US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8879

On September 30 2017 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Reading about Russia's efforts to influence conversations around BLM and Antifa'esque movements is fascinating. Browsing Twitter, it was clear that there was some enormous spike in extremist activism. Sure, a few of my typically dipshit liberal friends were ranting about patriarchy in all the ways they normally do, but 2016 was different. It was this previously fringe, militant perspective that took so much more of a stand. Reading about the fact that Russia did its best to spark that fire, then fan it and help it grow, makes total sense.

I also take pleasure in being able to be this condescending regarding BLM. They were such dipshits that a foreign government was able to rile them up and make them even more angry. They were used because their views were divisive and extreme, but also because of how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be. People who subscribe to extremist beliefs typically feel like their power has been taken from them and that they are weak to create their own path. They cling on to extremist nonsense because definitive, all-or-nothing, "had enough already" types of thinking gives people resolve. By being unyielding, they start to feel like they are actually powerful or actually making a difference. Because they were weak, they got used.

But also, fuck those people for being weak trash. They brought us all down with them because they were weak and shitty.

Edit: This is what I'm referring to http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/28/media/blacktivist-russia-facebook-twitter/index.html

If you tell young, weak, misguided shitbags who are looking for an excuse for their misery, all the ways they can feel powerful, they are going to take that bait.

President Donald Trump on Friday said that “big decisions” loom about the cost of rebuilding of Puerto Rico in the wake of two severe hurricanes while relaying praise he said his administration had received from the island’s governor for its recovery and aid efforts.

“Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello just stated: "The Administration and the President, every time we've spoken, they've delivered,’” Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning, an apparent reference to a Fox News interview that Rossello had given a day earlier. “The fact is that Puerto Rico has been destroyed by two hurricanes. Big decisions will have to be made as to the cost of its rebuilding!”

Trump did not clarify what “big decisions” are upcoming or how the price would factor into those decisions.

Puerto Rico remains devastated in the wake of two major hurricanes, Irma and Maria, that made landfall on the island this month. The storms, especially Maria, have left much of the island without power and many of its residents without shelter. Flights in and out of the island have been limited and access to supplies, including clean drinking water, remains spotty.

Relief efforts in Puerto Rico thus far have been slower than those along the Gulf Coast for Hurricane Harvey or in Florida for Irma, in large part because of the added layer of logistical complications involved in supplying aid to an island. Criticism that recovery efforts have been slower have been compounded by Trump’s recent tirade against NFL players who kneel during the national anthem, an issue to which some accused Trump of paying too much attention at the expense of storm response in Puerto Rico.

The president has said that his outbursts against the NFL and its players have not distracted him from hurricane recovery efforts.

Trump had initially refused to waive the Jones Act, a law requiring intra-U.S. shipping to be performed by U.S.-flagged vessels, telling reporters earlier this week that he had left the rule in place at the behest of the U.S. shipping industry. By Thursday, Trump had reversed course, waiving the Jones Act at the behest of Puerto Rican officials.

On September 29 2017 16:58 cLutZ wrote:


But that is not really the question. We know there are people who think either: 1) Police Brutality is being exaggerated by protestors; and/or 2) The protest during the national anthem is inappropriate and an attack on the military/America/etc.

Arguing that those people are wrong about point #1 doesn't affect whether you sit, kneel, lock arms, or take a shit during the anthem. You already kneeled and people thought that was disrespectful. You can't recant that by doing a slight adjustment, that just will make people angrier because they will (correctly most of the time) perceive that you are simply trying to trick them and you are insincere. As is always true, the way to apologize is to sincerely apologize. This option is not available for most of the new protestors who protested knowing the offense people take.

Kaep could have done it though, he could have said, "I'm sorry that I was ignorant about the history of the anthem (insert more platitudes here), however, I think police brutality is an important problem in America that I want to address for (insert reasons here) and I will begin doing (insert thing here)." He didn't, that means he intentionally wanted to make people uncomfortable, all subsequent kneelers took up that mantle. You can't go from the position, "I am intentionally offending you," to the position, "I am not offensive, just conveying the same message as before," without the intervening apology/recant. This is why how you protest is always as important as the reason for which you protest.

By way of analogy, if the Google guy wore a Hillary Shirt and said, "I totally support more women in engineering" then took off his sunglasses and winked, do you think they would rehire him? No, of course not.

On September 30 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:

Wait, you are calling BLM weak for believing the Russian misinformation efforts? The Russian goal is to drive division and your hot take is that it’s groups like BLM fault for buying into the division?

Are you not just buying into the division by blaming everyone but the people who are lying?

On September 30 2017 01:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So if is he hinting that it is foolish to rebuild then the States will receive an influx of people who will then and will vote accordingly...



Source

On September 30 2017 01:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
You're confusing BLM and antifa. The two are fundamentally disparate of one another. Try again.

On September 30 2017 01:08 Plansix wrote:
I don’t understand Trump’s plan. You either rebuild the island or prepare for a bunch of American citizen refugees he can’t deny access to the country.

On September 30 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:


I am certainly being critical here. But what I am criticizing is the idea that a lot of these young, weak individuals were looking for meaning and a way to finally feel empowered. They saw radical, divisive, extreme perspectives being tweeted and retweeted. They see 20K retweets and, being pitiful individuals, felt like these perspectives must have some sort of truth or validity. They look at things like demanding reparations as a flat tax on white people and say "Ya know what, looking at how many people also feel this way, and seeing how weak I feel right now, they just might be right". THAT is what I am criticizing: The weakness of the individual. They should have realized this is extremist nonsense and moved on. I fault the individual for being shitty and being susceptible to this type of thinking.

We all know how these types of things work. It is the same way Trump legitimized what I would call barely-not-white-supremacy. A ton of people now think his perspectives are justifiable and that they will eventually empower lower-class whites. In many ways, Russia is just riling up people the same way Trump did. My point is that the type of person who is vulnerable to thinking viewpoints are legitimate or ethical because of the appearance of widespread appeal, are shitty people and I am very upset with them. I hate that their weakness brings my country down.

On September 30 2017 01:29 KwarK wrote:

Honestly it sounds an awful lot like you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of, and with no more basis to it.

You have preconceived notions about BLM and then an article shows up on the internet that appears to validate your beliefs and so you launch into this tirade, completely absent of facts.

Read your own posts again as if they were written by another and ask yourself "where is this coming from?" Is there really a mass popular movement that is demanding a flat tax on white people? What evidence is there for the existence of that movement? How representative are the spokespeople of the beliefs of the people as a whole? Is their real size and influence proportionate to that portrayed in the media? What actual data do you have to respond to any of that.

You read an article on the internet and it convinced you that a group is nothing but weak willed individuals who have been manipulated and exploited into feeling a sense of outrage and anger towards another group. And so you immediately posted your gut reaction, outrage and anger towards that group.

On September 30 2017 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:


I'm not talking about the movements as a whole. I am talking about the fringe parts of these groups that have been visibly empowered by this sort of thing. I would say that I generally sympathize and support "BLM". But it has its share of extremist bullshit and I have definitely noticed an increase in the fringe part of their movement in the past year. I am not making any claim to NOT being nasty, condescending and divisive. I fully embrace my inclination to verbally spit on these fringe groups.

On September 30 2017 01:37 KwarK wrote:

I'm not saying that you're not being nasty, condescending, and divisive (that felt odd to write, clarifying negatively?), I'm questioning whether you have engaged in sufficient questioning of your own response to that article to conclude that you are not yourself being manipulated in the same way you attack them for.

In short, how can you distinguish between their illegitimate anger that was incited by articles placed there deliberately to manipulate them, and your own anger after reading about this in an article?