US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 45

On October 17 2018 21:52 Danglars wrote:

This just is the entry point of the cycle. You think it’s actually true, and weird that it’s a supposedly bad thing to point it out. I think people like you don’t display intelligence in your use of slurs, which makes much of your political aspect similar to an NPC. An NPC, when questioned about why they’re throwing the racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe lines all the time, might be programmed to say “I say them because they’re true, and this just shows how divorced from reality you are.”

That’s exactly why the meme is funny. You actually think the Warren situation shows Dem weakness in political losses, rather than an ideological weakness in untouchable identity and oppression politics. Yes, I think you’re too divorced from reality to actually give meaningful comments on the differences between right and left on this issue. But I’ll still listen (well, particularly when you’re in this mood and not the “Do you actually believe your own bullshit? troll side) in case it ever changes.

On October 17 2018 22:19 Jockmcplop wrote:


The problem with trying to defend this particular president from charges of racism/sexism/xenophobia is that pretty soon you will run into someone who can be bothered to look up all the blatantly racist/sexist/xenophobic things that he has said, and the racist/sexist/xenophobic policies that he has invented, and then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

I don't think its especially useful to conduct all political arguments in those terms like some people do, but in the case of Trump you can't possibly defend him from those allegations, which is obvious anyway because people who try to defend him do so on the basis that they don't like the allegation instead of the basis that he is not racist or whatever.

On October 18 2018 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:
The right may have some temporary unity following kavanaugh but the right is apparently willing to entertain a primary challenger to trump. And Trump has gotten one notable law passed despite having majorities in Congress so this idea of unity is questionable. And no, the 4D chess theory doesnt work with trumps tweets. Hes just that dumb and petty. And while some amount of fun on your part is understandable, the idea that you've concocted a theory where trump is a puppet master doing a bunch of ingenious things is proof that you're detached from reality. You've allowed your anti-left and anti-media bias to detach your interpretation of trump from reality.

On October 17 2018 22:19 Jockmcplop wrote:


The problem with trying to defend this particular president from charges of racism/sexism/xenophobia is that pretty soon you will run into someone who can be bothered to look up all the blatantly racist/sexist/xenophobic things that he has said, and the racist/sexist/xenophobic policies that he has invented, and then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

I don't think its especially useful to conduct all political arguments in those terms like some people do, but in the case of Trump you can't possibly defend him from those allegations, which is obvious anyway because people who try to defend him do so on the basis that they don't like the allegation instead of the basis that he is not racist or whatever.

On October 18 2018 01:16 Danglars wrote:
We don’t really need a rehash of the irreconcilability of two conceptions of reality. If you want to move forward under the premise that responses following NPC-like levels of formula are only natural, there’s an entire thread to discuss your reality and ban the dissenters.

Otherwise, it just looks like a minority of black-and-white-thinkers get their rocks off by posting “haha that’s not reality” with little substantive arguments or nuanced understandings.

It resembles a historian that left some historical figure off with “He was bad” and when asked further responds “you’re just trying to deny he was bad” and “you’re trying to alter reality because you’re biased.” I’m content leaving that person to the scholarship of the Evergreen mob.

On October 18 2018 01:52 Nebuchad wrote:


It is a logical consequence of having to defend yourself from accusations of racism that in the same movement you end up giving cover to people who are racists. Cause your defense will be to depict the word as a buzzword or an attack, rather than a factual description, and that will always help them.

In an honest process the right should find ways to describe themselves that aren't tainted with the negative connotation. You don't like the word racist, that's fair, but you clearly believe something different from the liberals on the subject, so there's a strategy to find there. They kind of did that when it comes to homophobia, with the word "traditionalist" - although I can make the argument that it's a little bit of a cover, it mostly works. There is no such thing with racism (please don't start with "patriot" there :/)

Of course there is no reason to expect an honest process there, cause the right also wants to pander to the part of its base that is overtly racist, and not only those who are "opposed to antiracism" or whatever. That's why you end up with "racism doesn't mean anything any more" and "the left are the real racists" instead of the advancement of a positive world view that is markedly distant from racism and antiracism.

On October 18 2018 02:24 Danglars wrote:

We all needed a third attempt to dismiss arguments because “the right wants to pander to the overtly racist section of base.”

On October 18 2018 02:42 Nebuchad wrote:


I mean, do you dispute that fact? They had a whole Southern Strategy around doing that for a while, that they recognized and have apologized for. Is there some reasoning that you can provide as to why they no longer seek to get those votes? Or any evidence that they, in fact, aren't? From where I'm sitting it looks like the opposite is true, this administration is more blatant about wanting those votes than most of the party has ever been, now that post-truth is an accepted political strategy.

Also, you're attempting to dismiss my argument by saying that it's a dismissal of argument, which it's clearly not, and that's kind of meta coming from you - congratulations I guess!

On October 18 2018 03:09 Danglars wrote:

Yeah it gets pretty meta real fast. Your argument relied on the “gives cover to racists” and “the right wants to pander to its racist base.” Since I dispute that to the core, and particularly because the left has made a mockery of most of these pejorative terms through overapplication, it does amount to an argument to not consider what comes after (paraphrased) “because the right has to find some way to perpetuate and sustain its racist elements.” If I found you to be somebody interested in trashing the environment to make a quick buck, maybe you’d make the dividing line there instead of what I thought about how well you hid the evidence and bribed politicians.

The point you cleverly or not so cleverly omitted from your quote, and why I won’t continue this line further if you have nothing substantial beyond your prejudice, is that Trump gains his power from your bubble that moves from “because the right is racists” to its ends. He just flips the script and you’re left wondering where rationality went in international relations. Well, the dirty business is connecting a flawed conception of Nixonian politics to modern day (and I might add, a hefty dose of ignoring the point and muscling forward as you just did).

The only possible way forward is if the American cousins of your political thinking stops the stupid racist and race-baiting cat calls and extends a very democratic consideration of what the other side thinks and feels on very contentious issues.

I’m perfectly willing to debate you in future assuming you really think your policies will work out for the good of the country, and not that you’re disgusted by racist rubes and want to punish them for their parochial attitudes, or you pretend to want their health and wealth, but really only care about them as long as they reach your same conclusions. The counter expectation is you have to extend the courtesy that there isn’t this secret racist motivation underlying immigration, counterterrorism, foreign policy, and international trade. That’s the only way to get ideas to flourish. We’ve had a bit too much of heading to race and sex when the argument gets difficult to make because of political expediency (aka your bubble is willing to accept the racist explanation for why beliefs differ, and not go deeper than tribalism impulse).

If my last posts (without sections edited out) still answer future replies, I’m not going to keep pounding the same point, because it gets repetitive and isn’t pleasant to read.

On October 18 2018 03:18 Nebuchad wrote:


I'm editing out sections because not everything you say is interesting to me. Sorry :/ If I quote everything I'm still not going to answer everything, I like to edit some things out for clarity.

"Your argument relied on the “gives cover to racists” and “the right wants to pander to its racist base.” Since I dispute that to the core"

I don't understand how you can dispute the first one, it's a simple cause and effect. You, as someone who presents as non-racist but accused of racism, defend yourself by saying that racism is overused and deflective. That obviously shields the "real racists" from criticism, as they now can also claim that because racism is overused and deflective, they don't deserve this descriptor, when they clearly do. We do agree that not being described as racist is a benefit, right? If none of my premises are false there, it is self-evident that your strategy to fight against accusations of racism does give cover to racists, regardless of whether you are a real racist yourself or not.

For the second one, I've provided an argument as to why I believe they do: the party did this in the past and recognized that they did, and I don't see much change today (actually I see the opposite). I've offered you the possibility to answer, and this is a post where you're very strongly not doing that. What do you think I'm concluding from this?

On October 18 2018 03:18 Nebuchad wrote:


I'm editing out sections because not everything you say is interesting to me. Sorry :/ If I quote everything I'm still not going to answer everything, I like to edit some things out for clarity.

"Your argument relied on the “gives cover to racists” and “the right wants to pander to its racist base.” Since I dispute that to the core"

I don't understand how you can dispute the first one, it's a simple cause and effect. You, as someone who presents as non-racist but accused of racism, defend yourself by saying that racism is overused and deflective. That obviously shields the "real racists" from criticism, as they now can also claim that because racism is overused and deflective, they don't deserve this descriptor, when they clearly do. We do agree that not being described as racist is a benefit, right? If none of my premises are false there, it is self-evident that your strategy to fight against accusations of racism does give cover to racists, regardless of whether you are a real racist yourself or not.

For the second one, I've provided an argument as to why I believe they do: the party did this in the past and recognized that they did, and I don't see much change today (actually I see the opposite). I've offered you the possibility to answer, and this is a post where you're very strongly not doing that. What do you think I'm concluding from this?

On October 18 2018 04:30 Danglars wrote:

What you’re saying is all fine and dandy. You think that racism and covering for racism is an argument proven from history and provable today. I’ve spent enough time in this forum to know some people are sure this is true, and not just affecting like this is true to get out of making tougher arguments. I’ve been called a racist for my political views since at least the late 90s, so the new Trump flavor of the trend is nothing new to me. I’ve argued against it for about the same period of time, mostly apart from the internet, and I’ve accepted that some people find my counter arguments unpersuasive (from the 1950s climate to today’s climate 1990s 2000s 2010s). Oh look, another guy that thinks my politics were racist fifty years ago, were racist twenty years ago, are racist today, and should be dismissed on their “true foundations.” Hmm.

My point is (1) that went conservatives act with equal surity that (for example) lefties want to rule the country like colonial overlords from the coasts and metros on behalf of their dumber, more racist ruled subjects in the interior and between, overtly rely on authoritarian tactics and literally disdain democratic institutions like Congress and the presidency, while pretending to support it, they do so fully convinced that it’s grounded in history and the literal reality of the world. Based on (1) the only conversation that can be had starts from (2) presuming the person speaks in good faith and only points to the evidence within the argument if they’re not really presenting their true thoughts on say immigration and foreign policy. The last is (3) since the racism assault is both overbroad, wrong when it tries to get specific, and generally happy to never get into tough policy debates for simple effort reasons (why waste good time arguing semi-open borders, if the real reason is not assimilation and economic, but long-standing evil racism), it plays directly into Trump. He’s perfectly willing to give the middle finger to the racism-accusers, and embark on right-wing analogies of left wing narratives. Now, as long as the racism and leftist censorship and authoritarian narratives are dominant, people like yourself, Nebuchad, actually argue that Trump is the rational choice for the other side. It might feel like somebody’s calling for you to excuse racism, but the logic at the deeper level is sound. You’re making the argument that Trump is the logical choice. He’s what you would vote for if the roles were reversed and you were rabidly part of the other ideological thought group, fully convinced that the opposite story is supported historically and factually. If you can’t tell, the racist-accusers are making as much headway into the other side as the lefty-authoritarian section is doing in reverse.

Pardon to the readers for the part of this post that does refer back to the prior post. I take on face value that Nebuchad was confused at what I meant and my understanding of the fundamental impasse. I’m sure in the future, with a little distance and goodwill, we can rehash what Nebuchad finds persuasive about my racism and the racism of my friends and allies across the Republican coalition, because that’s absolutely a fundamental difference.

On October 18 2018 04:30 Danglars wrote:

What you’re saying is all fine and dandy. You think that racism and covering for racism is an argument proven from history and provable today. I’ve spent enough time in this forum to know some people are sure this is true, and not just affecting like this is true to get out of making tougher arguments. I’ve been called a racist for my political views since at least the late 90s, so the new Trump flavor of the trend is nothing new to me. I’ve argued against it for about the same period of time, mostly apart from the internet, and I’ve accepted that some people find my counter arguments unpersuasive (from the 1950s climate to today’s climate 1990s 2000s 2010s). Oh look, another guy that thinks my politics were racist fifty years ago, were racist twenty years ago, are racist today, and should be dismissed on their “true foundations.” Hmm.

My point is (1) that went conservatives act with equal surity that (for example) lefties want to rule the country like colonial overlords from the coasts and metros on behalf of their dumber, more racist ruled subjects in the interior and between, overtly rely on authoritarian tactics and literally disdain democratic institutions like Congress and the presidency, while pretending to support it, they do so fully convinced that it’s grounded in history and the literal reality of the world. Based on (1) the only conversation that can be had starts from (2) presuming the person speaks in good faith and only points to the evidence within the argument if they’re not really presenting their true thoughts on say immigration and foreign policy. The last is (3) since the racism assault is both overbroad, wrong when it tries to get specific, and generally happy to never get into tough policy debates for simple effort reasons (why waste good time arguing semi-open borders, if the real reason is not assimilation and economic, but long-standing evil racism), it plays directly into Trump. He’s perfectly willing to give the middle finger to the racism-accusers, and embark on right-wing analogies of left wing narratives. Now, as long as the racism and leftist censorship and authoritarian narratives are dominant, people like yourself, Nebuchad, actually argue that Trump is the rational choice for the other side. It might feel like somebody’s calling for you to excuse racism, but the logic at the deeper level is sound. You’re making the argument that Trump is the logical choice. He’s what you would vote for if the roles were reversed and you were rabidly part of the other ideological thought group, fully convinced that the opposite story is supported historically and factually. If you can’t tell, the racist-accusers are making as much headway into the other side as the lefty-authoritarian section is doing in reverse.

Pardon to the readers for the part of this post that does refer back to the prior post. I take on face value that Nebuchad was confused at what I meant and my understanding of the fundamental impasse. I’m sure in the future, with a little distance and goodwill, we can rehash what Nebuchad finds persuasive about my racism and the racism of my friends and allies across the Republican coalition, because that’s absolutely a fundamental difference.

On October 18 2018 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:


EDIT: To the racist aspects of policy/systems you support I think we have to start with the general concept of how creating systems works. Many of our founding fathers/their benefactors being slave owning rapists, which means even unintentionally a system designed by such folks would necessarily provide deference to those tendencies.