EPTUsually I'd say something like "i really hope this president knows what he's doing" but this... Oh my.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 211
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
Usually I'd say something like "i really hope this president knows what he's doing" but this... Oh my. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 18 2018 12:49 Slaughter wrote: Is there any statistics for people who are under employed for their skill/education level? I sometimes wonder if that is a significant problem and if people have trouble connecting to jobs that they are suited for even when there are plenty of available jobs on that level. hmm, I don' tthink i've heard of such a metric specifically; though there might be something as the bureau of labor statistics keeps a lot of data. there's certainly data parsed by skill/education level. if/when such problems occur they'd largely be a result of willingness/ability to relocate I suspect. though I suppose that would depend exactly on how you define "available" job: whether it means available nationally, or available in the local area one can reach feasibly. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On May 18 2018 12:45 Taelshin wrote: Comparing calling Trump a Nazi and Trump calling MS13 animals. Hard to see the difference. Nazis and MS13 are still people, even if their ideology/actions are disgusting. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On May 18 2018 20:30 Gahlo wrote: Nazis and MS13 are still people, even if their ideology/actions are disgusting. I have very little qualms calling people who operated death camps animals. In fact, I can't think of a lower form of mud then those who go out of their way to torture/rape/murder willfully. I'll even go a step further, if you are someone that doesn't distance themselves as much as possible from the actions of those under people like Hitler, or Pol Pot then I almost certainly don't want to know you, or have anything to do with you. I'm not going to get into it, but I believe you can make a very compelling argument that it is morally unjust to forgive certain crimes, and the people who I would consider animals (your local person affiliated with any cartel at all for example) have in my eyes crossed that threshold. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43907 Posts
On May 18 2018 15:55 schaf wrote: The art of the deal - you accept my terms or you die. Usually I'd say something like "i really hope this president knows what he's doing" but this... Oh my. That’s not the issue. He went with “accept Bolton’s terms AND you’ll die”. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On May 18 2018 20:54 bo1b wrote: A quick googling of MS-13 has me scratching my head why people are defending them, comparing them to animals seems pretty justified. I have very little qualms calling people who operated death camps animals. In fact, I can't think of a lower form of mud then those who go out of their way to torture/rape/murder willfully. I'll even go a step further, if you are someone that doesn't distance themselves as much as possible from the actions of those under people like Hitler, or Pol Pot then I almost certainly don't want to know you, or have anything to do with you. I'm not going to get into it, but I believe you can make a very compelling argument that it is morally unjust to forgive certain crimes, and the people who I would consider animals (your local person affiliated with any cartel at all for example) have in my eyes crossed that barrier. The primary method psychologically of people like Nazis is to rationalize what they are doing is that they aren't killing people, because they're animals. Same way with Slavery, because the slaves weren't seen as people, they were livestock. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On May 18 2018 21:51 Gahlo wrote: The primary method psychologically of people like Nazis is to rationalize what they are doing isn't killing people, because their animals. Same way with Slavery, because the slaves weren't seen as people, they were livestock. Nice comparison. Do you seriously, truly take a second thought at Nazi prison guards in particular being called animals? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43907 Posts
On May 18 2018 21:00 farvacola wrote: You don't need to dehumanize evil in order to call it out and hold it culpable; in fact, doing so arguably weakens the basis for judgment in the first place. This. It’s like calling people crazy when they commit atrocities. By doing so you completely abdicate any responsibility to understand what happened, or why, because crazy can’t be understood. If we don’t acknowledge the worst of our species and the human capacity for evil acts then we learn nothing. If the Nazis were animals then the Holocaust becomes little more than a terrible accident. By recognizing the humanity of those who do evil we give proper weight to the suffering caused and stay vigilant against the capacity of our own society to commit similar atrocities. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43907 Posts
On May 18 2018 21:58 bo1b wrote: Nice comparison. Do you seriously, truly take a second thought at Nazi prison guards in particular being called animals? Two Nazis don’t make a right. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
I'm afraid that organized crime, torture, genocide, etc. are specificities of our species. But they do not come at all from some "primitive instinct of evil" that would magically exist in any human being. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On May 18 2018 21:58 bo1b wrote: Nice comparison. Do you seriously, truly take a second thought at Nazi prison guards in particular being called animals? I think they were horrible people. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On May 18 2018 22:07 TheDwf wrote: There is such a strong irony when people use the word "animal" to qualify inhumane behaviours... when the human being is precisely the only animal on this planet who inflicts suffering upon his peers for the pleasure of it. I'm afraid that organized crime, torture, genocide, etc. are specificities of our species. But they do not come at all from some "primitive instinct of evil" that would magically exist in any human being. I could point to a few types of animals that rape or enslave if you'd like. (sorry for double) | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8250 Posts
On May 18 2018 21:58 bo1b wrote: Nice comparison. Do you seriously, truly take a second thought at Nazi prison guards in particular being called animals? Yes, actually, I do. Pushing them into a non-human category is showing our problems under the carpet. "This isn't us, they're just animals". It's important to know that the human race isn't some almighty creature incapable of doing harm. We are capable of true evil, and we can't just wash our hands of it claiming those who do are "just animals". I know that's not what you mean when you call them animals, but that is the implication and why it's important not to do it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 18 2018 21:58 bo1b wrote: Nice comparison. Do you seriously, truly take a second thought at Nazi prison guards in particular being called animals? By the state, yes. The state is supposed to champion the fairness of the judicial system. More broadly, yes. Calling the Nazis or MS13 animals makes them seem like they are other than cruel, horrible people committing monstrous acts. The Nazis were not fairytale monsters, they were just men and women who lived next door to other people. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4932 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote: The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. Do you think Trump is a bigot? | ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote: The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. it hurts even the judgement itself, as we should hold people accountable as people and not as animals. as holding them accountable as animals is inherently to hold them less accountable. this isn’t to mention i think the more important argument already presented in our ability to treat people like people and not dehumanise them. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
But I will respond to the last few people who responded to me, as I think that's a reasonable thing to do. On May 18 2018 22:38 Excludos wrote: Yes, actually, I do. Pushing them into a non-human category is showing our problems under the carpet. "This isn't us, they're just animals". It's important to know that the human race isn't some almighty creature incapable of doing harm. We are capable of true evil, and we can't just wash our hands of it claiming those who do are "just animals". I know that's not what you mean when you call them animals, but that is the implication and why it's important not to do it. I say with complete sincerity that I do not believe for a second that you truly care about that simile, or about other overblown hyperbolic comparisons, much in the same way that you don't truly care about a morbidly obese person eating voraciously being compared to a pig. I also seriously disagree with the notion that comparisons to animals devalue human potential for spreading misery, but unfortunately with one post to go we can't talk about that. On May 18 2018 22:07 TheDwf wrote: There is such a strong irony when people use the word "animal" to qualify inhumane behaviours... when the human being is precisely the only animal on this planet who inflicts suffering upon his peers for the pleasure of it. I'm afraid that organized crime, torture, genocide, etc. are specificities of our species. But they do not come at all from some "primitive instinct of evil" that would magically exist in any human being. Somehow, someway a myth was spread that humans are "the only animal on this planet who inflicts suffering upon his peers for the pleasure of it." This is a myth, animals are raping, torturing and eating each other alive constantly around the planet, and you need only look at Chimpanzees and there actions to see what they get up to. On May 18 2018 22:44 Plansix wrote: By the state, yes. The state is supposed to champion the fairness of the judicial system. More broadly, yes. Calling the Nazis or MS13 animals makes them seem like they are other than cruel, horrible people committing monstrous acts. The Nazis were not fairytale monsters, they were just men and women who lived next door to other people. Refer to my response to Excludos for the second paragraph, the first is far more interesting and a much more reasonable criticism I think. Putting aside that I don't literally think that Nazi's are animals, nor do I think MS-13 are, I can see a very reasonable argument that heads of state should not be talking like that, if only for the few nutcases that do believe they are animals. I feel it's a shame to leave on such a note, yet I can't see any point continuing a discussion with people I feel are so intellectually dishonest. I remember someone bringing up Hillary's super predator comments, which I not only feel was significantly more of a dehumanizing criticism then an off hand simile, but was mostly swept under the rug for accusations that are largely the same. Much though I found this presenter to be completely pointless, I do enjoy listening to Bill Gates talk, and here are his thoughts on Trump. + Show Spoiler + https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/bill-gates-dishes-about-trump-meetings-in-exclusive-video-1236490819549 I don't know if it's possible to request a 1 year ban from this thread, but if so could it be done? | ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
i can sincerely state positively every time i hear a person specifically call another specific person an animal i lose a bit of respect for the person speaking. i don’t hold it against trump using it in the general sense flippantly, should it have come from him as a private person, though i whole heartedly agree with P6 that it’s despicable from a president. i find your dismissal out of hand rather close minded. i feel like this conversation seems to be a little afraid of nuance. we get close and then back up to black and whites again. for instance, i would suggest anyone calling a morbidly obese person a pig to their face is fucking horrible, and such a person is disgusting. yet i’m sure that’s not what you meant. but what if trump called fat people pigs instead of gang members animals? do you imagine there would be no uproar? and do you imagine this uproar (or lack there of) would be uncalled for? i believe that would be so poorly received that even that could finally be the scandal that broke the camels back. even the trump base wouldn’t like being called pigs. | ||
| ||
