|
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 February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights?
I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US.
|
On February 03 2017 11:48 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:44 Danglars wrote:
Right after he calls attention to the longevity and pervasive of calling everything racist sexist bigot ... you bring up some major players you want to label extremist assholes... I invite you to go back and check who labelled a group as "extremist assholes" (in particualar by implication) first in that conversation, Danglars. Be sure to report back on what you find.
The groups you mention are so far removed from your terms that I now understand what you mean by "not familiar with the details." So I apologize. The groups are just words on a page and you wouldn't know their relation to the extremes or civility.
On February 03 2017 11:56 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument. Unless you have a good reason to claim that they are "few and without influence", OR you are explicitly not claiming that they are "few and without influence", you're arguing in as bad faith as you claim he is.
He's a big boy and can rise above Breitbart arguments. I'm commenting on a pathetically weak claim that should be beneath him. Re-read the claim and attempted rebuttal
|
On February 03 2017 12:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:48 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Danglars wrote:
Right after he calls attention to the longevity and pervasive of calling everything racist sexist bigot ... you bring up some major players you want to label extremist assholes... I invite you to go back and check who labelled a group as "extremist assholes" (in particualar by implication) first in that conversation, Danglars. Be sure to report back on what you find. The groups you mention are so far removed from your terms that I now understand what you mean by "not familiar with the details." So I apologize. The groups are just words on a page and you wouldn't know their relation to the extremes or civility.
Not pictured: any actual reasons why the groups I mentioned are not "extremist assholes" and/or are not poisoning political debate. If you want me to take your assertions seriously, back them up.
Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:56 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument. Unless you have a good reason to claim that they are "few and without influence", OR you are explicitly not claiming that they are "few and without influence", you're arguing in as bad faith as you claim he is. He's a big boy and can rise above Breitbart arguments. I'm commenting on a pathetically weak claim that should be beneath him. Re-read the claim and attempted rebuttal
So because xDaunt made a claim entirely without substantiation, and ChristianS made an attempt (which he himself made an honest attempt to signal was not rigorous) to substantiate his counter-claim, ChristianS is the one arguing in bad faith?
Is that the actual argument you are trying to make? ...
|
On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US.
That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk.
|
On February 03 2017 12:02 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:29 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. I'm not particulaly familiar with the details of US politics, so I am at a disadvantage debating specifics. That being said, why don't you classify the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc. as "extremist assholes"? EDIT: For that matter, in what sense is the POTUS not "extremist" or not an "asshole"? To be clear, what we are talking about are groups that cause problems for political discourse. No group has anywhere close to the same negative effect on political discourse that the regressive left does. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate. What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has? You really think that "SJW" has the same stigma as "racist?" Racist is clearly a more charged word, but if the end result is ignoring the entirety of the other side's argument when you think the label applies, is it really any different with regards to political discourse?
I don't use SJW as an excuse to ignore people. I (and many others, if not most on the Right) use it as a term to label a particular group of people whom I wish to ideologically destroy. When the SJW's use the term "racist," they are ending the debate.
|
On February 03 2017 12:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:02 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:29 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. I'm not particulaly familiar with the details of US politics, so I am at a disadvantage debating specifics. That being said, why don't you classify the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc. as "extremist assholes"? EDIT: For that matter, in what sense is the POTUS not "extremist" or not an "asshole"? To be clear, what we are talking about are groups that cause problems for political discourse. No group has anywhere close to the same negative effect on political discourse that the regressive left does. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate. What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has? You really think that "SJW" has the same stigma as "racist?" Racist is clearly a more charged word, but if the end result is ignoring the entirety of the other side's argument when you think the label applies, is it really any different with regards to political discourse? I don't use SJW as an excuse to ignore people. I (and many others, if not most on the Right) use it as a term to label a particular group of people whom I wish to ideologically destroy. When the SJW's use the term "racist," they are ending the debate.
In what sense is "I wish to destroy your ideological position" not ending a debate? You've clearly signalled you're unwilling to compromise or obtain further understanding.
|
On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk.
Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking.
|
On February 03 2017 12:18 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 12:02 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:29 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. I'm not particulaly familiar with the details of US politics, so I am at a disadvantage debating specifics. That being said, why don't you classify the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc. as "extremist assholes"? EDIT: For that matter, in what sense is the POTUS not "extremist" or not an "asshole"? To be clear, what we are talking about are groups that cause problems for political discourse. No group has anywhere close to the same negative effect on political discourse that the regressive left does. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate. What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has? You really think that "SJW" has the same stigma as "racist?" Racist is clearly a more charged word, but if the end result is ignoring the entirety of the other side's argument when you think the label applies, is it really any different with regards to political discourse? I don't use SJW as an excuse to ignore people. I (and many others, if not most on the Right) use it as a term to label a particular group of people whom I wish to ideologically destroy. When the SJW's use the term "racist," they are ending the debate. In what sense is "I wish to destroy your ideological position" not ending a debate? You've clearly signalled you're unwilling to compromise or obtain further understanding.
Ideological destruction means conclusively winning the debate, which requires engaging in it.
|
On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument.
Well it didn't take much for you to get over benefit of the doubt, huh? The only conclusion I draw from that is that there are probably at least 60,000 self-described alt righters. Maybe some of those 60,000 don't subscribe to the ideology and just enjoy the spectacle of it? But from what I saw you'd have to be pretty anti-Semitic, racist, etc. to dind those memes funny, and if you were strongly opposed to them and just curious what they're up to, why would you inflate their numbers with a sub? It's pretty common in online communities to use subscribers/followers/etc. to measure influence. And even if some of those subs don't support the cause, there's also probably some alt righters that aren't subscribed.
I acknowledge it's not a great methodology, which is why my conclusion is tentative, but do you have a better metric to use?
Edit: and what about this commentary is Breitbartian or indicative of not arguing in good faith?
|
On February 03 2017 12:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 12:02 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:29 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
I'm not particulaly familiar with the details of US politics, so I am at a disadvantage debating specifics.
That being said, why don't you classify the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc. as "extremist assholes"?
EDIT: For that matter, in what sense is the POTUS not "extremist" or not an "asshole"? To be clear, what we are talking about are groups that cause problems for political discourse. No group has anywhere close to the same negative effect on political discourse that the regressive left does. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate. What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has? You really think that "SJW" has the same stigma as "racist?" Racist is clearly a more charged word, but if the end result is ignoring the entirety of the other side's argument when you think the label applies, is it really any different with regards to political discourse? I don't use SJW as an excuse to ignore people. I (and many others, if not most on the Right) use it as a term to label a particular group of people whom I wish to ideologically destroy. When the SJW's use the term "racist," they are ending the debate. In what sense is "I wish to destroy your ideological position" not ending a debate? You've clearly signalled you're unwilling to compromise or obtain further understanding. Ideological destruction means conclusively winning the debate, which requires engaging in it.
That's not debate, that's playing to the peanut gallery.
In exactly the same way that somebody calling somebody else a "racist" is trying to play to the peanut gallery.
|
On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it.
I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking.
What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US?
|
On February 03 2017 12:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument. Well it didn't take much for you to get over benefit of the doubt, huh? The only conclusion I draw from that is that there are probably at least 60,000 self-described alt righters. Maybe some of those 60,000 don't subscribe to the ideology and just enjoy the spectacle of it? But from what I saw you'd have to be pretty anti-Semitic, racist, etc. to dind those memes funny, and if you were strongly opposed to them and just curious what they're up to, why would you inflate their numbers with a sub? It's pretty common in online communities to use subscribers/followers/etc. to measure influence. And even if some of those subs don't support the cause, there's also probably some alt righters that aren't subscribed. I acknowledge it's not a great methodology, which is why my conclusion is tentative, but do you have a better metric to use?
Yeah I'm done. If you stand by posting this with the "conclusion is tentative" all headed by an observation of subreddit followers, I'm done. Enjoy your methodology.
|
On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US?
Probably around 3000?
|
On February 03 2017 12:11 Aquanim wrote:...
So because xDaunt made a claim entirely without substantiation, and ChristianS made an attempt (which he himself made an honest attempt to signal was not rigorous) to substantiate his counter-claim, ChristianS is the one arguing in bad faith?
Is that the actual argument you are trying to make? ...
I'm still waiting for an answer to this, Danglars.
|
while there are some other problems here, I don't want to get into them atm, so i'll stick with something simpler, recommendations:
xdaunt -> arguing with people that aren't here doesn't work. they aren't here.
if there's someone HERE in the thread who's doing the stuff, then debate with them over what they're doing.
if you have a specific instance to discuss, that's fine and helpful.
or a specific policy proposal, that's cool.
otherwise you're arguing against a nebulously defined enemy who is also not present to discuss the matter.
your definition might be clear to you, but it's not clear to us, and we may well disagree on how some of the people would be classified.
|
On February 03 2017 12:22 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument. Well it didn't take much for you to get over benefit of the doubt, huh? The only conclusion I draw from that is that there are probably at least 60,000 self-described alt righters. Maybe some of those 60,000 don't subscribe to the ideology and just enjoy the spectacle of it? But from what I saw you'd have to be pretty anti-Semitic, racist, etc. to dind those memes funny, and if you were strongly opposed to them and just curious what they're up to, why would you inflate their numbers with a sub? It's pretty common in online communities to use subscribers/followers/etc. to measure influence. And even if some of those subs don't support the cause, there's also probably some alt righters that aren't subscribed. I acknowledge it's not a great methodology, which is why my conclusion is tentative, but do you have a better metric to use? Edit: and what about this commentary is Breitbartian or indicative of not arguing in good faith?
60k is kinda a small number though lol. Like some of the most obscure gaming sub forums on reddit already have 6k subscribers. That's 60k people who subscribed,probably from all over the western world. Double accounts for vote wars,trolls,inactive accounts (reddit is such crap) . I don't know but it is not a particulary high number I think. It actually is a bit disappointing since places like reddit are where you would find lots of potential followers.
|
On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000?
So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers.
|
On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:
...
So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers.
Given that the nature of threats changes over time, the bolded isn't really a reasonable argument (at least, without a reason why future attacks would come from those countries).
The argument that these measures are necessary and required to stop another 9/11 is pretty tenuous as well, though.
(EDIT: I will also note that if and when an attack comes, the terrorists will probably come from a country like Saudi Arabia which isn't on the list but possibly should have been. This is not inherently a failure of the list; it's the anthropic principle in action. The set of successful terrorists is comparatively more likely to include people from SA than say Iran explicitly because Iran is on the list and SA is not.)
|
On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it.
I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking.
do you know enough about our current systems to say that the immigrants from elsewhere aren't also subject to extremely rigorous checks before being let in?
and were the terrorists in question immigrants, or one of the other classes of people? i.e. would changes to the immigrant rules have actually been relevant.
|
He just wants to close the borders and he has to start somewhere lol. Amount of refuges the usa took in was minimal already compared to the inflow in other western countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
