|
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 September 11 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:55 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:On September 11 2017 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't open this can of worms but what is supposed to be wrong with the "deplorables" comment again? "Let's just straight up say it, half the people who didn't vote for me are just fags and fuck them anyways." Great way to energize people to come out and vote for you instead of the other guy. You do understand that it's not remotely what she was saying though right? And you know me so you know I say this with no love for Hillary It's what people heard. That was a ridiculously stupid thing to say and immediately drew parallels to 47 percent. And I know people who thought 47 percent was a brilliant, apt way to describe things. I don't think you say it with some special love for Hillary but I do think you're wrong. Far be it from me to try to ascribe a motivation for you thinking that way but Hillary's was a really bad comment. And I read it again just to see what it was. She was making a stupid dichotomy between the hopeful Trumpeteers and the irredeemable ones. I wonder what fool let her just go out and say that.
Meh. It's an argument that is in line with what I believe to be true. I think if you ever end up with a credible party at the left of democrats you'll see a bunch of republican voters go for that party on top of the "liberals" that do. Places like West Virginia in the rest of the world tend to be politically battles between the left and the far right, the right never wins them. If you remove the left from the equation, you lose them to the far right, that makes sense to me.
You could make the argument that you lose them because they can't be reached, as a lot of liberals do, but I believe the argument that you lose them because you don't have the right tools to reach them is more appealing. But of course if you make that argument it would be naive to say it applies to everyone in these places. People do vote for the far right everywhere, it's not going to disappear, so you can't just say that. Now for the statistics, is it half, a quarter or three quarters, I don't know about that. But I don't think that's the important part.
|
Trump ended up creating this weird zone for what he said where if anyone who was offended by them was offended by them from the start so nothing he said really changed what people could say about him. The difference was that Hillary was trying to be an acceptable and competent candidate for the presidency so when she said something that trump would have said it got a bad reaction.
|
On September 11 2017 02:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 02:37 ChristianS wrote:
At any rate, if the choice of narratives is between "Hillary used identity politics and Trump didn't so Trump won" and "Hillary used identity politics with minorities, Trump used identity politics with whites, so Trump won because there are more whites," both are obviously oversimplifications but I must admit the latter sounds more plausible to me. Well that isn't the choice of narratives, that's just a false dichotomy. That Coates frames it in such narrow terms is a large part of the problem.
As I understand it, there's (at least) 3 questions here:
1) are identity politics good or bad?
2) are identity politics effective or not?
3) is Trump-like rhetoric another form of identity politics, but for whites?
Coates argues a lot of stuff, but I don't recall anything responsive to 1). He clearly says yes to 3), and probably to 2) as well. Then he spends a long time talking about the double standard by people who say no to 3) when they, for instance, call for a compassionate response to an opioid epidemic, but a hardline response to a crack epidemic.
For those 3 questions, I'm at
1) maybe,
2) probably,
3) very yes.
I'm not sure where you're at, but I assume you must disagree pretty strongly with Coates to criticize him so vehemently.
Edit: although your disagreement might have nothing to do with those three questions, I suppose
|
On September 11 2017 00:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2017 18:26 Artisreal wrote:
It's perfectly contextual if you read the last page.
And what's rather deliberately provocative is dismissing the struggle of PoCs/LGBT to receive equal treatment as not imperative to (white) politics. It is not contextual at all. It is grossly incorrect and belies a very poor understanding of the criticisms of Coates' argument.
The connection to him is entirely by you.
The reaction from you to any occurrence that involves the rights of whites is perfectly characterised by my statement
|
On September 11 2017 03:05 Nyxisto wrote:
But it says a lot about the two bases when only one is held two the standard of decency while the other base is absolutely unaffected, or even fuelled by debased comments. There was a point in the Coates piece too about this along the lines of "If you dare to put a black man into the white house, as a response anybody no matter how morally corrupt will do".
And let's not forget that Trump actually said this three years ago
Is it still a taboo for Clinton to say it if she's essentially just quoting Trump about his own base?
It's quite ironic that Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" is exactly what he needs to do. If he resigns or gets impeached, he will really make America great again.
|
|
|
The level of disconnect it takes to look at something so bad for your company as this breach and think to yourself "how can we fuck this up some more".
|
On September 10 2017 23:15 farvacola wrote:
Many of Danglars' "y'all are just echo chamber bullying me and all other conservatives with your hurtful words" spiels seem clearly inspired by Shapiro talks, so I'd assume that he doesn't think he's an idiot. They also both like to talk about constitutional law as if they were constitutional scholars.
I also like the part where Dangles points out that Shapiro is "with a yarmulke" as if that stands as anything other than "look at how they treat my friend the jew!"
I've seen the thread countless times try to portray speakers as alt-right/close-enough-to-it to justify either excusing the violence or calling it hate speech. It doesn't get less alt right than a Jewish conservative. I don't see eye to eye with Shapiro on a lot of things. But if police can't stop the protests that seek to negate the speaker/audience portion of the speech, the problem lies with the police and numbskull protests and not how controversial the speaker is.
Farva is generally smart enough to follow thread trends. This is like baby steps to getting a coalition of left and right back behind "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it." That might overcome some of this tribalism on both sides and leave it to the fringe.
|
Norway28706 Posts
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Students being offended by him and yelling stuff, that's fair enough, students are offended by lots of stuff (imo it's a sad thing that people become jaded and complacent when they grow up, not a good thing) and sometimes they choose to express it through yelling. But he's absolutely the type of speaker who should be allowed to freely speak and debate on campuses and it reflects poorly upon whatever side hinders that from happening.
Milo being banned or there being too much outrage to safely host him isn't really something I have a problem with because he's just a provocateur for the sake of being a provocateur and he clearly crosses some lines through naming, singling out and attacking individual students. Shapiro isn't like that, at all.
|
On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Students being offended by him and yelling stuff, that's fair enough, students are offended by lots of stuff (imo it's a sad thing that people become jaded and complacent when they grow up, not a good thing) and sometimes they choose to express it through yelling. But he's absolutely the type of speaker who should be allowed to freely speak and debate on campuses and it reflects poorly upon whatever side hinders that from happening.
Milo being banned or there being too much outrage to safely host him isn't really something I have a problem with because he's just a provocateur for the sake of being a provocateur and he clearly crosses some lines through naming, singling out and attacking individual students. Shapiro isn't like that, at all.
Yeah I think the threshold for what is considered 'controversial' enough for these kind campaigns is worryingly low right now.
|
On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor.
Isn't he one of the guys who agrees that money is speech? I don't think that's a position you can hold honestly but maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.
|
Back to the Coates piece, Conor Friedserdorf made a good list of lines by DJT that were out and out white identity politics. Next time you want to accuse someone of playing in identity politics, pony up lines like these. Show the black analog next time you want to make some kind of phony equivalency.
"They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
“I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage."
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say."
"“I don’t know where he was born.”
"They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.”
"There were people cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations, as the World Trade Center came down."
"We're having problems with the Muslims, and we're having problems with Muslims coming into the country."
BONUS: on the central park 5: It was in a full page ad calling for the execution of 5 innocent black kids. Decades after their exoneration Trump maintains their guilt.
EDIT: you know, the clearer argument here would be: WALL against immigrants, BAN against Muslims, END DACA to turn back the browns, GOOD PEOPLE among nazis at charlottesville.
|
Norway28706 Posts
On September 11 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Isn't he one of the guys who agrees that money is speech? I don't think that's a position you can hold honestly but maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.
I don't know what he's said about that and I don't know enough about what his opinion would entail, but I also don't like dismissing people because of singular statements or positions. If he's honestly debated 100 different issues and then twice he held a different position for political reasons, that's fine by me tbh. I've written more than 1000 posts in this thread and opined on lots of different things, I'm sure some conservatives could arrest me on something I said that was stupid and wrong, and maybe I even doubled down on it afterwards. A healthy political climate includes giving some degree of slack imo.
|
Speaking of identity politics, why are you saying that Trump didn't do that as well? I remember he was "speaking" Indian, and maybe his recognition with just/far right white people.
|
On September 11 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Isn't he one of the guys who agrees that money is speech? I don't think that's a position you can hold honestly but maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.
This kind of sentiment needs to be singled out and condemned for its utter stupidity. Only a moron would conclude that a position that has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court cannot be held honestly.
|
On September 11 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Isn't he one of the guys who agrees that money is speech? I don't think that's a position you can hold honestly but maybe I'm confusing him with someone else. This kind of sentiment needs to be singled out and condemned for its utter stupidity. Only a moron would conclude that a position that has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court cannot be held honestly.
Can't wait to hear more about that from someone who actually makes points as opposed to xDaunt.
|
Oh snap man do you write your own one liners?
|
On September 11 2017 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Isn't he one of the guys who agrees that money is speech? I don't think that's a position you can hold honestly but maybe I'm confusing him with someone else. This kind of sentiment needs to be singled out and condemned for its utter stupidity. Only a moron would conclude that a position that has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court cannot be held honestly. Can't wait to hear more about that from someone who actually makes points as opposed to xDaunt.
Oh, I would love to see more people openly support your statement just because it will make life much easier in profiling the quality of posters. However, I think you're going to find yourself all by yourself on this one. That's how dumb what you said is.
|
On September 11 2017 06:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Isn't he one of the guys who agrees that money is speech? I don't think that's a position you can hold honestly but maybe I'm confusing him with someone else. This kind of sentiment needs to be singled out and condemned for its utter stupidity. Only a moron would conclude that a position that has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court cannot be held honestly. Can't wait to hear more about that from someone who actually makes points as opposed to xDaunt. Oh, I would love to see more people openly support your statement just because it will make life much easier in profiling the quality of posters. However, I think you're going to find yourself all by yourself on this one. That's how dumb what you said is.
Sweet. Like I already said, can't wait to be educated.
|
On September 11 2017 07:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2017 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2017 06:51 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2017 05:58 Nebuchad wrote:On September 11 2017 05:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there are many things I agree with shapiro on, politically, but he's clearly a smart guy, and imo he seems like a honest political contributor. Isn't he one of the guys who agrees that money is speech? I don't think that's a position you can hold honestly but maybe I'm confusing him with someone else. This kind of sentiment needs to be singled out and condemned for its utter stupidity. Only a moron would conclude that a position that has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court cannot be held honestly. Can't wait to hear more about that from someone who actually makes points as opposed to xDaunt. Oh, I would love to see more people openly support your statement just because it will make life much easier in profiling the quality of posters. However, I think you're going to find yourself all by yourself on this one. That's how dumb what you said is. Sweet. Like I already said, can't wait to be educated.
I'm trying to decide what is worse. That you are admitting that you made your pronouncement without even understanding the issue or the arguments that the other side makes, or that you are completely missing that I already provided the education that you need when I referred to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
