|
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 14 2017 00:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 00:11 zlefin wrote:On September 14 2017 00:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The great thing about Hillary's book is that everybody is going to get a really good, unvarnished look at what a selfish and entitled bitch she is. She's giving everybody closure. still less so than her opponent last election  I wonder how many people are actually gonna read it in full; and how many are just going to look at cherry-picked quotes from it. I assume most people will read into the book what they want to read into it; rather than approaching it with an open mind to see what new information can be gleaned. i.e. they're just seeking validation for what they already believe, and will find it because that's what they want to find. as to myself; I don't really care, she's in the past and when I read nonfiction (very rarely) it's very high quality useful stuff, and this doesn't get to that standard. So your only exposure to this book will be from "cherry-picked quotes" from others (you're not actually going to read it, you tell us), but you feel very emboldened to criticize anyone that's not "actually gonna read it in full." Either read it or show some understanding for people just like yourself that will read page excerpts and reviews. I've seen several reviews. It does not appear to be ghostwritten. They also focus in on the pettiness, the vindictiveness, and the triteness that defines her political and public persona. We already know she continues to deflect blame for herself onto Bernie, Republicans, Comey, and Russia like she's already done. She sees herself as Cersei Lannister with people shouting "Shame, Shame." She's still absolutely tone deaf on connecting with working class Americans. She misunderstands their motivations and culture, them views the detachment as something noble ... because she's unwilling to stoop to cater to them. In fact it's so typically Clintonian that everybody except Peter Daou ridicules it. She challenges Trump for most clueless politician and that's saying something.
I don't need to read it to conclude that certain thinking errors will be made by others; those errors iwll be made because they are routine errors made by people all the time. I'm criticizing people for making an error that is very commonly made, and partially avoidable if you're careful about it. I don't criticize people for choosing not ot read a book (which I myself said I won't read); I criticize them for coming to a conclusion based on cherry-picked evidence (or moreso, simply seeking to validate a conclusion they already made with cherry-picked evidence). That you can't see the difference is on you, and your inability to see things clearly. Your entire counter to me fails utterly; and shows your own lack of understanding. you also shoudln't respond to me; I've made a point of trying not to respond to your nonsense, but when you quote me directly, that's not so applicable.
It doesnt' matter that I haven't read it in full or only hear cherry-picked quotes; because i'm not using those quotes as proof of anything or to conclude anything or to validate a conclusion i've already reached.
and oyur comparison to trump fails; because regardless of inability to connect with regular americans; she had a far better understanding of actual sound policy.
|
Ah so she's stuck in the era she was born in, while i wouldn't be surprised if a 50+ year old still follows that infantilized interaction with women
|
On September 14 2017 00:07 xDaunt wrote:The great thing about Hillary's book is that everybody is going to get a really good, unvarnished look at what a selfish and entitled bitch she is. She's giving everybody closure.
Sometimes, if only briefly, Hillary's inability to shut the fuck up and accept shameful defeat gracefully makes me think, you know, that maybe Trump being president isn't so bad after all. He's fairly harmless ("destroying democracy" alarmists aside) relative to the more targeted and grand-scale incompetence we would get with Hillary Clinton. At the very least the Democrats get a chance to look at themselves in a mirror and realize that below the surface of a once-charming Obama they allowed themselves to rot and die from the inside.
Obama himself somehow took a level in stupid in his last 6 or so months of being president. It left me a bit blindsided because I actually thought he was a good president most of the time.
|
On September 14 2017 00:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 00:05 xDaunt wrote:
I don't see much value in viewing the development of cultural marxism as a conspiracy theory hatched by the Frankfurt School for most of the same reasons as why I don't see Karl Marx as someone who spawned the communist takeover of Russia. Marxism, in the purest sense, is an analytical tool, notwithstanding the fact that Marxism (as a term) has been conflated with actual political and social movements. For me, cultural marxism is a useful label that embodies many of the left wing cultural movements of the past 50 years that embrace and apply Marxist-style oppression theory. But once you do that, it becomes this mercurial label used as a pejorative for every political theory you disagree with on culture. Once it is stripped of it’s history and context, it is just deeply personal term that is mostly meaningless as a descriptor.
Nah, I don't think so. My disagreement is purely incidental. The label conveys sufficient intrinsic meaning by itself.
|
|
|
On September 14 2017 00:05 xDaunt wrote:
I don't see much value in viewing the development of cultural marxism as a conspiracy theory hatched by the Frankfurt School for most of the same reasons as why I don't see Karl Marx as someone who spawned the communist takeover of Russia. Marxism, in the purest sense, is an analytical tool, notwithstanding the fact that Marxism (as a term) has been conflated with actual political and social movements. For me, cultural marxism is a useful label that embodies many of the left wing cultural movements of the past 50 years that embrace and apply Marxist-style oppression theory.
The bolded is the part that I personally think is an unfortunate aspect of the term. Having something in common - inspiration by Karl Marx and his writing - is used to justify a connection between two completely different groups: culturally retrograde "feels over reals" revisionists, and the political communists of the 20th century. Whatever the fuck cultural Marxism is, it has no relation to the communist party of the USSR or to any other similar political organization, yet it's used with that implicit, occasionally explicit, tie-in.
|
On September 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 00:07 xDaunt wrote:The great thing about Hillary's book is that everybody is going to get a really good, unvarnished look at what a selfish and entitled bitch she is. She's giving everybody closure. Sometimes, if only briefly, Hillary's inability to shut the fuck up and accept shameful defeat gracefully makes me think, you know, that maybe Trump being president isn't so bad after all. He's fairly harmless ("destroying democracy" alarmists aside) relative to the more targeted and grand-scale incompetence we would get with Hillary Clinton. At the very least the Democrats get a chance to look at themselves in a mirror and realize that below the surface of a once-charming Obama they allowed themselves to rot and die from the inside. Obama himself somehow took a level in stupid in his last 6 or so months of being president. It left me a bit blindsided because I actually thought he was a good president most of the time.
based on everything we've seen of trump; if he'd lost I think he'd not have accepted defeat gracefully; and would have accepted defeat considerably less gracefully than hillary has.
more likely the conclusion of trump not being so bad is the result of the standard psychological mechanisms that cause people to accept whatever outcome happened. sometime I should look up the full lists of those mechanisms so I can describe them more precisely.
I don't see what you're talking about with obama in the last 6 months. but I haven't closely tried to compare his overall performance over various time segments.
|
On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism"
Clearly we need to define words by the meanings that make us feel comfortable.
|
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/judge-rejects-foia-suit-seeking-government-climate-scientists-e-mails/
Once upon a time (in mid-2015), some climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study in the journal Science. This sort of thing happens all the time. Yet, in this case, all hell broke loose.
The problem was that this study put yet another nail in the crowded lid of a coffin housing the claim that global warming had somehow suddenly ceased in 1998. Because the study involved an update to NOAA’s global temperature dataset, some who disliked its conclusion—like US House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas)—alleged without evidence that the scientists had improperly manipulated data.
Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data
This began a long fight between NOAA and Rep. Smith, who issued subpoenas for the scientists’ e-mails and early drafts. NOAA scientists met with Smith to carefully explain the study’s methods and point out that all the relevant data and research was already publicly available. But the agency refused to hand over the scientists’ communications and drafts.
|
On September 14 2017 00:07 xDaunt wrote:The great thing about Hillary's book is that everybody is going to get a really good, unvarnished look at what a selfish and entitled bitch she is. She's giving everybody closure.
yep, were she a bloke and running against the donald I wonder how huuuge her victory would've been.
|
On September 14 2017 00:57 Plansix wrote:Clearly we need to define words by the meanings that make us feel comfortable.
But their meaning should be obvious. So obvious that I won't explain what I mean when I say them.
|
On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism"
Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism.
|
On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism.
We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality.
|
On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism.
Anything to avoid saying what you mean, eh?
|
On September 14 2017 00:57 Plansix wrote:Clearly we need to define words by the meanings that make us feel comfortable.
Like "sexpositive".
|
On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality.
What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against.
|
On September 14 2017 00:58 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 00:07 xDaunt wrote:The great thing about Hillary's book is that everybody is going to get a really good, unvarnished look at what a selfish and entitled bitch she is. She's giving everybody closure. yep, were she a bloke and running against the donald I wonder how huuuge her victory would've been.
We definitely don't need another one of these strawmen that try to imply that only her gender led to people voting for her. She played the gender card far, far more than anyone else including Trump. "Nasty woman" is nothing compared to "women who don't vote for Hillary go to hell" and "as a woman running for president I can't be part of the establishment" and similarly inclined bullshit.
|
On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against.
That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities.
But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you.
|
On September 14 2017 01:10 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 00:57 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Clearly we need to define words by the meanings that make us feel comfortable. Like "sexpositive".
That is two words.
|
On September 14 2017 01:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2017 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2017 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Yep, just like "racism" Don't look at me, y'all are the ones who want to change the definition of racism. We are just using the MLK version of racism. And this is real history’s MLK. Not Football coach that also teaches watered down social studies MLK. This is the super angry MLK that said violence wasn’t the answer and moderate whites were the greatest obstacles to equality. What you guys keep missing and haven't adequately explained is why you think that MLK's words apply to the vastly different circumstances that exist today. Like I said before, the Civil Rights Act and its judicial enforcement eliminated virtually all of what MLK fought against. That is because a white dude killed him, not because he finished his work. The problem with your argument is that you assume that MLK fought against all the things you are comfortable labeling as racism and nothing more. The mass incarceration of black men would likely be a huge issue for him. Or the return to economic segregation of blacks in cities. But again a white dude killed MLK, so he exists in this state where all the shape edges can be refined off and he is sanitized to make white people feel comfortable with the status quo. You don't need to confront the idea that when he was talking about moderate whites, he was talking about you.
I'm not the one who is presuming anything. I don't really know what MLK would think of today's race relations. Y'all are the ones who are conclusively saying that conservatives are misapplying his principles and whitewashing his legacy. I'm merely asking y'all to explain yourselves, which you have a done a demonstrably shitty job of doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
