|
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 November 30 2017 10:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 09:56 Plansix wrote:On November 30 2017 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 30 2017 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do. There are plenty of male public figures, celebrities, and rich people who don't do this stuff though... This isn't the norm. If we take Xdaunt's statement in teh most charitable light, I think he means that the world we live in has allowed powerful men to abuse women. So they do. Not that men are ingrained to do these things on a biological level. Actually, I think that the urge is biological and natural, which is then tempered by social norms and expectations. Men who hold power just have an easier time doing this stuff, plus tons more opportunities.
Biology only seems to get thrown out there to show terrible behavior by men is "natural." Never good behavior.
|
On November 30 2017 10:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 09:56 Plansix wrote:On November 30 2017 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 30 2017 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do. There are plenty of male public figures, celebrities, and rich people who don't do this stuff though... This isn't the norm. If we take Xdaunt's statement in teh most charitable light, I think he means that the world we live in has allowed powerful men to abuse women. So they do. Not that men are ingrained to do these things on a biological level. Actually, I think that the urge is biological and natural, which is then tempered by social norms and expectations. Men who hold power just have an easier time doing this stuff, plus tons more opportunities. Biology only seems to get thrown out there to show terrible behavior by men is "natural." Never good behavior.
Well, obviously. If we imply that men are better at something because of our genes, that's sexist. We're fucked either way.
|
On November 30 2017 10:30 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 10:24 Plansix wrote:On November 30 2017 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 09:56 Plansix wrote:On November 30 2017 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 30 2017 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do. There are plenty of male public figures, celebrities, and rich people who don't do this stuff though... This isn't the norm. If we take Xdaunt's statement in teh most charitable light, I think he means that the world we live in has allowed powerful men to abuse women. So they do. Not that men are ingrained to do these things on a biological level. Actually, I think that the urge is biological and natural, which is then tempered by social norms and expectations. Men who hold power just have an easier time doing this stuff, plus tons more opportunities. Biology only seems to get thrown out there to show terrible behavior by men is "natural." Never good behavior. Well, obviously. If we imply that men are better at something because of our genes, that's sexist. We're fucked either way.
Or we could just not use it as an excuse at all, and not sexually assault people like it's nbd. Everyone wins.
|
On November 30 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
so, what ratio do you find acceptable? what's the point at which it becomes unacceptable?
(setting aside the question that most people's ethical views would say it depends on the causation/reasoning/why each person died, which would apply a heavy weighting to each death, either multiplying or dividing its value depending on which way you do it)
Low. I'm relatively not much of a nationalist. My point was merely that nationalism isn't inherently evil, and being a nationalist up to a certain extent doesn't mean you're the second coming of Hitler.
On November 30 2017 10:32 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 10:30 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 10:24 Plansix wrote:On November 30 2017 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 09:56 Plansix wrote:On November 30 2017 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 30 2017 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 07:18 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart thinks Trump's tweets today went too far (they have an OP ed, I won't like to Brietbart) and Matt Lauer is worse than I even imagined , JFC
As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.
On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.
His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer. variety.com Lauer is a real treasure. I’m not really surprised, though. Pretty much any guy who rises to that level of wealth and power is suspect on this stuff. This is just what dudes do. There are plenty of male public figures, celebrities, and rich people who don't do this stuff though... This isn't the norm. If we take Xdaunt's statement in teh most charitable light, I think he means that the world we live in has allowed powerful men to abuse women. So they do. Not that men are ingrained to do these things on a biological level. Actually, I think that the urge is biological and natural, which is then tempered by social norms and expectations. Men who hold power just have an easier time doing this stuff, plus tons more opportunities. Biology only seems to get thrown out there to show terrible behavior by men is "natural." Never good behavior. Well, obviously. If we imply that men are better at something because of our genes, that's sexist. We're fucked either way. Or we could just not use it as an excuse at all, and not sexually assault people like it's nbd. Everyone wins.
Right. Along those lines, when my wife is pregnant and it puts her in a bad mood because that's what pregnancy does sometimes, I'll tell her "Pregnancy is no excuse! Be in a better mood!" I'm sure that'll fly and you'll be cheering me on, amiright?
You can acknowledge that it's, on average, harder for men to control their sexual urges for biological reasons, yet still not tolerate sexual abuse by men. Everyone is born with some advantages and disadvantages, but we still have to play a lot of the same rules in life regardless for practical reasons.
|
On November 30 2017 10:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 09:36 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 06:07 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible. The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels. I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump? “No more appropriate” is close enough to “perfect.” It was a very thorough endorsement. Language, my dear. It was poetic justice that Trump followed him. But to advance the appropriate follow up given Obama’s flaws, maybe you actually read why I thought it was appropriate that such a man succeeded such a predecessor? Leave the generalization-and-scoot to ChristianS. I actually said what it was in parallels and complements that I thought highly appropriate. You don’t have to misuse the word to pretend something was left unsaid. To say that there is "no more appropriate" a response to Obama than Trump is a thorough endorsement of Trump. You weren't talking about "parallels," you were talking about a response. It is pretty clearly the language you used and it's impossible to square it with your lip service criticism of Trump. Yeah ... umm not when you think Obama was pretty awful lol. The whole argument that Trump is only doing what Obama did ("capitalizing" on what Obama did) fails miserably as an excuse for Trump, I hope you know. A pretty flagrant false equivalency. Woah woah woah. Right before you try to summarize several points into one, remember that it's only a paragraph long. You are talented enough to give a full response rather than circle the last sentence in a thick sharpie and go off running.
The thing is that it’s merely a concise paraphrase  .
|
When did ISIS invade Alabama?
|
On November 30 2017 10:46 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
so, what ratio do you find acceptable? what's the point at which it becomes unacceptable?
(setting aside the question that most people's ethical views would say it depends on the causation/reasoning/why each person died, which would apply a heavy weighting to each death, either multiplying or dividing its value depending on which way you do it) Low. I'm relatively not much of a nationalist. My point was merely that nationalism isn't inherently evil, and being a nationalist up to a certain extent doesn't mean you're the second coming of Hitler.
low is a bit vague, could you estimate to within a factor of 2?
we understand your point; ours is taht "nationalism" has a reasonably well understood meaning in political science, as well as in common parlance, and it's generally not what you're referring to, and is quite prone to going well into the evil territory.
in part because the people pushing "nationalism" are usually people exploiting xenophobia, bigotry, and generalized fear of the "other" for political advantage. also because the very nature of it tends to increase divisions and lead to problems, as it emphasizes tribalism, and tribalism is generally not something the world is short of.
|
On November 30 2017 10:50 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 10:11 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 09:36 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 06:07 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible. The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels. I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump? “No more appropriate” is close enough to “perfect.” It was a very thorough endorsement. Language, my dear. It was poetic justice that Trump followed him. But to advance the appropriate follow up given Obama’s flaws, maybe you actually read why I thought it was appropriate that such a man succeeded such a predecessor? Leave the generalization-and-scoot to ChristianS. I actually said what it was in parallels and complements that I thought highly appropriate. You don’t have to misuse the word to pretend something was left unsaid. To say that there is "no more appropriate" a response to Obama than Trump is a thorough endorsement of Trump. You weren't talking about "parallels," you were talking about a response. It is pretty clearly the language you used and it's impossible to square it with your lip service criticism of Trump. Yeah ... umm not when you think Obama was pretty awful lol. The whole argument that Trump is only doing what Obama did ("capitalizing" on what Obama did) fails miserably as an excuse for Trump, I hope you know. A pretty flagrant false equivalency. Woah woah woah. Right before you try to summarize several points into one, remember that it's only a paragraph long. You are talented enough to give a full response rather than circle the last sentence in a thick sharpie and go off running. The thing is that it’s merely a concise paraphrase .
I'm building an argument in five or six sentences, and you can't get a clue beyond one sentence. Seems like the point is lost on you.
|
On November 30 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 10:46 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
so, what ratio do you find acceptable? what's the point at which it becomes unacceptable?
(setting aside the question that most people's ethical views would say it depends on the causation/reasoning/why each person died, which would apply a heavy weighting to each death, either multiplying or dividing its value depending on which way you do it) Low. I'm relatively not much of a nationalist. My point was merely that nationalism isn't inherently evil, and being a nationalist up to a certain extent doesn't mean you're the second coming of Hitler. low is a bit vague, could you estimate to within a factor of 2? we understand your point; ours is taht "nationalism" has a reasonably well understood meaning in political science, as well as in common parlance, and it's generally not what you're referring to, and is quite prone to going well into the evil territory. in part because the people pushing "nationalism" are usually people exploiting xenophobia, bigotry, and generalized fear of the "other" for political advantage. also because the very nature of it tends to increase divisions and lead to problems, as it emphasizes tribalism, and tribalism is generally not something the world is short of.
I'm not answering because I'm not confident I can come up with a reasonable answer in five minutes of thought. It's an extremely difficult question. With little thought, I would say less than two for me. I could imagine that I know plenty of people that I wouldn't consider evil that would probably put the number between 10 and 20.
I'm not sure how the definition you're referencing is fundamentally different than mine. When you're a bigot, you care less about your non-countrymen, and thus your countrymen:foreigner ratio goes up. If someone is merely exploiting bigots for political gain, they aren't a nationalist but merely selfish and/or morally depraved. They may be publicly holding nationalist political positions though.
|
On November 30 2017 11:14 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On November 30 2017 10:46 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
so, what ratio do you find acceptable? what's the point at which it becomes unacceptable?
(setting aside the question that most people's ethical views would say it depends on the causation/reasoning/why each person died, which would apply a heavy weighting to each death, either multiplying or dividing its value depending on which way you do it) Low. I'm relatively not much of a nationalist. My point was merely that nationalism isn't inherently evil, and being a nationalist up to a certain extent doesn't mean you're the second coming of Hitler. low is a bit vague, could you estimate to within a factor of 2? we understand your point; ours is taht "nationalism" has a reasonably well understood meaning in political science, as well as in common parlance, and it's generally not what you're referring to, and is quite prone to going well into the evil territory. in part because the people pushing "nationalism" are usually people exploiting xenophobia, bigotry, and generalized fear of the "other" for political advantage. also because the very nature of it tends to increase divisions and lead to problems, as it emphasizes tribalism, and tribalism is generally not something the world is short of. I'm not answering because I'm not confident I can come up with a reasonable answer in five minutes of thought. It's an extremely difficult question. With little thought, I would say less than two for me. I could imagine that I know plenty of people that I wouldn't consider evil that would probably put the number between 10 and 20. I'm not sure how the definition you're referencing is fundamentally different than mine. When you're a bigot, you care less about your non-countrymen, and thus your countrymen:foreigner ratio goes up. If someone is merely exploiting bigots for political gain, they aren't a nationalist but merely selfish and/or morally depraved. They may be publicly holding nationalist political positions though.
how is exploiting bigots for political gain much worse than simply being bigoted itself?
nationalist sentiment has its psychological roots in xenophobia/othering. thus the people pushing it are either ones who are themselves xenophobic, or are simply politicians exploiting it for political gain.
1:10-20 seems like a pretty high ratio to me, it'd certainly be evil under some moral systems. though i'd imagine such ratios might depend also on which other nationality you're comparing to. at what point would you say the ratio is so high as to become evil? (again setting aside the realities of ethics where it depends alot on the circumstances leading to each death).
how familiar are you with the political history of the term? it's hard to explain/identify the differences since they come from a lifetime of education. maybe the wiki on nationalism would help, but it's hard to say. i'm getting sleepy and less focused; maybe noting that nationalism played a significant part in major wars of the past century. while its antonym doesn't do that so much.
|
|
|
Raising the taxes on the middle class to lower taxes for the rich would've read like a parody version of republicans that only existed in Nancy Pelosi's mind a decade ago. Of course, that's their actual goddamn plan so I'm lost now.
|
|
|
A party owned by super rich "conservatives."
|
On November 30 2017 11:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 11:14 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 10:55 zlefin wrote:On November 30 2017 10:46 mozoku wrote:On November 30 2017 09:05 zlefin wrote:
so, what ratio do you find acceptable? what's the point at which it becomes unacceptable?
(setting aside the question that most people's ethical views would say it depends on the causation/reasoning/why each person died, which would apply a heavy weighting to each death, either multiplying or dividing its value depending on which way you do it) Low. I'm relatively not much of a nationalist. My point was merely that nationalism isn't inherently evil, and being a nationalist up to a certain extent doesn't mean you're the second coming of Hitler. low is a bit vague, could you estimate to within a factor of 2? we understand your point; ours is taht "nationalism" has a reasonably well understood meaning in political science, as well as in common parlance, and it's generally not what you're referring to, and is quite prone to going well into the evil territory. in part because the people pushing "nationalism" are usually people exploiting xenophobia, bigotry, and generalized fear of the "other" for political advantage. also because the very nature of it tends to increase divisions and lead to problems, as it emphasizes tribalism, and tribalism is generally not something the world is short of. I'm not answering because I'm not confident I can come up with a reasonable answer in five minutes of thought. It's an extremely difficult question. With little thought, I would say less than two for me. I could imagine that I know plenty of people that I wouldn't consider evil that would probably put the number between 10 and 20. I'm not sure how the definition you're referencing is fundamentally different than mine. When you're a bigot, you care less about your non-countrymen, and thus your countrymen:foreigner ratio goes up. If someone is merely exploiting bigots for political gain, they aren't a nationalist but merely selfish and/or morally depraved. They may be publicly holding nationalist political positions though. how is exploiting bigots for political gain much worse than simply being bigoted itself? nationalist sentiment has its psychological roots in xenophobia/othering. thus the people pushing it are either ones who are themselves xenophobic, or are simply politicians exploiting it for political gain. 1:10-20 seems like a pretty high ratio to me, it'd certainly be evil under some moral systems. though i'd imagine such ratios might depend also on which other nationality you're comparing to. at what point would you say the ratio is so high as to become evil? (again setting aside the realities of ethics where it depends alot on the circumstances leading to each death). how familiar are you with the political history of the term? it's hard to explain/identify the differences since they come from a lifetime of education. maybe the wiki on nationalism would help, but it's hard to say. i'm getting sleepy and less focused; maybe noting that nationalism played a significant part in major wars of the past century. while its antonym doesn't do that so much.
You're mistaking the cause for the effect, and we're coming full circle.
Nationalism is about putting your nation/countrymen above others. Widespread and extreme nationalism tends towards war in a world with scarce resources. I'm well aware of 20th century history. Moderate levels of nationalism (e.g. the average person) are less clearly destructive.
On the other hand, there are at least two motivations for being a nationalist. You can A) be a bigot or B) care more about those who are close to you (something akin to loyalty or kinsmanship). The first socially taboo (and rightfully so). The second is socially virtuous in most circles.
The default leftist assumption is that all nationalism is the former. Trump's base likely has significant numbers of both. Maybe more A than B, but there's definitely some B in there too. At the very least, you can support Trump's non-racist nationalist stuff (which I don't) under B and not be an evil cretin.
|
There are your true RINO's, ladies and gents. Honestly, it should make people want to throw up, with how frequently the GOP flings shit at anyone and everyone for doing something so ignoble as raising taxes, and then turning around and releasing this jewel of a tax plan. Regardless of your view on taxes, this is a hypocrisy and self-servitude that should be orders of magnitude beyond any quibbles you have with the "other side".
|
RINO = Republican that doesn't shill for mega wealthy and votes for policies that are good for their state.
|
|
|
People with high incomes get a bigger cut in absolute $. This would be true even if the the % cut for the middle class was bigger than the % cut for the rich. Not to mention this chart is lacking all context so it'd be meaningless even if the above weren't true.
Can any leftist convincingly explain why the motivation for a tax cut on the rich isn't just... growth? Or principle?
It's seems to be an axiom of tax analysis here that any GOP tax plan amounts to nothing more than a selfish money grab by those who need the money least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
