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 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
In this context, I don't think that there's a particularly meaningful basis to distinguish between the posts and the man. And that's not really what I'm getting at, anyway. The real issue is why you'd find the posts to be emblematic of racism in the first place. My answer to that has always been that you, like many (likely most) on the left, employ an over-broad definition of racism.
I know we've been through this a bunch of times but I'm ready to go again. What would you call a subconscious racism that certain groups have because they are an inherent part of their cultural identity? Do you think this phenomenon exists? I think this has been defined as just 'racism', supremacism even. I don't personally think that's correct but it'd be good if there could be appropriate language we could use to describe this stuff.
I'm willing to entertain and even stipulate to the existence of a variety of race-related issues ranging from disparate impact theories to profiling. There is no shortage of other like-minded people on the right.
At what point would you draw the line and call it racism? I mean this is the only real argument anyone is having on here, just in a bunch of different guises. We all know that these race related issues are there, but some people call it racism and others don't. There are two possible solutions as far as I can see: 1: People stop taking accusations of racism personally, which is fine until the accusation is about a serious individual case of racism. 2: We try and figure out some kind of consistent language we can agree on to save having the same discussion for 30 pages out of every 50.
On September 19 2017 06:55 Jockmcplop wrote: There are two possible solutions as far as I can see: 1: People stop taking accusations of racism personally, which is fine until the accusation is about a serious individual case of racism. 2: We try and figure out some kind of consistent language we can agree on to save having the same discussion for 30 pages out of every 50.
I'd say a regular five every fifty is a bare necessary given how much of politics is calling someone or something racist. Just consider how much (1) is a denial of stigma.
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
In this context, I don't think that there's a particularly meaningful basis to distinguish between the posts and the man. And that's not really what I'm getting at, anyway. The real issue is why you'd find the posts to be emblematic of racism in the first place. My answer to that has always been that you, like many (likely most) on the left, employ an over-broad definition of racism.
The gestalt of one's posting is often more telling than any individual post can be. When someone makes a many-page long argument about how a drape on a statue is destroying America's social fabric, but makes what amounts to a tiny footnote when it comes to admitting how awful Charlottesville was, and only once pressed on the issue, that says something. Putting fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't mean anything is robbing nuance from an adult conversation on the subject.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that there's a lot of factors that go into how much someone talks about a given topic, and the importance of the topic is only one factor. I don't talk much about some very important topics because I'm uninformed about them, for instance. Other topics aren't discussed just because they're obvious - I've seen very little discussion here or anywhere else of the urgent requirement that all of us continue breathing, for instance, although it really is quite important.
That's not to say it isn't reasonable to sometimes expect people to disavow recent extremist developments on "their side" (that is, their side of the crude left-right political binary, not necessarily that thry are actually on the side of the extremists). And I think the conservatives here are often pretty cagey about saying something the liberals want them to, even if they don't disagree with what they're being asked to say (not sure why - it's like they're scared it's a trap or something). But "______ talks about X ten times more than Y, therefore they must think X is ten times more important than Y" just doesn't hold true to me.
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote: In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
In this context, I don't think that there's a particularly meaningful basis to distinguish between the posts and the man. And that's not really what I'm getting at, anyway. The real issue is why you'd find the posts to be emblematic of racism in the first place. My answer to that has always been that you, like many (likely most) on the left, employ an over-broad definition of racism.
The gestalt of one's posting is often more telling than any individual post can be. When someone makes a many-page long argument about how a drape on a statue is destroying America's social fabric, but makes what amounts to a tiny footnote when it comes to admitting how awful Charlottesville was, and only once pressed on the issue, that says something. Putting fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't mean anything is robbing nuance from an adult conversation on the subject.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that there's a lot of factors that go into how much someone talks about a given topic, and the importance of the topic is only one factor. I don't talk much about some very important topics because I'm uninformed about them, for instance. Other topics aren't discussed just because they're obvious - I've seen very little discussion here or anywhere else of the urgent requirement that all of us continue breathing, for instance, although it really is quite important.
That's not to say it isn't reasonable to sometimes expect people to disavow recent extremist developments on "their side" (that is, their side of the crude left-right political binary, not necessarily that thry are actually on the side of the extremists). And I think the conservatives here are often pretty cagey about saying something the liberals want them to, even if they don't disagree with what they're being asked to say (not sure why - it's like they're scared it's a trap or something). But "______ talks about X ten times more than Y, therefore they must think X is ten times more important than Y" just doesn't hold true to me.
I don't think that holds true as some kind of an absolute, I agree with you completely. But this is pretty specific, and the people in question are sure shooting educated enough to know what they're talking about(or why they're not talking about it). And though it should go without saying that racism is awful and that its practitioners should be universally disavowed, Charlottesville showed us that some people don't feel that way. Shit, we had xD in here arguing in defense of the man who ran those people over, and insisted the 14 words weren't white supremacist rhetoric. It would kind of help if they actually said Nazis are bad at that point in the conversation. The context merits it.
oh LL, you know it's the world we live in. there is no expectation of privacy in public service. we must also assume something between the worst and pretty bad for any new developments, otherwise it's no fun.
On September 19 2017 08:52 ticklishmusic wrote: oh LL, you know it's the world we live in. there is no expectation of privacy in public service.
Every aspect of ongoing investigations being leaked - and everyone basically agreeing that's a good thing - is anything but normal.
this doesn't look like every aspects; it looks like a small number of aspects; and mostly stuff that's obvious anyways.
skimming the actual article; i'm ont sure it even says what the tweeter claims it says; it looks like it doesn't, but not enough time right now to verify, nor much reason to care to do it later.
I don't think it's surprising that people want to know what's going on. I've had a debate a couple times with a Trumpet uncle of mine where he insists that they haven't found anything against him yet and I keep telling him that he can't possibly know that and he'd just handwaive away anything substantial that did leak with but her emails or some other form of whataboutism or Fox News propaganda.
if you hadn't noticed leaks have become weaponized and more or less a staple in the political operative toolkit. i do find the timing of your newfound concern rather interesting, however.
On September 19 2017 08:52 ticklishmusic wrote: oh LL, you know it's the world we live in. there is no expectation of privacy in public service.
Every aspect of ongoing investigations being leaked - and everyone basically agreeing that's a good thing - is anything but normal.
You know I've criticized partisan leak campaigns from within the intelligence community and other bureaucratic agencies. Everybody doesn't agree to this current iteration.
Since the forums been hyperactive lately on minutiae, I will say this doesn't encompass gumshoe reporting like interviewing neighbors about a SWAT-style home breach or possible leaks from Manafort himself to garner sympathy.
On September 19 2017 09:07 LegalLord wrote: I dunno, I mention it just about every other time something like this comes out. You're lack of attentiveness is not a fault on my part.
Well, pardon me for not having clear recall on almost 9,000 pages of posts.
On June 12 2017 23:43 LegalLord wrote: Watts' testimony is hilarious in how freely it mixes actual Russian work (the leaks being by far the most significant), straight up bullshit like the Eichenwald narrative, and domestic fake news like birtherism.
The reason anything "worked" is because the environment was utterly toxic to begin with, such that an actual leak of moderately incriminating emails was able to start a chain reaction in public opinion. But it was less so a thorough and complete influence campaign as much as seeing a growing fire and just quietly pouring a canister of gas on the top, then letting the flames do the work for you.
A leak happened. it was effective. No real suggestion if good/bad, I give it a 3.
On June 16 2017 12:55 LegalLord wrote: I personally take the "wait for official results" approach to investigations like these. In the court of public opinion Trump is guilty and sentenced to death already, based on leaks that may or may not be from real people of worth - and many are not despite the "but anonymous sources are the foundation of journalism" folk.
Leaks are bad. Very bad. 1. But worth pointing out, most of the leaks have been pretty legit and not fake news.
On June 16 2017 13:10 ChristianS wrote: Doesn't everyone here probably take a "wait for official results" philosophy with regards to criminal investigations? It seems like LL and xDaunt are trying to say "the difference between me and those damn liberals is that I believe in innocent until proven guilty, due process, habeas corpus, etc." I think most liberals do too? That doesn't mean we can't look at the evidence at hand and form our own opinions about what is or isn't likely.
"Wait for official results" isn't a position of legal opinion. It's a "shut the fuck up about speculation until there's something concrete to pin on people" position. I've seen enough public "trials" in my life to know that speculation based on partial evidence is more feels-driven than logical and creates more shit than the situation itself.
The "better than those damn liberals" point is a laughable non-sequitur.
So if news came out that a hypothetical president had recorded tapes of everyone in the white house, but then destroyed them when they got subpoenaed, it is inappropriate to speculate on whether that makes them look guilty? We should just say "I await the justice system's decision regarding this individual's innocence or guilt"?
Edit: or if you're just saying we need to wait until there's solid evidence, presumably the debate is how solid the evidence currently is.
Well do we have anything of the sort? Or just a bunch of vaguely suspicious looking stuff from a shitty president?
I'm just trying to pin down what this ethic you've expressed actually means. I mostly don't think there's anything public yet to the collusion charge, and don't know enough about the legal requirements of obstruction of justice.
But it seems like your ethic is basically that you speculate if you think there's something there and don't if you don't, which is the same thing everyone else does but you've managed to feel superior about it.
The short version is that you should keep your head about it all. Most people don't like Trump and will believe any Billy or Bobby that says any mean thing about how much of a crook he is and how much he licks Putin's boot. This is how public trials always go.
God knows this thread has too many people who positively lose their minds at the slightest hint of a possibility of a not sure if credible leak that says that Trump did something potentially bad. That has a lot to do with simply how strongly he is disliked rather than how guilty he is. I suppose if you want fairness then you could say that the same could be said about Hillary Clinton.
1. Leaks are bad. A brief acknowledgement about how leaks have impacted Clinton as well.
I will say this much: Obama deserves plenty of shit for helping to create the DNC under DWS that was so incompetent that the Russia matter not only happened but also was so consequential, and he deserves even more shit for allowing it to happen under his watch. The way he shilled for Hillary and her surrogates throughout the campaign season was frankly quite deplorable. He lost a lot of my respect in the final stretch of his tenure.
How do you propose Obama should have prevented the DNC hack?
Build a better organization in the DNC with more competent IT.
But the hacking part isn't really the most consequential. Shit does get hacked and both the US and Russia have hacked enough of each other's shit over the decades to have something to show for it. The leak was what really matters, and more specifically how much of an effect it had. That was solely due to the highly human factor of DWS having all the charisma of a damp rag and the DNC making it clear that the Sandernistas could go fuck themselves if they didn't agree - which the leak did a fantastic job of putting directly into words. That would not have had such an effect if Obama and his administration did not pave the way for the hack to be so effective.
On July 15 2017 11:49 Kickstart wrote: Though to me it still seems that one side is arguing that the meddling is problematic and that we need to properly deal with what took place while the other side has argued first that no such thing ever happened, then that if it did happen nothing of real consequence happened, to now saying well it did happen but everyone would have done the same thing so what does it matter.
That's not really a fair depiction of things. For one, the "Russia did nothing wrong" side consists of a lot of people who take a "let the investigation deal with this and stop the media leaks" approach to it all. God knows the media is more interested in headlines than quality reporting, especially gutter tier news organizations like Fox and CNN. They're not any good at being honest and reliable, that's for sure.
And on the "let's deal with this Russia issue" side, don't lose track of the reality that there is a second goal here: to get rid of a president they don't like. Do you seriously think that a more well-liked president would have people grasping at every possible opportunity to try to impeach him? Yes, the reasons here are better justified than, say, for Bill Clinton, but the underlying "find a reason to get rid of Trump" sentiment is not just about Russia either.
The reality is more so that of a fractured consensus, one that can't properly deal with a situation like this. It's almost like a macrocosm of everything that made BW vs SC2 an endless bitch fight.
I'll give this guy a 2.5. It doesn't call out leaking as a bad thing explicitly, though does make a point (which I agree with) about leaks tending to be small pieces of info which may lack context.
On August 04 2017 13:34 LegalLord wrote: Those transcripts just don't give much to work with, they're pretty much the equivalent of Maddow's tax return leaks. If they get a Putin transcript that would be a different story.
This one's in reference to the transcripts b/w Trump and Australia and Mexico. No real anti-leaking sentiment though, so I give this a 3.
On August 04 2017 15:44 LegalLord wrote: I have no doubt that politicized leaks will continue to play a prominent role in the political process for years to come. Hacking is but a means, and not a new one, to that end; the leaking is what is really of interest here. This election has showed the political potency of leaking truthful information in the midst of a troubled environment to influence results, and there is no indication that we are going to see that happen less often in the future. Using a foreign non-ally for such ill-gotten gains starts to look like it isn't even much of a deviation from the norm in the context of what is already happening.
This describes the weaponization of leaks and use in political agendas. It seems to say leaks are effective, but doesn't endorse them. I give it a 3.
On August 05 2017 12:10 LegalLord wrote: So, I'm a wee bit curious: are the rumors surrounding the Mueller probe supposed to be public, or are these leaks just for fun?
This one's a bit of a leading question which implies leaking is bad. I'll give it a 1.5, but I could give it a slightly less negative rating as well. But whatevs.
On August 24 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote: Man, a lot of people in Trumps camp write a lot of emails about meeting Russians.
Can't help but wonder: Why Russia? Why not Germany? Sweden? England? Korea? Japan? Canada?
Which ones of those are not going to instantly hate him?
What would make Russia not hate the US?
Well that's a bit of a more complex topic than the one of why Trump might be inclined to have some nice friendly backroom talks with Russia. Incidentally one of the few talks that he apparently feels are actually friendly in the political arena.
So you think it was Russia basically figuring they may as well give it a shot, then realizing "holy shit lol they're actually going for it"?
I mean, why not? There's always sleazy shitbags willing to betray their country given the right incentive. And you can't deny the first impulse of the Trump team to something like the DNC leaks would be "I like their style."
This one is a 3, as it doesn't really condemn leaks but just makes mention of it as a political tactic.
On August 29 2017 03:32 LegalLord wrote: Honestly I really wonder how all these government agencies are allowing themselves to leak like a sieve. Comey's testimony makes me suspect that the leakage is very much top-down.
This one is anti leak it seems. I give it a 1.
So, my conclusion about leaks is that you fall probably mixed to negative on them. However, a noticeable pattern most of the points where you're negative seem to be when it's related to the Russia investigation while general leak comments are a little more towards neutral, ie "shit happen". Possible error in sampling is that I only went a dozen or so posts back, which may not have covered a sufficient time period to pick up comments about other things.
EPT
