US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8972

On October 12 2017 02:11 Velr wrote:
I checked 3 times if it was moltke posting, but he used too many words actual people tend to use :D.

Btw: Political discussion here has about as much effect as it has in real life - mostly none. You might sway some people close to you but all else its mostly a waste of energy... But actually fun

On October 12 2017 01:23 IgnE wrote:


The Butler quote he reads is eminently understandable though. I don't know whether you think the "joke on . . . the language of gender theory" lands but its a funny comment coming from a poster named Deleuze. I actually think the video is more tragicomic than absurdist satire.

On October 12 2017 02:38 Mohdoo wrote:

The local conservatives have greatly helped me better understand their party and set of philosophies. I view posting/reading here as a path to better understand and appreciate people who think differently. It also helps me better develop my own philosophies by always having to justify and argue them. I've definitely had a lot of my positions evolve since my time posting here.

One funny effect is that whenever political discussions come up irl, I basically can't even participate because it is so boring it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The local conservatives here are miles ahead of your every day Republican in terms of philosophical depth and nuance. It always feels like people I meet in person are, at best, parroting tweets and 1 liners more than developing actual belief structures. I always just pretend I'm not all that politically minded irl lol.

On October 12 2017 02:38 Mohdoo wrote:

The local conservatives have greatly helped me better understand their party and set of philosophies. I view posting/reading here as a path to better understand and appreciate people who think differently. It also helps me better develop my own philosophies by always having to justify and argue them. I've definitely had a lot of my positions evolve since my time posting here.

One funny effect is that whenever political discussions come up irl, I basically can't even participate because it is so boring it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The local conservatives here are miles ahead of your every day Republican in terms of philosophical depth and nuance. It always feels like people I meet in person are, at best, parroting tweets and 1 liners more than developing actual belief structures. I always just pretend I'm not all that politically minded irl lol.

On October 12 2017 02:44 ShoCkeyy wrote:


This. I'm a conservative at heart, I was raised conservative, but through out high school, the republican party started to sway out of my views. They went off the deep end entirely. This is why I really considered myself centrist, and coming to the US politics thread helps see what others see in their respective part of the country.

We all know FL is a shit show, so I barely bring things up unless it's important haha.

On October 12 2017 02:38 Mohdoo wrote:

The local conservatives have greatly helped me better understand their party and set of philosophies. I view posting/reading here as a path to better understand and appreciate people who think differently. It also helps me better develop my own philosophies by always having to justify and argue them. I've definitely had a lot of my positions evolve since my time posting here.

One funny effect is that whenever political discussions come up irl, I basically can't even participate because it is so boring it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The local conservatives here are miles ahead of your every day Republican in terms of philosophical depth and nuance. It always feels like people I meet in person are, at best, parroting tweets and 1 liners more than developing actual belief structures. I always just pretend I'm not all that politically minded irl lol.

On October 12 2017 02:44 Jockmcplop wrote:


More often than not I get terribly frustrated when debating conservatives. Ideological opposition is near impossible to work through in politics.
I'm mostly here to understand the new hard left. I'm struggling to but I'm going to keep nitpicking their logic until I get where they're coming from.

On October 12 2017 02:11 Velr wrote:
I checked 3 times if it was moltke posting, but he used too many words actual people tend to use :D.

Btw: Political discussion here has about as much effect as it has in real life - mostly none. You might sway some people close to you but all else its mostly a waste of energy... But actually fun

On October 12 2017 00:48 always_winter wrote:
It's nothing short of comical to read keyboard warriors of the same ideological demographic attempt discourse among one other to determine who can more accurately convince the forum his or her own brand of liberalism is unlike the others and morally superior. To assume this outlet you've so nostalgically latched onto carries even an ounce of worth, or that your alleged expertise is influencing anyone or anything inside or out of the incredibly small, remarkably insignificant and ideologically homogeneous world of computer games (or the even more acutely homogeneous demographic of netizens who contribute political discourse to computer game forums), is a pipe dream more poorly conceived than the short-lived successor to the game we all loved as kids. The entertainment spawned from egocentric delusion rivals even that so graciously provided to us by our beloved orange leader.

In the last week of September, North Korea exploded a nuclear device that was no ordinary atomic bomb. The gadget’s yield indicated that it was, at the very least, a boosted weapon or even a crude hydrogen bomb. In short, it was a city-killer. That same week saw the second of two terrible storms make landfall in Puerto Rico, resulting in what observers knew would be a humanitarian crisis no matter how adept the federal response was. And the federal response was anything but adept.

So how did Donald Trump respond to these crises? He exhumed a dormant controversy from its internment and somehow managed to ride it to victory.

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of the NFL owners when somebody disrespects the flag to say get that sonofabitch off the field?” Trump boomed at an Alabama rally for a candidate he had endorsed who subsequently lost the election (another forgotten embarrassment for the president). This was an extemporaneous riff on the actions of players like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. You see, despite the fact that Kaepernick’s contract expired in March and he hadn’t played in the league for a year, he once took a knee during the playing of the national anthem to protest police violence against African-Americans.

This bloody tunic was designed strictly for the consumption of the crowd into which it was thrown, but Trump’s opponents simply cannot help but be baited into fighting the president on the terrain of his choosing. What followed was a national campaign of kneeling—black players, white players, coaches, owners, and more—all locking arms in solidarity. They insisted they were protesting not just Donald Trump but the callousness of anyone who would deny the legitimacy of protests against police violence.

Trump is a uniquely polarizing figure, and anything he touches becomes polarized. As such, anthem kneeling that had once been wildly unpopular suddenly became only slightly unpopular. One public opinion survey even found the kneeling was seen as an appropriate gesture by a majority of the country. But a majority of the country doesn’t watch major league football. Ultimately, time was on Trump’s side.

The headlines were predictable. “NFL advertisers are ‘nervous’ amid protests, ratings dip.” “Dallas Cowboys TV ratings down in their home market.” “‘Monday Night Football’ Ratings Hits Season Low.” It is unlikely that Trump intentionally picked a fight that he knew he would win, considering the venue in which his comments were made. He might not have known at the time that his improvisatory needling of that particular bear would spark another skirmish in the culture wars. It was, however, obvious that Trump knew what he was doing by this past weekend when Vice President Mike Pence was dispatched to Indianapolis with a plan to walk out on yet another anthem protest. “I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any players kneeled, disrespecting our country,” Trump declared on Monday.

The president started this fight, but NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell finished it. In a letter composed on Tuesday and distributed to all 32 teams in the league, the league’s chief said the anthem protests represented a “barrier” to a constructive conversation on “critical social issues.” As such, they were to end immediately.

The letter made it plain that this was no gesture in deference to national comity; it was a business decision. “Like many of our fans, we believe that everyone should stand for the national anthem,” Goodell wrote. “It is an important moment in our game. We want to honor our flag and our country, and our fans expect that of us.”

Just like that, Trump conjured up from thin air another victory in our endless, tiresome culture wars. For his committed fan base, the president’s ability to manufacture these alleged victories represent as the only tangible benefit of the Trump presidency. He could not have done it, though, without the unwitting complicity of his adversaries. Their reliable imprudence assures Trump a steady stream of material to stoke disunion and preserve the cohesion of his coalition. And they never stop sending him material to work with.

On October 12 2017 03:41 Simberto wrote:


I mostly get frustrated when talking to fellow people on the left. (Lets be honest, people with views compatible with the US right wing simply don't exist in my social circles, either because i live in Germany or because i mostly deal with college-type people) And some of them actually take the uninformed strawmanny positions that our resident right-wingers like to paint me as.

That is an incredibly frustrating position to be in. Because it means that i have to argue the right-wing part and also explain shitloads of totally obvious stuff to them before we can actually have a discussion. I don't want to deal with a superficial satire that is being held as both an actual position and lacking any knowledge of most of the major facts. I don't want to deal with people who a) obviously have no idea what they are talking about and b) think that there position is so completely obvious that they don't actually need to know what they are talking about, while completely missing the main point of a discussion.

On October 12 2017 03:41 Simberto wrote:


I mostly get frustrated when talking to fellow people on the left. (Lets be honest, people with views compatible with the US right wing simply don't exist in my social circles, either because i live in Germany or because i mostly deal with college-type people) And some of them actually take the uninformed strawmanny positions that our resident right-wingers like to paint me as.

That is an incredibly frustrating position to be in. Because it means that i have to argue the right-wing part and also explain shitloads of totally obvious stuff to them before we can actually have a discussion. I don't want to deal with a superficial satire that is being held as both an actual position and lacking any knowledge of most of the major facts. I don't want to deal with people who a) obviously have no idea what they are talking about and b) think that there position is so completely obvious that they don't actually need to know what they are talking about, while completely missing the main point of a discussion.