|
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. |
Wow selectively quoting yourself is a new one.
I don’t think it is a ground breaking idea that people should stick to topics they are experts on. I am not an expert of the impacts and struggles cause by day to day racism in the US. I’ll leave discussing that to black and brown people. I’ll stick to growing up in an all white rural town and being the wealthiest family in that town, but not know it because I was only middle class.
That's the full quote and you know exactly what you are trying to suggest.
I suppose its possible that I'm misinterpreting it, but given previous discussion about this I really doubt it.
|
On December 29 2017 06:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again. Oh, please. The only reason he won the primary was because the sexual molestation allegations were unknown.
70% of Republicans in that state believed them to be false per the exit polls. Now ignoring that thinking that means 9 accusers and about 50 corroborating people who dont know each other all decided to tell the same lie and yet no one has shown any evidence that such a grand conspiracy was possible, what it means is 70% of the voters in Alabama are just as likely to vote for him now as before.
I think we can also safely say of the remaining 30% most did not vote for him already.
|
I really feel you are misinterpreting it. I put in the sentence at the end to point denote that personal experience matters.
Also, this is the full quote:
On December 29 2017 07:00 Plansix wrote:
The racism discussion returns. The struggle is endless:
I don’t think it is a ground breaking idea that people should stick to topics they are experts on. I am not an expert of the impacts and struggles cause by day to day racism in the US. I’ll leave discussing that to black and brown people. I’ll stick to growing up in an all white rural town and being the wealthiest family in that town, but not know it because I was only middle class.
If folks(myself included) took a moment and asked themselves if they have any reason to pontificate on a subject, we would all be off.
The part at the end about pontificating is important, which you maybe have selectively removed. It is unclear.
Pontificate: to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
I am not talking about people devaluing their own personal experience or any sort of self loathing. Just that maybe if someone writes a 4000 word essay on voter repressions or systematic racism, maybe my white ass from rural America that had one black family across 5 towns doesn't have a lot to add with any authority.(no longer, the black family moved)
Just like I can't really comment about day to day life in Scotland. That isn't self loathing, it is just admitting I haven't lived in Scotland ever. If I wanted to have a strong opinion life in Scotland, I would need to do a bunch of reading or move.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On December 29 2017 08:18 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 06:56 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again. Oh, please. The only reason he won the primary was because the sexual molestation allegations were unknown. 70% of Republicans in that state believed them to be false per the exit polls. Now ignoring that thinking that means 9 accusers and about 50 corroborating people who dont know each other all decided to tell the same lie and yet no one has shown any evidence that such a grand conspiracy was possible, what it means is 70% of the voters in Alabama are just as likely to vote for him now as before. I think we can also safely say of the remaining 30% most did not vote for him already.
Meh. I think if the allegations came out in the primaries and people could ditch him for another republican, then more people would believe the accusers. It's just that 'I don't believe the accusers' is a defense much easier to justify (both to yourself and to others) than 'I don't care if he's a pedophile, we gotta beat the democrats' is, and these types of psychological factors definitely contribute to beliefs. The consequences of believing the accusers was much higher than if it happened during the primary, and that makes less people accept it.
|
On December 29 2017 08:26 Plansix wrote:I really feel you are misinterpreting it. I put in the sentence at the end to point denote that personal experience matters. Also, this is the full quote: Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 07:00 Plansix wrote:
The racism discussion returns. The struggle is endless:
I don’t think it is a ground breaking idea that people should stick to topics they are experts on. I am not an expert of the impacts and struggles cause by day to day racism in the US. I’ll leave discussing that to black and brown people. I’ll stick to growing up in an all white rural town and being the wealthiest family in that town, but not know it because I was only middle class.
If folks(myself included) took a moment and asked themselves if they have any reason to pontificate on a subject, we would all be off. The part at the end about pontificating is important, which you maybe have selectively removed. It is unclear. Pontificate: to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic wayI am not talking about people devaluing their own personal experience or any sort of self loathing. Just that maybe if someone writes a 4000 word essay on voter repressions or systematic racism, maybe my white ass from rural America that had one black family across 5 towns doesn't have a lot to add with any authority.(no longer, the black family moved) Just like I can't really comment about day to day life in Scotland. That isn't self loathing, it is just admitting I haven't lived in Scotland ever. If I wanted to have a strong opinion life in Scotland, I would need to do a bunch of reading or move.
Yeah that's fair enough. It doesn't help that alot of the time people will have read two articles that disagree on a topic and just pick the one that fits their pre-existing beliefs best (ie the Coates West issue) and argue the hell out of it.
That's pointless, and if you don't feel like you have anything valuable to contribute of course you shouldn't, but it isn't because of the color of your skin, or your cultural upbringing, its because you haven't researched the subject enough to contribute something (I don't believe this is true in your case. You have discussed racism here before and you seem to know enough to be able to speak intelligently on it).
There also a hint here (I might be wrong) that you feel that in general it is a bad idea for white middle class people to get involved in discussion with POC about racism.
That's where my main disagreement was and yeah it involved some reading between the lines of what you were saying so I might have got it wrong.
|
On December 29 2017 07:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Since there isn't many democrats now, the topic of Cannabis has been pushed to 2020, but if democrats were currently holding strong, it would of been a topic for 2018. Which is something I think both sides are bipartisan on for once...
One can hope. This is one of those cases where the US heading the front for the rest of the world to follow. Crossing my fingers that my own country is going to follow suite
|
On December 29 2017 08:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 08:26 Plansix wrote:I really feel you are misinterpreting it. I put in the sentence at the end to point denote that personal experience matters. Also, this is the full quote: On December 29 2017 07:00 Plansix wrote:
The racism discussion returns. The struggle is endless:
I don’t think it is a ground breaking idea that people should stick to topics they are experts on. I am not an expert of the impacts and struggles cause by day to day racism in the US. I’ll leave discussing that to black and brown people. I’ll stick to growing up in an all white rural town and being the wealthiest family in that town, but not know it because I was only middle class.
If folks(myself included) took a moment and asked themselves if they have any reason to pontificate on a subject, we would all be off. The part at the end about pontificating is important, which you maybe have selectively removed. It is unclear. Pontificate: to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic wayI am not talking about people devaluing their own personal experience or any sort of self loathing. Just that maybe if someone writes a 4000 word essay on voter repressions or systematic racism, maybe my white ass from rural America that had one black family across 5 towns doesn't have a lot to add with any authority.(no longer, the black family moved) Just like I can't really comment about day to day life in Scotland. That isn't self loathing, it is just admitting I haven't lived in Scotland ever. If I wanted to have a strong opinion life in Scotland, I would need to do a bunch of reading or move. Yeah that's fair enough. It doesn't help that alot of the time people will have read two articles that disagree on a topic and just pick the one that fits their pre-existing beliefs best (ie the Coates West issue) and argue the hell out of it. That's pointless, and if you don't feel like you have anything valuable to contribute of course you shouldn't, but it isn't because of the color of your skin, or your cultural upbringing, its because you haven't researched the subject enough to contribute something (I don't believe this is true in your case. You have discussed racism here before and you seem to know enough to be able to speak intelligently on it). There also a hint here (I might be wrong) that you feel that in general it is a bad idea for white middle class people to get involved in discussion with POC about racism. That's where my main disagreement was and yeah it involved some reading between the lines of what you were saying so I might have got it wrong.
I don't think its bad for middle class white people to wade into the topic of racism. Just think about it first and know your limits. I can't talk about racism in North Carolina in great detail, I'm not from there. And even if I was, I'm super white and wouldn't have to deal with a lot of it. I am aware that my skin color really precludes me from facing the full brunt of racism. So I am not going to tell some POC how racism works or what I feel is or isn't racism.
And I sort of came to this opinion on discussing racism by talk about racism with POC and fucking up over and over. 2007 P6 felt he was qualified to have opinions on everything.
When it comes to folks like Coates and West, I feel like my skin color is the last thing that disqualifies me from dropping bombs on their opinions. The two of them are far better read and studied on the subject. I am far more interested in the discussion they will have. The only thing I will say about their conflict is that West seems take Coates to task for not addressing global issues in 8 Years in Power. Having read most of it, the book is Coates's personal experiences and observations about America. The book is really just a series of essays. That specific critique seemed a bit off.
Leporello: racism is a big top that people should discuss. Discussing how to approach the debates on racism really matters because we are, collectively, terrible at it.
|
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/28/unclear-unfunny-delete-editors-notes-on-milo-yiannopoulos-book-revealed
I know you guys are continuing your never-ending sophistication on racism and all, but this is a bit of fun. Editors are hilarious (if it's not you they're editing).
While the editor seems mostly dismayed at the writer's awful personality, what I find most entertaining is just what a terrible writer Milo is. This is sophomoric shit.
Guys like Milo think they're Christopher Hitchens or William Buckley. And they're just... painfully not.
I can practically hear science fiction authors currently suffering an incursion of social justice feverishly writing stories about traveling through time to bump off Antonio before he wrote anything influential.
As someone who likes to write, that hurts. This is supposed to be a book for the modern conservative intellectual. I suppose Milo thinks his anti-lib stream-of-consciousness doesn't require structure or grammar. Very hip. The Cormac McCarthy of lib-owning.
"I can hear science-fiction writers suffering incursions of Social-Justice, feverishly writing time-travelling stories about bumping off Antonio before he can write anything influential."
There. Better. Clearer. Still smarmy as fuck, without looking delusional in the process. If only I were in the lib-owning business.
|
nobody seriously pretends that the Milo guy is an intellectual right? He's literally just an internet troll
|
On December 29 2017 09:20 Nyxisto wrote:
nobody seriously pretends that the Milo guy is an intellectual right? He's literally just an internet troll
There's no difference any more.
The intellectuals of the right are those who are most militantly anti SJW. The value of their arguments is mostly irrelevant.
|
On December 29 2017 09:20 Nyxisto wrote:
nobody seriously pretends that the Milo guy is an intellectual right? He's literally just an internet troll
But then who are the intellectuals on the right currently? Guys like Bill Kristol, David Brooks, etc., have really abandoned the GOP post-Trump. Milo was being primed for the role, but yeah, he failed that a while ago.
Some more comedy.
|
On December 29 2017 09:27 Leporello wrote:
But then who are the intellectuals on the right currently?
What currently passes as conservative in the US has no intellectual basis. David Brooks maybe but he's probably hated more by conservatives than liberals at this point
|
Weird how a party that places such focus on anti-intellectualism would have trouble attracting intellectuals.
|
"I don't know of any, therefore they don't exist." As if the only people ever cited in this thread were scholarly academics or even just those who broadly fit under the label "intellectual."
And no, no one was pretending that Milo was or is an intellectual. that was never how he was seen. That was Leporello's interpretation of what he said. He was and almost always is described as a "provocateur."
|
When I read it I thought he was talking about the eastern part of the US.
|
The worst part about the rise of Milo, Juice Bro Mike Cernovich and Talentl as hacks like Vox day was that I knew about them all the way back in 2014 when they were pandering to angry video game boys. People were saying they were racist, homophobic, bigoted goons then and did all the way through 2016. And surprise, in 2017 it all turned out to be true.
It was an jaw dropping moment to see folks in this thread defend Milo and realizing the true reach of his bullshit.
|
On December 29 2017 09:47 Introvert wrote:
"I don't know of any, therefore they don't exist." As if the only people ever cited in this thread were scholarly academics or even just those who broadly fit under the label "intellectual."
And no, no one was pretending that Milo was or is an intellectual. that was never how he was seen. That was Leporello's interpretation of what he said. He was and almost always is described as a "provocateur."
Sorry but isn't at it this point 90% fox news hosts, podcasters, youtube stars, conspiracy theorists, breitbart et al? At some point you have to call a spade a spade and admit that there's a serious problem. The entire rigt-wing part of the American political spectrum is disconnected from civil discourse, academia and genuine political institutions. If the easy Trump takeover of the party didn't finally prove this what else
|
On December 29 2017 08:18 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 06:56 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again. Oh, please. The only reason he won the primary was because the sexual molestation allegations were unknown. 70% of Republicans in that state believed them to be false per the exit polls. Now ignoring that thinking that means 9 accusers and about 50 corroborating people who dont know each other all decided to tell the same lie and yet no one has shown any evidence that such a grand conspiracy was possible, what it means is 70% of the voters in Alabama are just as likely to vote for him now as before. I think we can also safely say of the remaining 30% most did not vote for him already.
Once it's a Republican vs Democrat, you start resolving the cognitive dissonance by making justifications. Of course you can't vote for that Democrat of the party that thinks you're all a bunch of racist hicks not worth listening too, but an affirmative vote for a Republican means you gotta pretend he wasn't credibly accused or something along those lines.
Now the stone age morons that think Alabamans would vote for him in a primary knowing what they know now, that's a deeper level of ridiculous thought. There's a special level of disgusting that thinks a Republican primary in a Republican state would select a sexual molester of teens as its primary candidate. Hearing too much of that would make a man think there will be no compromises between left and right in the future.
|
United States24579 Posts
On December 29 2017 10:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 08:18 Adreme wrote:On December 29 2017 06:56 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 06:15 Adreme wrote:
Oh please run again in 2020 Roy, I can see him winning the primary again to. It would be fun to watch his brand of crazy once again. Oh, please. The only reason he won the primary was because the sexual molestation allegations were unknown. 70% of Republicans in that state believed them to be false per the exit polls. Now ignoring that thinking that means 9 accusers and about 50 corroborating people who dont know each other all decided to tell the same lie and yet no one has shown any evidence that such a grand conspiracy was possible, what it means is 70% of the voters in Alabama are just as likely to vote for him now as before. I think we can also safely say of the remaining 30% most did not vote for him already. Once it's a Republican vs Democrat, you start resolving the cognitive dissonance by making justifications. Of course you can't vote for that Democrat of the party that thinks you're all a bunch of racist hicks not worth listening too, but an affirmative vote for a Republican means you gotta pretend he wasn't credibly accused or something along those lines. Now the stone age morons that think Alabamans would vote for him in a primary knowing what they know now, that's a deeper level of ridiculous thought. There's a special level of disgusting that thinks a Republican primary in a Republican state would select a sexual molester of teens as its primary candidate. Hearing too much of that would make a man think there will be no compromises between left and right in the future.
I'm surprised you are considering it a 'special level of disgusting' to think that the republican voterbase would support a sexual molester of teens in a primary, but easily explain support and voting for that same candidate in the general election. Why such an egregious difference? Is that okay?
Your use of 'stone age morons' also seems to have undermined your point before you even made it.
|
On December 29 2017 08:44 Leporello wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/28/unclear-unfunny-delete-editors-notes-on-milo-yiannopoulos-book-revealedI know you guys are continuing your never-ending sophistication on racism and all, but this is a bit of fun. Editors are hilarious (if it's not you they're editing). While the editor seems mostly dismayed at the writer's awful personality, what I find most entertaining is just what a terrible writer Milo is. This is sophomoric shit. Guys like Milo think they're Christopher Hitchens or William Buckley. And they're just... painfully not. Show nested quote +I can practically hear science fiction authors currently suffering an incursion of social justice feverishly writing stories about traveling through time to bump off Antonio before he wrote anything influential. As someone who likes to write, that hurts. This is supposed to be a book for the modern conservative intellectual. I suppose Milo thinks his anti-lib stream-of-consciousness doesn't require structure or grammar. Very hip. The Cormac McCarthy of lib-owning. "I can hear science-fiction writers suffering incursions of Social-Justice, feverishly writing time-travelling stories about bumping off Antonio before he can write anything influential." There. Better. Clearer. Still smarmy as fuck, without looking delusional in the process. If only I were in the lib-owning business.
That was indeed hilarious.
On December 29 2017 09:20 Nyxisto wrote:
nobody seriously pretends that the Milo guy is an intellectual right? He's literally just an internet troll
Which is why protesting his appearances and attacking his status as a gay Republican was just stupid and feeding the troll. He's a fucking useful troll if it reveals illiberal attitudes in the surrounding society. Let him speak just like those crazy commie professors, and show you know an entertainer and provocateur can be tolerated in a free society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
