|
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 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite my loathing of all forms of identity politics, I really am not interested in hearing someone like David Brooks moralize on the issue. He and his "conservative" ilk are the whole reason why white identity politics has become a thing. Let's take a look at the key part of his op-ed: Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Republicans
In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism. To be honest, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.
But the Republican Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for white identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that whites faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Republicans who felt this had tripled.
Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.
According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Republicans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Christians in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination against whites. Just look at this hand-wringing fool whine about how during the good old days of the 80s and 90s, white identity politics wasn't a thing, and then it just seemed to come out of no where in the 2000s. All the while, he conveniently skirts around the root problem: the limp-wristed and utterly ineffectual opposition that he and other "conservative" political and intellectual leaders put up against the rise of Leftist identity politics. Fuck, just look at that section that I bolded where he talks about white identitarians applying Marxist and Leftist theories to themselves, and laugh at how David Brooks equivocates on whether such use could be "right or wrong." He still won't attack the roots of identity politics, yet he has no problem singularly shitting on white people who use it. What a joke. This is precisely the kind of hypocritical shit that has given life to the term "cuck." And I haven't even gotten to David Brooks-like RINO support for the types of policies that have only further spurred white identity politics.... lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle. now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary.
care to give an example?
|
On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite my loathing of all forms of identity politics, I really am not interested in hearing someone like David Brooks moralize on the issue. He and his "conservative" ilk are the whole reason why white identity politics has become a thing. Let's take a look at the key part of his op-ed: Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Republicans
In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism. To be honest, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.
But the Republican Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for white identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that whites faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Republicans who felt this had tripled.
Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.
According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Republicans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Christians in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination against whites. Just look at this hand-wringing fool whine about how during the good old days of the 80s and 90s, white identity politics wasn't a thing, and then it just seemed to come out of no where in the 2000s. All the while, he conveniently skirts around the root problem: the limp-wristed and utterly ineffectual opposition that he and other "conservative" political and intellectual leaders put up against the rise of Leftist identity politics. Fuck, just look at that section that I bolded where he talks about white identitarians applying Marxist and Leftist theories to themselves, and laugh at how David Brooks equivocates on whether such use could be "right or wrong." He still won't attack the roots of identity politics, yet he has no problem singularly shitting on white people who use it. What a joke. This is precisely the kind of hypocritical shit that has given life to the term "cuck." And I haven't even gotten to David Brooks-like RINO support for the types of policies that have only further spurred white identity politics.... lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle. now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right.
Define "preventable".
Because I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your batting average has been terribly low the last few months.
|
On August 31 2017 11:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite my loathing of all forms of identity politics, I really am not interested in hearing someone like David Brooks moralize on the issue. He and his "conservative" ilk are the whole reason why white identity politics has become a thing. Let's take a look at the key part of his op-ed: Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Republicans
In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism. To be honest, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.
But the Republican Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for white identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that whites faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Republicans who felt this had tripled.
Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.
According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Republicans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Christians in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination against whites. Just look at this hand-wringing fool whine about how during the good old days of the 80s and 90s, white identity politics wasn't a thing, and then it just seemed to come out of no where in the 2000s. All the while, he conveniently skirts around the root problem: the limp-wristed and utterly ineffectual opposition that he and other "conservative" political and intellectual leaders put up against the rise of Leftist identity politics. Fuck, just look at that section that I bolded where he talks about white identitarians applying Marxist and Leftist theories to themselves, and laugh at how David Brooks equivocates on whether such use could be "right or wrong." He still won't attack the roots of identity politics, yet he has no problem singularly shitting on white people who use it. What a joke. This is precisely the kind of hypocritical shit that has given life to the term "cuck." And I haven't even gotten to David Brooks-like RINO support for the types of policies that have only further spurred white identity politics.... lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle. now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Define "preventable". Because I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your batting average has been terribly low the last few months.
You only think so because you haven't been paying attention.
|
On August 31 2017 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite my loathing of all forms of identity politics, I really am not interested in hearing someone like David Brooks moralize on the issue. He and his "conservative" ilk are the whole reason why white identity politics has become a thing. Let's take a look at the key part of his op-ed: Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Republicans
In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism. To be honest, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.
But the Republican Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for white identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that whites faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Republicans who felt this had tripled.
Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.
According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Republicans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Christians in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination against whites. Just look at this hand-wringing fool whine about how during the good old days of the 80s and 90s, white identity politics wasn't a thing, and then it just seemed to come out of no where in the 2000s. All the while, he conveniently skirts around the root problem: the limp-wristed and utterly ineffectual opposition that he and other "conservative" political and intellectual leaders put up against the rise of Leftist identity politics. Fuck, just look at that section that I bolded where he talks about white identitarians applying Marxist and Leftist theories to themselves, and laugh at how David Brooks equivocates on whether such use could be "right or wrong." He still won't attack the roots of identity politics, yet he has no problem singularly shitting on white people who use it. What a joke. This is precisely the kind of hypocritical shit that has given life to the term "cuck." And I haven't even gotten to David Brooks-like RINO support for the types of policies that have only further spurred white identity politics.... lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle. now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary. care to give an example?
We talked about some at length a few weeks ago when looking at Vox Day's stuff. What more do you want?
|
On August 31 2017 11:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Despite my loathing of all forms of identity politics, I really am not interested in hearing someone like David Brooks moralize on the issue. He and his "conservative" ilk are the whole reason why white identity politics has become a thing. Let's take a look at the key part of his op-ed: Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Republicans
In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism. To be honest, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.
But the Republican Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for white identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that whites faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Republicans who felt this had tripled.
Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.
According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Republicans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Christians in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination against whites. Just look at this hand-wringing fool whine about how during the good old days of the 80s and 90s, white identity politics wasn't a thing, and then it just seemed to come out of no where in the 2000s. All the while, he conveniently skirts around the root problem: the limp-wristed and utterly ineffectual opposition that he and other "conservative" political and intellectual leaders put up against the rise of Leftist identity politics. Fuck, just look at that section that I bolded where he talks about white identitarians applying Marxist and Leftist theories to themselves, and laugh at how David Brooks equivocates on whether such use could be "right or wrong." He still won't attack the roots of identity politics, yet he has no problem singularly shitting on white people who use it. What a joke. This is precisely the kind of hypocritical shit that has given life to the term "cuck." And I haven't even gotten to David Brooks-like RINO support for the types of policies that have only further spurred white identity politics.... lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle. now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary. care to give an example? We talked about some at length a few weeks ago when looking at Vox Day's stuff. What more do you want?
How is that Vox Day's stuff an example of taking a real approach to a problem rather than putting their heads in the sand?
|
Okay, cool, are we going back to following a white supremacist's handbook minus the super racist parts? Because that was really fun the last time around.
|
On August 31 2017 11:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Okay, cool, are we going back to following a white supremacist's handbook minus the super racist parts? Because that was really fun the last time around.
Yeah, many of which relies on some sort of "it's ok that races are just different, ya know?" head in the sand logic. That's why I'm asking which thing xdaunt is saying is some sort of level headed approach to dealing with reality.
|
On August 31 2017 10:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Who cares? That is essentially a non story. The president is a hollow braggart, we know.
|
On August 31 2017 09:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 01:20 IgnE wrote:On August 30 2017 16:50 Introvert wrote: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 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?? Hm, that last part might be a sticking point. But then again it's kind of the whole debate, isn't it? I don't find it particularly harsh. But perhaps we don't see great things on such a scale as all these "rah-rah" stories show us because they aren't needed, not because they are suppressed. Or perhaps they happen but aren't interesting. It isn't everyday you will look like a hero by boating though your (former) street address or making a human chain to pull someone out of a car. As for David Brooks, read the now (in)famous story about him and Obama. All of it is ridiculous, but the part about the crease in the pant leg is now etched into the memory of those who read such things.
yo this is a great story.
1) fuck you guys for electing a true idiot. it's the worst sin on this side of evil
2) obama was a boss. a debonair intellectual. whether or not you like obamacare i will never understand why you guys turn him into some devil. i think buckley was wrong more than he was right but i'd still be his friend
|
Character assassination based on scandal wasn't an option. So turning him into the devil was the only way.
|
On August 31 2017 11:20 LegalLord wrote:Who cares? That is essentially a non story. The president is a hollow braggart, we know.
It matters because it's a small part of a larger, longer running story about how Trump and his team are literally destroying the idea of an objective reality that can be described by language that everyone shares the same understanding of.
Sarcasm below.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, as some people in that twitter thread pointed out, in a legal setting Trump would just have turned hearsay evidence into a witness statement. I'd love to see him do this under oath. Maybe Congress can call on him to testify while ironing out an aid package.
|
On August 31 2017 11:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 11:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:On August 31 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:
Despite my loathing of all forms of identity politics, I really am not interested in hearing someone like David Brooks moralize on the issue. He and his "conservative" ilk are the whole reason why white identity politics has become a thing. Let's take a look at the key part of his op-ed:
[quote]
Just look at this hand-wringing fool whine about how during the good old days of the 80s and 90s, white identity politics wasn't a thing, and then it just seemed to come out of no where in the 2000s. All the while, he conveniently skirts around the root problem: the limp-wristed and utterly ineffectual opposition that he and other "conservative" political and intellectual leaders put up against the rise of Leftist identity politics. Fuck, just look at that section that I bolded where he talks about white identitarians applying Marxist and Leftist theories to themselves, and laugh at how David Brooks equivocates on whether such use could be "right or wrong." He still won't attack the roots of identity politics, yet he has no problem singularly shitting on white people who use it. What a joke. This is precisely the kind of hypocritical shit that has given life to the term "cuck." And I haven't even gotten to David Brooks-like RINO support for the types of policies that have only further spurred white identity politics.... lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle. now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary. care to give an example? We talked about some at length a few weeks ago when looking at Vox Day's stuff. What more do you want? How is that Vox Day's stuff an example of taking a real approach to a problem rather than putting their heads in the sand?
He's an advocate for policies that will racially homogenize the nation (and all nations for that matter). If you accept the proposition that multi-racial societies will always breed identity politics and interracial strife (and as a corollary, that true racial integration is not possible), then the inevitable conclusion is that conflict can only be avoided by allowing each race to have its own sovereignty.
Here's the point that I want to make sure that everyone understands: the Leftist practitioners of identity politics and the Alt Right are two sides of the same coin. Both are equally racist.
|
You act like an opposition isn't trying to go after the president with everything they have.
|
On August 31 2017 12:04 Sermokala wrote:
You act like an opposition isn't trying to go after the president with everything they have.
They have a lot. He has been handing out bat to hit him with since he took office. His first week in office he lied about it not raining during the inauguration and its been off to the races since.
|
On August 31 2017 12:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 11:08 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 11:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle.
now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense
Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary. care to give an example? We talked about some at length a few weeks ago when looking at Vox Day's stuff. What more do you want? How is that Vox Day's stuff an example of taking a real approach to a problem rather than putting their heads in the sand? He's an advocate for policies that will racially homogenize the nation (and all nations for that matter). If you accept the proposition that multi-racial societies will always breed identity politics and interracial strife (and as a corollary, that true racial integration is not possible), then the inevitable conclusion is that conflict can only be avoided by allowing each race to have its own sovereignty. Here's the point that I want to make sure that everyone understands: the Leftist practitioners of identity politics and the Alt Right are two sides of the same coin. Both are equally racist.
No one is accepting the promise that multi-racial societies will always breed "identity politics". No one is accepting the idea that true integration is impossible or perhaps not even desired. It's not a remotely "just being reasonable" assertion. You are the one saying that. It has no objective justification.
Honestly, it's just a pessimistic, low effort way to not dedicate time and energy to helping society overcome it's problems together. It's bailing and trying to think of some reason to not use critical thinking to solve problems. I'm surprised you are letting yourself get so entranced by his "model" of society. It's just an attempt to appear thoughtful while really just saying "ya know what, fuck it, we just can't get along". That's not what this country is founded on.
|
On August 31 2017 12:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 12:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 11:08 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 11:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary. care to give an example? We talked about some at length a few weeks ago when looking at Vox Day's stuff. What more do you want? How is that Vox Day's stuff an example of taking a real approach to a problem rather than putting their heads in the sand? He's an advocate for policies that will racially homogenize the nation (and all nations for that matter). If you accept the proposition that multi-racial societies will always breed identity politics and interracial strife (and as a corollary, that true racial integration is not possible), then the inevitable conclusion is that conflict can only be avoided by allowing each race to have its own sovereignty. Here's the point that I want to make sure that everyone understands: the Leftist practitioners of identity politics and the Alt Right are two sides of the same coin. Both are equally racist. No one is accepting the promise that multi-racial societies will always breed "identity politics". No one is accepting the idea that true integration is impossible or perhaps not even desired. It's not a remotely "just being reasonable" assertion. You are the one saying that. It has no objective justification. Honestly, it's just a pessimistic, low effort way to not dedicate time and energy to helping society overcome it's problems together. It's bailing and trying to think of some reason to not use critical thinking to solve problems. I'm surprised you are letting yourself get so entranced by his "model" of society.
Good fucking God, Mohdoo. You're smarter than this. How many times do I have to say that I don't agree with that stuff?
And as for your comment that "no one is accepting the promise that multi-racial societies will always breed 'identity politics,'" you are quite wrong on that account. Just look at Slaughters' posts that I was responding to.
|
I said it is an inevitability in a society like ours where there is gross inequality between groups. If everyone were already on equal footing identity politics would be dead or in a much reduced role.
|
OAKLAND, Calif. — The storied Silicon Valley venture firm Benchmark Capital has launched a slew of tech companies: Twitter, Uber, Snapchat, Instagram. Now its search for the next big thing has led it to … pot.
Benchmark recently invested $8 million in Hound Labs, a startup here in Oakland that’s developing a device for drivers — and law enforcement — to test whether they’re too buzzed to take the wheel.
And that’s just the start. Wealthy investors are pouring tens of millions into the cannabis industry in a bid to capitalize on the gold rush that’s expected when California legalizes recreational marijuana on Jan. 1. They’re backing development of new medicinal products, such as cannabis-infused skin patches; new methods for vaporizing and inhaling; and “budtender” apps like PotBot, which promises to scour 750 strains of cannabis and use lab research, including DNA analysis of each strain, to help customers find the perfect match.
Among the noted investors: tech and biotech mogul Peter Thiel, who co-founded PayPal and made a fortune with the cancer drug startup Stemcentrx. Thiel contributed $300,000 to the California ballot campaign that paved the way for legalization. And in the first public endorsement of the industry from a major biotech investor, Thiel’s Founders Fund has sent millions to Privateer Holdings, a Seattle private equity firm that backs research into medical marijuana products, among other cannabis-related ventures.
Pot has been legal for medical use here since 1996, but with broader legalization, the industry is poised to explode. Experts say the market for marijuana and related products in California will reach $6.5 billion in 2020, and likely spark legalization efforts elsewhere.
“California is the sixth largest economy in the world. Colorado and Washington are pilot studies by comparison,” said Troy Dayton, CEO of The Arcview Group, an Oakland-based cannabis investment and research firm.
The federal Drug Enforcement Agency continues to classify marijuana — like heroin and LSD — as a Schedule I drug, defined as highly prone to abuse and having “no accepted medical use.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been a vocal opponent of marijuana legalization, but has not yet cracked down.
Given that most states have already legalized cannabis for medical use, and seven states plus the District of Columbia allow recreational use, most investors think that federal officials eventually will relent and regulate marijuana more like alcohol.
For now, most publicly traded companies — including pharmaceutical and biotech giants with the resources to develop FDA-approved drugs — have shied away from the industry. Most large venture firms, which receive money from public companies and pension funds, also have steered clear due to both risk and morality clauses in their investor agreements.
But California legalization opens such huge profit opportunities that many individual investors have eagerly jumped in. Los Angeles-based private equity firm MedMen, for instance, has raised about $80 million for cannabis projects in the last year. It recently held its first investor conference in San Jose.
Nearly half of all investments into cannabis companies nationally come from California, according to the finance-tracking firm Pitchbook.
That’s no surprise to Ben Larson, founder of Gateway, a cannabis business incubator in Oakland.
“We’re not afraid to question authority,” he said.
Larson said some of his investors and entrepreneurs come from tech giants like SpaceX, Oracle, and Facebook. He said many of them are interested in medicinal foods and nutraceuticals — or, as he put it, “aesthetically pleasing, de-stigmatized products” that don’t play into stereotypes of long-haired, perpetually buzzed stoners.
The Bay Area is a logical epicenter for the industry — with its rebellious pot history that traces back to San Francisco’s “Summer of Love” in 1967.
“It’s not just the cannabis culture that’s based here, but it’s where the best cannabis is grown — the famous emerald triangle in Mendocino County and Humboldt County,” said Dayton of Arcview.
He said the dicey legal landscape has made for some tensions in the industry: “While we are trying to make money on this, there are people sitting in prison for the same thing,” Dayton said. “That’s partly why you have colorful characters, and interesting mashups with people from the advocacy world and the corporate world and the underground cannabis world, all trying to make the most of this opportunity while making the world better at the same time.”
Arcview has helped about 600 wealthy individuals invest more than $131 million in cannabis companies since 2010.
And Dayton said full legalization in Canada, expected next year, will further fuel investment.
Source
|
On August 31 2017 12:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 11:08 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 11:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle.
now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense
Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary. care to give an example? We talked about some at length a few weeks ago when looking at Vox Day's stuff. What more do you want? How is that Vox Day's stuff an example of taking a real approach to a problem rather than putting their heads in the sand? He's an advocate for policies that will racially homogenize the nation (and all nations for that matter). If you accept the proposition that multi-racial societies will always breed identity politics and interracial strife (and as a corollary, that true racial integration is not possible), then the inevitable conclusion is that conflict can only be avoided by allowing each race to have its own sovereignty. Here's the point that I want to make sure that everyone understands: the Leftist practitioners of identity politics and the Alt Right are two sides of the same coin. Both are equally racist.
Do we have to have this discussion again? I have no love of identity politics, but is not "two sides of the same coin" or "equally racist" with wanting a white ethnostate or thinly veiled neo-Nazism. It's like saying feminism (or whatever weird strawman of feminism we're working with nowadays) is "two sides of the same coin" or "equally sexist" with wanting to end women's suffrage.
|
On August 31 2017 12:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 11:08 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 11:07 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:47 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 10:18 Slaughter wrote:On August 31 2017 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2017 09:57 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
lets not overreact now. everyone knows history is the history of class struggle.
now, identity struggle, that may just be a perversion of whatever "marxist roots" people may claim, and in the strictly psychoanalytic sense
Here's how I see it. There are two possibilities. The first, and the one which I prefer to believe, is that the rise of identity politics was preventable. The alternative is that the rise of identity politics is inevitable. When you start going down that path, there's no avoiding that you'll eventually find yourself walking hand in hand with the Alt Right. Wouldn't such a diverse multicultural society that is democratic almost always produce identity politics on some level as long as any inequalities exist in said society? Seems like an inevitability that various groups would fight for an equal seat at the table given the tools a democracy offers to achieve goals. Congratulations, you are on your way to being a member of the Alt Right. I guess the difference is I don't see it as a bad thing that those groups are exercising political capital to fight for equal standing in the eyes of society. The alt-right seem to get freaked out about the tensions groups cause by pointing out those inequalities and much prefer to go back to the time where they had their heads in the dirt, ignoring the root reasons identity politics is used, and pretending everything is fine. No, the Alt Right embraces these very conclusions that you have espoused and, in light of those conclusions that they perceive as truth, they are proposing policy to deal with it. They aren't looking to stick their heads in the dirt at all. Quite the contrary. care to give an example? We talked about some at length a few weeks ago when looking at Vox Day's stuff. What more do you want? How is that Vox Day's stuff an example of taking a real approach to a problem rather than putting their heads in the sand? He's an advocate for policies that will racially homogenize the nation (and all nations for that matter). If you accept the proposition that multi-racial societies will always breed identity politics and interracial strife (and as a corollary, that true racial integration is not possible), then the inevitable conclusion is that conflict can only be avoided by allowing each race to have its own sovereignty. Here's the point that I want to make sure that everyone understands: the Leftist practitioners of identity politics and the Alt Right are two sides of the same coin. Both are equally racist.
If you accept this premise, by what rights do white people even exist in the US? It isn't their land, nor do they have any actual claim to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
