately cross lines and openly march through areas where the overwhelming majority wants them to fuck off just to piss them off and pick fights.
I have no problem whatsoever with them being denied entrance or denying a specific demo route.
|
On August 31 2017 00:31 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:49 Artisreal wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. While I agree that such displays of hate/discrimination, lawful as they may be (e: in the US), have to be opposed time and again with the full capacity of civil disobedience, I disagree that it means to attack them not by words, but by force. There is this proverb that your goals have to be reflected in your ways. And I agree with that in the overarching majority of cases. It can be revealing to experience racial and gendered discricimination first hand as a white male, I don't dispute that. But from my perspective right now, it's more fruitful to mirror the opponent's actions on him, where they don't fear for their safety. Someone brought up the example of football hooligans clashing with one another and I quite liked that. Unless you're attacked first, bringing physical harm to your opponen will rarely trigger a reflection of their erroneous ways (look at the root cause). Otherwise you're just looking for a cause to beat someone up / have a fight. The guitarist in my wife’s band talked about Nazis in the punk scene. Every show he went to where they showed up, they were there to pick a fight with someone. The only option they had was to deny them access to the show. On August 30 2017 23:54 Simberto wrote:On August 30 2017 23:45 Ghostcom wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. Bullshit. I've counterprotested multiple Nazi rallies and everything went completely peaceful. They held their speeches, we held ours and then we all walked home unharmed. EDIT: I know there is a difference between Denmark and the US, but that doesn't change the fact that nazi rallies can be counter-protested peacefully. Let the Nazis meet up to a protest with shields, riot gear, and rifles if they want (apparently that's legal in the US) - it doesn't excuse ANTIFA or any of the counterprotesters who chooses violence. If you peacefully counterprotest them they gain nothing. When you start punching you serve their cause. Yes, I agree that it is possible to peacefully counterprotest nazis. I did that multiple times already. However, i feel like that got easier by the fact that the police separates the two protest groups, and because no one had guns. I think it becomes a bit harder if you use the US system and have armed and armored nazis clash directly with the counterprotestors. (Which still sounds like an incredibly stupid way to handle that situation, and i still can't believe that that is how the US handles it.) It is hard to protect free speech and peaceful protest when the protesters show up armed for a fight with police and counter protesters. I'm not quite sure which side you're talking about as protesters vs counter-protesters, but it seems pretty consistent that the white supremacist side of things doesn't expect a fight with police. Most of what I hear related to the police for these rally when there's white supremacist violence is, "they did nothing".
I am being extra, extra careful to make sure I don’t give the impression that I support one side or the other. You see, we had a post about antifa on the last page and they did bad things. Which are bad and I don’t approve of. So now I have to be very very careful about saying that Nazis planned to do bad things a couple of weeks ago, because strongly condemning the Nazis and blaming them for the violence means that I support antifa, because every single counter protester in Charlottesville was not perfect.
|
On August 31 2017 00:31 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:59 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:49 Artisreal wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. While I agree that such displays of hate/discrimination, lawful as they may be (e: in the US), have to be opposed time and again with the full capacity of civil disobedience, I disagree that it means to attack them not by words, but by force. There is this proverb that your goals have to be reflected in your ways. And I agree with that in the overarching majority of cases. It can be revealing to experience racial and gendered discricimination first hand as a white male, I don't dispute that. But from my perspective right now, it's more fruitful to mirror the opponent's actions on him, where they don't fear for their safety. Someone brought up the example of football hooligans clashing with one another and I quite liked that. Unless you're attacked first, bringing physical harm to your opponen will rarely trigger a reflection of their erroneous ways (look at the root cause). Otherwise you're just looking for a cause to beat someone up / have a fight. The guitarist in my wife’s band talked about Nazis in the punk scene. Every show he went to where they showed up, they were there to pick a fight with someone. The only option they had was to deny them access to the show. On August 30 2017 23:54 Simberto wrote:On August 30 2017 23:45 Ghostcom wrote:On August 30 2017 23:36 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech. Not really. Nazis are garbage and Nazi rallies will always end up being meet with violence. It is the nature of advocating for genocide and white supremacy. It is a call to pick a fight. If people want the violence to stop, they need to look at the root cause of the violence in their own communities and lives. Point the finger and saying “its their fault, I want the nation to come together but they won’t let it happen” isn’t the way. Bullshit. I've counterprotested multiple Nazi rallies and everything went completely peaceful. They held their speeches, we held ours and then we all walked home unharmed. EDIT: I know there is a difference between Denmark and the US, but that doesn't change the fact that nazi rallies can be counter-protested peacefully. Let the Nazis meet up to a protest with shields, riot gear, and rifles if they want (apparently that's legal in the US) - it doesn't excuse ANTIFA or any of the counterprotesters who chooses violence. If you peacefully counterprotest them they gain nothing. When you start punching you serve their cause. Yes, I agree that it is possible to peacefully counterprotest nazis. I did that multiple times already. However, i feel like that got easier by the fact that the police separates the two protest groups, and because no one had guns. I think it becomes a bit harder if you use the US system and have armed and armored nazis clash directly with the counterprotestors. (Which still sounds like an incredibly stupid way to handle that situation, and i still can't believe that that is how the US handles it.) It is hard to protect free speech and peaceful protest when the protesters show up armed for a fight with police and counter protesters. I actually thought about including a section where Nazis deliberately cross lines and openly march through areas where the overwhelming majority wants them to fuck off just to piss them off and pick fights. I have no problem whatsoever with them being denied entrance or denying a specific demo route.
It is obviously the responsibility of the government who grants permits for demonstrations to ensure that any given route is reasonable.
|
On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech.
These are two different events. Trump's both sides comment came after an ISIS style terrorist attack from a white supremacist.
|
On August 30 2017 16:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 14:56 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 12:12 Nevuk wrote:Can we all agree that this is probably the worst take on houston we'll see? Article is here : www.slate.comWith the debilitating rain in Houston fell a rain of inspiriting images. Everywhere on Twitter, in the papers, in internet slideshows, we saw Texans improvising rescue canoes and gathering scared dogs in their arms, bearing them away to safety. First responders waded into the water-choked arteries of the city and dragged people out of cars. Uniformed men hoisted grandmothers on their backs (like Jason fording the river with the goddess Hera on his shoulders) while, elsewhere in the country, beer companies filled cans with fresh water and celebrities spearheaded donation drives.
The flood, the animals: It all felt so mythic. In coverage of Harvey, the word hero is almost as ubiquitous as the stills of intrepid reporters, their rain slickers swirling like capes, and hunky National Guardsmen in life jackets. During a speech to the press on Monday, President Donald Trump noted that crisis showcases “the best in America’s character—strength, charity, and resilience.” (This was a reprieve from his popcorn-gobbling tweets about Harvey’s unprecedented, riveting destruction.) The Washington Times echoed Trump with a piece spotlighting the many Clark Kents and Diana Princes vaulting into action: “Hurricane Harvey Brings Out the Best in America.” There is an adage that “adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it.”
But does catastrophe illustrate, or does it transform? What if America is less a glorious nation of do-gooders awaiting the chance to exercise their altruism than a moral junior varsity team elevated by circumstance? In her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster, Rebecca Solnit argues that emergencies provoke from us a conditional virtue. They create provisional utopias, communities in which the usual—selfish, capitalistic—rules don’t apply. “Imagine a society,” Solnit writes, “where the fate that faces [people], no matter how grim, is far less so for being shared, where much once considered impossible, both good and bad, is now possible or present, and where the moment is so pressing that old complaints and worries fall away, where people feel important, purposeful, at the center of the world.”
The point here is obviously not to diminish the bighearted men and women who rose to the occasion when Harvey, a “once-in-a-lifetime” storm with a spiraling death toll, slammed into Texas. But it is misleading to characterize Houston as an exhibition of the “best of America” when what it represents is a contingent America, a “paradise” specific to the “hell” around it. These waterlogged suburbs have become zones of exemption, where norms hang suspended and something lovelier and more communal has been allowed to flourish in their place. Disaster scientists have repeatedly punctured the myth, perpetuated by Hollywood and the media, that cataclysm awakens our worst selves. Rather, disruptive events loosen our mores just enough to permit new kinds of compassion. As Slate reported in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, researchers at the University of Colorado–Boulder discovered “that panic is not a problem in disasters; that rather than helplessly awaiting outside aid, members of the public behave proactively and prosocially to assist one another; that community residents themselves perform many critical disaster tasks, such as searching for and rescuing victims; and that both social cohesiveness and informal mechanisms of social control increase during disasters, resulting in a lower incidence of deviant behavior.”
These findings put a frame around the cooperative society that has lately emerged in Houston: It is a beautiful anomaly, a liquid note of silver momentarily liberated from its sheath of rust. The inverse of such a phenomenon is the bystander effect, by which individuals might walk past someone prone in the street without offering aid. We rarely feel responsible for a stranger’s suffering if others around us seem unmoved or if we can comfortably assume that some nearby person will step in to help instead. Humans may possess inherent goodness, but that goodness needs to be activated. Some signal has to disperse the cloud of moral Novocain around us. Some person, or fire, or flood, has got to say: now.
No. We can't all agree. I like the take. You know, I was wondering what angle you would take and then Show nested quote +Or maybe it's an opportunity to rethink utopia instead of just juxtaposing rah rah American heroics with petty resentment. and I smacked myself in the head for not realizing that's where it would go right off the bat. Maybe the fact that it takes a natural disaster and incredible destruction to bring out this side of people should disabuse us of the idea of utopia in a free and prosperous society. Edit: it's possible that after a long day I'm misreading you, but given past statements... Edit2: The % of conservatives that like or value Brook's opinion is probably in the single digits.
You are almost definitely misreading me, but how about this way of putting it: rather than turning it into treacly television that suggests America is full of heroes ready to pitch in when times get really tough, maybe it should serve as a stark illustration of how cruel and exploitative the normal regime is.
You don't think David Brooks is just a nice, honest man with the conscience of a universalist conservative??
|
I rarely agree with David Brooks, but I like reading his articles. Even silly ones where he takes people out to lunch and they are confused by the menu.
|
The man worked for a for profit school that was hit twice for false advertising. As far as I can tell, he has not qualifications to work in that position. But I shouldn't be shocked.
|
On August 30 2017 15:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 07:59 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:48 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:29 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:28 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's actually pretty complicated when you arrive at comparing reflexive Trump voters to worse than the KKK (because at least the KKK aren't moral cowards in your rubric). You see, for ordinary Americans that is a logical leap. So you connect it with all these logical twists and turns involving racist not being an insult, and it's just like instructing boys and girls (sickening condescension if you ask me) to not hate people with different skin color.
When you move to the adult world, it's Kwark swapping between calling half the country racists, and telling them that it's okay that they're racists only try not to be as racist as you are. It doesn't jive with the history of using the topic as a political divide to incite Democratic support among minorities etc. Once you've heard the demagogues do "Vote for me, because these people hate you," then Kwarkian logic that racism is just a dialogue on treating people with respect vanishes. It's a very adult topic, and pretty harsh if it's the first exposure. You walk up to people that respect their neighbors, contribute their income to the needy, but thought Romney was the better choice. When Kwark comes along saying how numerous were the people that didn't vote for Obama out of racism, they obviously react with ire. It isn't true in their life and it isn't true universally. I'm sorry that the nuance has gotten lost and you usually jettison your logic to sound bites after a short countdown, but that's the truth as I see it. If you reread my response to the article you quoted I actually completely disagreed with his premise. His premise was that people voted for Trump (and Sessions, and the rest of the disparate impact crew with their policies) because they were upset about being called racists. I don't think that's why they did it. I think that argument shows an unbelievable level of contempt towards the American voters, it implies that they're not genuinely in favour of policies that disproportionately impact minorities but that they will support those policies if they think it'll spite someone who called them a racist. Regarding what I said about a member of the KKK having more courage. If we were to compare someone who genuinely believed the racist nonsense and was voting as a logical consequence of those beliefs with the hypothetical individual the author of that article created, who did not believe in racist nonsense but still voted for the same policies as the KKK member as a way of getting back at the other side for calling him racist, I think the latter is worse. The former is ignorance, the latter is malice. Ignorance is more easily excused, and more easily fixed. But again, I don't think that the right supported policies with a disparate racial impact out of malice. I disagree with his entire premise. My point was just that if they did, that'd actually be even worse. You're not wrong to say that there is a problem of language. This is what GH attempted to get into a while ago when he started putting a y in the middle of the word racist to show what he was talking about. People didn't want to play that game with him though. I'm sure there are ideological reasons to swallow the bitter pill that is Trump. Where you lose me is when I ask myself whether the issues were weighted in a colourblind fashion. Let's say you have a voter who doesn't think he's racist and the most important issue to him is liberty from tyranny and the spectre of government oppression. A good, constitutional, patriotic American who really loves the second amendment. Trump's rhetoric on the second amendment was better than Hillary's, therefore he voted for Trump. That makes sense so far. The problem emerges when you consider the interplay between his stated starting point, opposing government oppression, and the outcome. Because second amendment rights aren't the only thing to consider there, not when the DoJ is reporting that local police departments are actively oppressing African Americans. Now maybe he sat down and asked himself "is Trump having a supreme court nominee who protects the second amendment worth justice department endorsement of systematic civil rights abuses?" And maybe he did his very best to understand the issues involved and consider how he would feel on both sides before casting his vote. But I'm not sure our hypothetical voter did in this instance, because I'm not seeing how things like actual current voting rights limitations can be outweighed by the incredibly remote chance that Hillary would seize all the guns. I worry that the reason he voted the way he did was because he weighted the thing that impacted him (and people like him) far, far more heavily than the thing that impacted people who don't look like him. Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough. The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument. You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here. This was legitimately funny and I salute you. who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway. Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues. I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice. You usually alternate between trolly one liners and actual addressing substance with hours between. Which is why I thought it was funny I said I wasn't going to write more because you pick and choose when you'll actually respond. Which made your trollish one-liner funny. Sorry, but if we're going back to substance now, do you have anything to add, or should I just tell you some version of "lol snarky lib can't take what he dishes." You didn't respond to anything I wrote. The article you quoted presented two rival theories. The first, that Trump supporters are racists, and the second, that Trump supporters will vote for a racist platform if the guy at the top of it is on their team. I addressed that at length. There were a multitude of issues with it, from the weird tangent into how the Democrats must hate democracy if they believe that lots of Americans can be racist, the inexplicable advocating of voting for the guy you don't admire because he's on your team, the conflating of KKK racism with "I'm fine with the status quo" racism, and a whole bunch of other shit. But I've already spoken about that at length, you just ignored everything I wrote and decided to go a different way with it. Unless you stop and take a minute to understand what it is I am trying to communicate here you won't have the basic level of understanding needed to engage. That's why I dismissed it by comparing it to an anti-vaxxer line. If you make no effort to understand what you're talking about you'll not get the kind of response you want. Woah, now. It was funny when I stopped my post early because of your one-liners ... and you responded with a one-liner. But now that you're done with the joke (quite funny). Let's hear a little addressing of the criticism. Because you haven't addressed a damn thing and didn't try to. Your original quoting of the two sides misrepresented each viewpoint. Own up to it? I pointed it out, you stayed silent. I talked about humanity being a little more variegated than racist-or-supports-racist-policies, and you've tripled down on your reductive logic. Sorry, Kwark, humanity is not like that and I pity you indeed if you can't see that point in all it's glory. So we're basically at an impasse with that, because it does nobody any good to respond to my points with "You didn't respond to anything I wrote" by saying "You didn't respond to anything I wrote." You are incapable of learning the problems with one-dimensional thinking and hate racists (half the country) a lot more than you're owning up to. If you can't see my argument and how it addresses yours, I've wasted my time reading yours and typing this. I can't keep playing "Kwark goes on a related tangent" when you don't read articles, don't read nor understand responses, and fire back that I haven't addressed your points. Shape up, or get out. You might not merit responses to a single thing given your obtuseness. Show nested quote +
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.
Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.
Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.
David Brooks, ConservativeYou seem ready to embrace the garbage, no?
Same opinion as Introvert. Maybe two or three percent of conservatives read or agree with Brooks take on things. Mensch might have better standing among the American left. You're better off sticking to publications like national review or conservative review, libertarian-leaning conservative outlets like the Federalist, etc.
|
Whoa there, Mensch and Brooks don't belong in the same sentence, let alone being compared to each other. We are talking about different realities of credibility, that would require a Tardis to bridge the gap.
|
On August 31 2017 01:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 15:39 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 07:59 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:48 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:29 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:28 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 06:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If you reread my response to the article you quoted I actually completely disagreed with his premise. His premise was that people voted for Trump (and Sessions, and the rest of the disparate impact crew with their policies) because they were upset about being called racists. I don't think that's why they did it. I think that argument shows an unbelievable level of contempt towards the American voters, it implies that they're not genuinely in favour of policies that disproportionately impact minorities but that they will support those policies if they think it'll spite someone who called them a racist.
Regarding what I said about a member of the KKK having more courage. If we were to compare someone who genuinely believed the racist nonsense and was voting as a logical consequence of those beliefs with the hypothetical individual the author of that article created, who did not believe in racist nonsense but still voted for the same policies as the KKK member as a way of getting back at the other side for calling him racist, I think the latter is worse. The former is ignorance, the latter is malice. Ignorance is more easily excused, and more easily fixed.
But again, I don't think that the right supported policies with a disparate racial impact out of malice. I disagree with his entire premise. My point was just that if they did, that'd actually be even worse.
You're not wrong to say that there is a problem of language. This is what GH attempted to get into a while ago when he started putting a y in the middle of the word racist to show what he was talking about. People didn't want to play that game with him though.
I'm sure there are ideological reasons to swallow the bitter pill that is Trump. Where you lose me is when I ask myself whether the issues were weighted in a colourblind fashion.
Let's say you have a voter who doesn't think he's racist and the most important issue to him is liberty from tyranny and the spectre of government oppression. A good, constitutional, patriotic American who really loves the second amendment. Trump's rhetoric on the second amendment was better than Hillary's, therefore he voted for Trump. That makes sense so far.
The problem emerges when you consider the interplay between his stated starting point, opposing government oppression, and the outcome. Because second amendment rights aren't the only thing to consider there, not when the DoJ is reporting that local police departments are actively oppressing African Americans. Now maybe he sat down and asked himself "is Trump having a supreme court nominee who protects the second amendment worth justice department endorsement of systematic civil rights abuses?" And maybe he did his very best to understand the issues involved and consider how he would feel on both sides before casting his vote.
But I'm not sure our hypothetical voter did in this instance, because I'm not seeing how things like actual current voting rights limitations can be outweighed by the incredibly remote chance that Hillary would seize all the guns. I worry that the reason he voted the way he did was because he weighted the thing that impacted him (and people like him) far, far more heavily than the thing that impacted people who don't look like him. Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough. The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument. You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here. This was legitimately funny and I salute you. who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway. Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues. I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice. You usually alternate between trolly one liners and actual addressing substance with hours between. Which is why I thought it was funny I said I wasn't going to write more because you pick and choose when you'll actually respond. Which made your trollish one-liner funny. Sorry, but if we're going back to substance now, do you have anything to add, or should I just tell you some version of "lol snarky lib can't take what he dishes." You didn't respond to anything I wrote. The article you quoted presented two rival theories. The first, that Trump supporters are racists, and the second, that Trump supporters will vote for a racist platform if the guy at the top of it is on their team. I addressed that at length. There were a multitude of issues with it, from the weird tangent into how the Democrats must hate democracy if they believe that lots of Americans can be racist, the inexplicable advocating of voting for the guy you don't admire because he's on your team, the conflating of KKK racism with "I'm fine with the status quo" racism, and a whole bunch of other shit. But I've already spoken about that at length, you just ignored everything I wrote and decided to go a different way with it. Unless you stop and take a minute to understand what it is I am trying to communicate here you won't have the basic level of understanding needed to engage. That's why I dismissed it by comparing it to an anti-vaxxer line. If you make no effort to understand what you're talking about you'll not get the kind of response you want. Woah, now. It was funny when I stopped my post early because of your one-liners ... and you responded with a one-liner. But now that you're done with the joke (quite funny). Let's hear a little addressing of the criticism. Because you haven't addressed a damn thing and didn't try to. Your original quoting of the two sides misrepresented each viewpoint. Own up to it? I pointed it out, you stayed silent. I talked about humanity being a little more variegated than racist-or-supports-racist-policies, and you've tripled down on your reductive logic. Sorry, Kwark, humanity is not like that and I pity you indeed if you can't see that point in all it's glory. So we're basically at an impasse with that, because it does nobody any good to respond to my points with "You didn't respond to anything I wrote" by saying "You didn't respond to anything I wrote." You are incapable of learning the problems with one-dimensional thinking and hate racists (half the country) a lot more than you're owning up to. If you can't see my argument and how it addresses yours, I've wasted my time reading yours and typing this. I can't keep playing "Kwark goes on a related tangent" when you don't read articles, don't read nor understand responses, and fire back that I haven't addressed your points. Shape up, or get out. You might not merit responses to a single thing given your obtuseness.
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.
Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.
Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.
David Brooks, ConservativeYou seem ready to embrace the garbage, no? Same opinion as Introvert. Maybe two or three percent of conservatives read or agree with Brooks take on things. Mensch might have better standing among the American left. You're better off sticking to publications like national review or conservative review, libertarian-leaning conservative outlets like the Federalist, etc.
so i take it you disagree with his "three clear things?" or are you just commenting on the man himself
|
On August 31 2017 02:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 01:58 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 15:39 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 07:59 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:48 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:29 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:28 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:21 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Nah, you launched into your own pet attacks on interracial marriage disapproval. You literally couldn't even faithfully portray his own two theories without half of it being your own inclusion.
[quote]
Apparently written in invisible ink in the article.
[quote]
Author Kwark can't grasp a reaction where voters resent being regarded as racist idiots. His only intellectual contribution is pretending a positive support of racist policies is identical to a backlash from resentment.
[quote]
The actual breakdown from the article. Kwark is entirely in the first camp, but isn't as much calling them idiots than saying racists just need to be trained like children. He cannot mentally engage with good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, because in his mind they only support racist policies.
You want to move on to some more ideological reasons, and why they're wrong, but I'm unwilling to go on that tangent with someone who quotes one sentence and says its "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism." Basically, the man with a fondness for one-liners and snipping out single sentences from larger posts has enough troll qualities to limit my time spent and sometimes wasted. My only interest is seeing if you will support a larger view of humanity's intricacies than reductive blathering. I happen not to think half the country are these racists that hate minorities, and it's in keeping with an understanding that you push and prod and call people evil long enough that they'll resent your behavior and legitimately discard your candidate (if you intentionally put such a despicable candidate up there, as was done). We can come back to the variety of opinions of your good fellow citizens that can speak intelligently and are concerned with the good of their families and society, or we can reduce to the dumb "it ends in racist policies, throw all the antecedents in the garbage I don't want to hear them." Which is your argument. You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here. This was legitimately funny and I salute you. who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway. Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues. I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice. You usually alternate between trolly one liners and actual addressing substance with hours between. Which is why I thought it was funny I said I wasn't going to write more because you pick and choose when you'll actually respond. Which made your trollish one-liner funny. Sorry, but if we're going back to substance now, do you have anything to add, or should I just tell you some version of "lol snarky lib can't take what he dishes." You didn't respond to anything I wrote. The article you quoted presented two rival theories. The first, that Trump supporters are racists, and the second, that Trump supporters will vote for a racist platform if the guy at the top of it is on their team. I addressed that at length. There were a multitude of issues with it, from the weird tangent into how the Democrats must hate democracy if they believe that lots of Americans can be racist, the inexplicable advocating of voting for the guy you don't admire because he's on your team, the conflating of KKK racism with "I'm fine with the status quo" racism, and a whole bunch of other shit. But I've already spoken about that at length, you just ignored everything I wrote and decided to go a different way with it. Unless you stop and take a minute to understand what it is I am trying to communicate here you won't have the basic level of understanding needed to engage. That's why I dismissed it by comparing it to an anti-vaxxer line. If you make no effort to understand what you're talking about you'll not get the kind of response you want. Woah, now. It was funny when I stopped my post early because of your one-liners ... and you responded with a one-liner. But now that you're done with the joke (quite funny). Let's hear a little addressing of the criticism. Because you haven't addressed a damn thing and didn't try to. Your original quoting of the two sides misrepresented each viewpoint. Own up to it? I pointed it out, you stayed silent. I talked about humanity being a little more variegated than racist-or-supports-racist-policies, and you've tripled down on your reductive logic. Sorry, Kwark, humanity is not like that and I pity you indeed if you can't see that point in all it's glory. So we're basically at an impasse with that, because it does nobody any good to respond to my points with "You didn't respond to anything I wrote" by saying "You didn't respond to anything I wrote." You are incapable of learning the problems with one-dimensional thinking and hate racists (half the country) a lot more than you're owning up to. If you can't see my argument and how it addresses yours, I've wasted my time reading yours and typing this. I can't keep playing "Kwark goes on a related tangent" when you don't read articles, don't read nor understand responses, and fire back that I haven't addressed your points. Shape up, or get out. You might not merit responses to a single thing given your obtuseness.
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.
Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.
Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.
David Brooks, ConservativeYou seem ready to embrace the garbage, no? Same opinion as Introvert. Maybe two or three percent of conservatives read or agree with Brooks take on things. Mensch might have better standing among the American left. You're better off sticking to publications like national review or conservative review, libertarian-leaning conservative outlets like the Federalist, etc. so i take it you disagree with his "three clear things?" or are you just commenting on the man himself
I disagree with his conjecture and reasoning, his three takeaways, and most everything he writes. It doesn't come as any surprise given his political views and tenure of trying to grasp onto a conservative identity.
|
On August 31 2017 01:53 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/902919063730573312The man worked for a for profit school that was hit twice for false advertising. As far as I can tell, he has not qualifications to work in that position. But I shouldn't be shocked.
After putting Devos where she is, these things should be expected.
|
On August 31 2017 01:53 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/902919063730573312The man worked for a for profit school that was hit twice for false advertising. As far as I can tell, he has not qualifications to work in that position. But I shouldn't be shocked.
Don't worry - our current minister of education doesn't have a degree and falsified her CV. LOL...
|
On August 31 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 02:05 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 01:58 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 15:39 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 07:59 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:48 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:29 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:28 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You haven't learned a thing. You're back to the equivalent of "vaccines cause autism" here. This was legitimately funny and I salute you. who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway. Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues. I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice. You usually alternate between trolly one liners and actual addressing substance with hours between. Which is why I thought it was funny I said I wasn't going to write more because you pick and choose when you'll actually respond. Which made your trollish one-liner funny. Sorry, but if we're going back to substance now, do you have anything to add, or should I just tell you some version of "lol snarky lib can't take what he dishes." You didn't respond to anything I wrote. The article you quoted presented two rival theories. The first, that Trump supporters are racists, and the second, that Trump supporters will vote for a racist platform if the guy at the top of it is on their team. I addressed that at length. There were a multitude of issues with it, from the weird tangent into how the Democrats must hate democracy if they believe that lots of Americans can be racist, the inexplicable advocating of voting for the guy you don't admire because he's on your team, the conflating of KKK racism with "I'm fine with the status quo" racism, and a whole bunch of other shit. But I've already spoken about that at length, you just ignored everything I wrote and decided to go a different way with it. Unless you stop and take a minute to understand what it is I am trying to communicate here you won't have the basic level of understanding needed to engage. That's why I dismissed it by comparing it to an anti-vaxxer line. If you make no effort to understand what you're talking about you'll not get the kind of response you want. Woah, now. It was funny when I stopped my post early because of your one-liners ... and you responded with a one-liner. But now that you're done with the joke (quite funny). Let's hear a little addressing of the criticism. Because you haven't addressed a damn thing and didn't try to. Your original quoting of the two sides misrepresented each viewpoint. Own up to it? I pointed it out, you stayed silent. I talked about humanity being a little more variegated than racist-or-supports-racist-policies, and you've tripled down on your reductive logic. Sorry, Kwark, humanity is not like that and I pity you indeed if you can't see that point in all it's glory. So we're basically at an impasse with that, because it does nobody any good to respond to my points with "You didn't respond to anything I wrote" by saying "You didn't respond to anything I wrote." You are incapable of learning the problems with one-dimensional thinking and hate racists (half the country) a lot more than you're owning up to. If you can't see my argument and how it addresses yours, I've wasted my time reading yours and typing this. I can't keep playing "Kwark goes on a related tangent" when you don't read articles, don't read nor understand responses, and fire back that I haven't addressed your points. Shape up, or get out. You might not merit responses to a single thing given your obtuseness.
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.
Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.
Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.
David Brooks, ConservativeYou seem ready to embrace the garbage, no? Same opinion as Introvert. Maybe two or three percent of conservatives read or agree with Brooks take on things. Mensch might have better standing among the American left. You're better off sticking to publications like national review or conservative review, libertarian-leaning conservative outlets like the Federalist, etc. so i take it you disagree with his "three clear things?" or are you just commenting on the man himself I disagree with his conjecture and reasoning, his three takeaways, and most everything he writes. It doesn't come as any surprise given his political views and tenure of trying to grasp onto a conservative identity.
so you don't think there's any significant strain of "white identity politics" amongst people who voted for trump, aka republican voters
|
On August 31 2017 02:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2017 02:05 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 01:58 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 15:39 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 07:59 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:48 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:29 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
This was legitimately funny and I salute you. who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway. Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues. I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice. You usually alternate between trolly one liners and actual addressing substance with hours between. Which is why I thought it was funny I said I wasn't going to write more because you pick and choose when you'll actually respond. Which made your trollish one-liner funny. Sorry, but if we're going back to substance now, do you have anything to add, or should I just tell you some version of "lol snarky lib can't take what he dishes." You didn't respond to anything I wrote. The article you quoted presented two rival theories. The first, that Trump supporters are racists, and the second, that Trump supporters will vote for a racist platform if the guy at the top of it is on their team. I addressed that at length. There were a multitude of issues with it, from the weird tangent into how the Democrats must hate democracy if they believe that lots of Americans can be racist, the inexplicable advocating of voting for the guy you don't admire because he's on your team, the conflating of KKK racism with "I'm fine with the status quo" racism, and a whole bunch of other shit. But I've already spoken about that at length, you just ignored everything I wrote and decided to go a different way with it. Unless you stop and take a minute to understand what it is I am trying to communicate here you won't have the basic level of understanding needed to engage. That's why I dismissed it by comparing it to an anti-vaxxer line. If you make no effort to understand what you're talking about you'll not get the kind of response you want. Woah, now. It was funny when I stopped my post early because of your one-liners ... and you responded with a one-liner. But now that you're done with the joke (quite funny). Let's hear a little addressing of the criticism. Because you haven't addressed a damn thing and didn't try to. Your original quoting of the two sides misrepresented each viewpoint. Own up to it? I pointed it out, you stayed silent. I talked about humanity being a little more variegated than racist-or-supports-racist-policies, and you've tripled down on your reductive logic. Sorry, Kwark, humanity is not like that and I pity you indeed if you can't see that point in all it's glory. So we're basically at an impasse with that, because it does nobody any good to respond to my points with "You didn't respond to anything I wrote" by saying "You didn't respond to anything I wrote." You are incapable of learning the problems with one-dimensional thinking and hate racists (half the country) a lot more than you're owning up to. If you can't see my argument and how it addresses yours, I've wasted my time reading yours and typing this. I can't keep playing "Kwark goes on a related tangent" when you don't read articles, don't read nor understand responses, and fire back that I haven't addressed your points. Shape up, or get out. You might not merit responses to a single thing given your obtuseness.
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.
Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.
Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.
David Brooks, ConservativeYou seem ready to embrace the garbage, no? Same opinion as Introvert. Maybe two or three percent of conservatives read or agree with Brooks take on things. Mensch might have better standing among the American left. You're better off sticking to publications like national review or conservative review, libertarian-leaning conservative outlets like the Federalist, etc. so i take it you disagree with his "three clear things?" or are you just commenting on the man himself I disagree with his conjecture and reasoning, his three takeaways, and most everything he writes. It doesn't come as any surprise given his political views and tenure of trying to grasp onto a conservative identity. so you don't think there's any significant strain of "white identity politics" amongst people who voted for trump, aka republican voters
I don't think it's as corrosive or significant as what the left has going on, contrary to Brook's attempts to draw parallels.
|
On August 31 2017 02:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 02:46 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2017 02:05 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 01:58 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 15:39 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 07:59 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:48 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
[quote]If the woman who called you a racist is running against the man who says you're not a racist but plans to put Sessions in charge of the DoJ, you call the woman a bitch and you vote for her anyway.
Right and wrong don't change because one side hurt your feelings. That's my issue with the article. The author seems to genuinely believe that Americans know the difference between right and wrong but will choose wrong if it hurts the opposing team. "They may not admire the man" is an admission of as much. They know the issues with him as a candidate, but because he's on their side whereas the mean lady called them names, they can look past those issues.
I think more of the American public than that. I'd sooner believe ignorance than malice. You usually alternate between trolly one liners and actual addressing substance with hours between. Which is why I thought it was funny I said I wasn't going to write more because you pick and choose when you'll actually respond. Which made your trollish one-liner funny. Sorry, but if we're going back to substance now, do you have anything to add, or should I just tell you some version of "lol snarky lib can't take what he dishes." You didn't respond to anything I wrote. The article you quoted presented two rival theories. The first, that Trump supporters are racists, and the second, that Trump supporters will vote for a racist platform if the guy at the top of it is on their team. I addressed that at length. There were a multitude of issues with it, from the weird tangent into how the Democrats must hate democracy if they believe that lots of Americans can be racist, the inexplicable advocating of voting for the guy you don't admire because he's on your team, the conflating of KKK racism with "I'm fine with the status quo" racism, and a whole bunch of other shit. But I've already spoken about that at length, you just ignored everything I wrote and decided to go a different way with it. Unless you stop and take a minute to understand what it is I am trying to communicate here you won't have the basic level of understanding needed to engage. That's why I dismissed it by comparing it to an anti-vaxxer line. If you make no effort to understand what you're talking about you'll not get the kind of response you want. Woah, now. It was funny when I stopped my post early because of your one-liners ... and you responded with a one-liner. But now that you're done with the joke (quite funny). Let's hear a little addressing of the criticism. Because you haven't addressed a damn thing and didn't try to. Your original quoting of the two sides misrepresented each viewpoint. Own up to it? I pointed it out, you stayed silent. I talked about humanity being a little more variegated than racist-or-supports-racist-policies, and you've tripled down on your reductive logic. Sorry, Kwark, humanity is not like that and I pity you indeed if you can't see that point in all it's glory. So we're basically at an impasse with that, because it does nobody any good to respond to my points with "You didn't respond to anything I wrote" by saying "You didn't respond to anything I wrote." You are incapable of learning the problems with one-dimensional thinking and hate racists (half the country) a lot more than you're owning up to. If you can't see my argument and how it addresses yours, I've wasted my time reading yours and typing this. I can't keep playing "Kwark goes on a related tangent" when you don't read articles, don't read nor understand responses, and fire back that I haven't addressed your points. Shape up, or get out. You might not merit responses to a single thing given your obtuseness.
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.
Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.
Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.
David Brooks, ConservativeYou seem ready to embrace the garbage, no? Same opinion as Introvert. Maybe two or three percent of conservatives read or agree with Brooks take on things. Mensch might have better standing among the American left. You're better off sticking to publications like national review or conservative review, libertarian-leaning conservative outlets like the Federalist, etc. so i take it you disagree with his "three clear things?" or are you just commenting on the man himself I disagree with his conjecture and reasoning, his three takeaways, and most everything he writes. It doesn't come as any surprise given his political views and tenure of trying to grasp onto a conservative identity. so you don't think there's any significant strain of "white identity politics" amongst people who voted for trump, aka republican voters I don't think it's as corrosive or significant as what the left has going on.
What exactly has "the left" got going on that is more corrosive and significant than Donald Trump, birtherism, the Muslim ban, the Mexican wall, being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio?
|
|
|
On August 30 2017 23:29 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 22:58 Plansix wrote:
They are a product of the times. Threats of violence are responded to with more violence. That is why people advocate for peaceful protest and resolutions. It won’t end until both of the parties get this stuff under control, which isn’t likely given who is president. You don't sound very different from Trumps "both sides" speech.
I consider myself a pretty thoughtful guy, but I'm realizing I may be a bad American. In my opinion, your right to free speech ends when you fly a swastika. I'm totally okay with someone (or me) beating that ass. Kind of shocking to realize that I'm okay with fucking up someone's first amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
