|
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 |
As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview.
Quoting one of the key parts:
"MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed.
So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups."
tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election.
Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supporters
An additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc.
"MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.
I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say.
|
United States42255 Posts
If the imaginary wall didn’t stop the imaginary caravan then what did?
|
|
|
|
|
United States13816 Posts
On June 17 2023 03:24 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 02:49 Sermokala wrote:the temperance movement, Texas secessionism, the Green Party, Maoism, the Tea Party, anti-nuclear environmentalism, creationism, antifa, in fact Marxism and communism in general (even allowing the criteria is stupidity, not simply cruelty), voluntary extinctionism, antinatalism, MAGA at its core is a dogwhistle that has no meaning and only exists to make the world worse. The most simple way to show this is to ask any follower or supporter the simple question "When do you think America was great?". They can either not answer the question or they have to self report on themselves for what kind of person they are. Is it when black people were slaves? When women couldn't vote? civil rights? gay people being able to marry? Black president? In reality its entirely filled with people following a guy who constantly lies to them and steals from them. Its filled with culty conspiracy theorists with no grasp on reality and a less of a grasp on any sort of evidence. It has no positive intentions and has no merits to speak of. I dont know much about MAGA, but my understanding was, that it refers to a time when someone could work hard and make decent living (eg buy a house without much effort, while providing for family) Not sure when exactly that was but if someone say: sixty's because life was better - it doesnt mean he is a racist, if someone says eighties because they think that when it was - it doesnt make him opponent to gay marriages. I heard this kind of arguments but always dismissed them thinking people are joking. Last time I heard it was when someone said they liked News anchor (dont remember name) from like 70s I think and was immediately accused of being racist and chauvinist because at that time most people at the news were mostly white males...
I don't get how these are persuasive points to you. The point directly is asking why arn't they racist or sexist or homophobic to prefer a time before women could get divorces, black people had a hard time voting and got lynched all the time, or pre stonewall. Simply saying that they arn't isn't persuasive or an argument at all.
But that speaks greatly into why it has no meaning and just make the world worse. What did we see as a result of the movement? . Trump made it harder to buy a house by letting banks freely into house buying. Trump made it harder to buy a house and provide for your family by cutting taxes on the rich, exploding the deficit. He tried to make healthcare cost more by killing obamacare. Everything he talks about in all of his rallies are culture war issues to literally bring us back to the times before women had control over their own bodies, to before lgbtq people had rights. Wanting immigration reform is something everyone wants, where is the talk of it other than the wall? You can't just shrug off the questions about sexism, racism, and homophobia (or other lgbtq hate) beacuse it very clearly seems to be the thing they're most interested in preforming.
|
Northern Ireland24410 Posts
On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say.
Shame, was an interesting tangent.
It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality.
And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities.
Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that.
Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics.
The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt.
|
On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say.
Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth.
On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear.
As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile).
Regarding protecting kids:
I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line.
Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements.
|
|
|
On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt.
MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.
This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier).
The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out.
This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values".
Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here.
|
On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic.
You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances.
Also this article came up today:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.html
where again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper...
On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here.
Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now.
Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again.
|
On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again.
Transgender rights don't harm the well-being of US citizens.
The conservative argument boils down to this: there are bad individuals in the group (and outside of the group) abusing a specific element of the proposed rights for the group, therefore the whole group should not be awarded those rights. This argument is invalid.
And no, I don't see me justifying violence. I explained the causality of the escalation, which is not the same as a justification.
|
|
|
On June 19 2023 00:50 JimmiC wrote:
The way I was trying to get you to think about the argument is you do not apply it evenly or logically to other groups (catholic church and scouts in this example) there for the reason you are presenting is not the actual reason, it is the justification. The right Currently uses the “groomer” for a whole host of biases because there is the easy “oh you support groomers” come back when the logic is challenged.
If you are interested there is a ton of research on unconscious bias, they are not just racial or sexual orientation but some are wealth and others. You can do tests where they basically change the people or group and it changes the outcomes.
On June 19 2023 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. Transgender rights don't harm the well-being of US citizens.The conservative argument boils down to this: there are bad individuals in the group (and outside of the group) abusing a specific element of the proposed rights for the group, therefore the whole group should not be awarded those rights. This argument is invalid. And no, I don't see me justifying violence. I explained the causality of the escalation, which is not the same as a justification.
Doesnt that work both ways?
So when people say to the people on the left - you support groomers - it is ridicolous (and rightly so)
But when people say about maga - you are against trans rights - thats reasonable?
Because latter is exactly what Magic Powers did in bolded part of his post.
|
Because being against trans-right is an actual political position of the 'maga' conservative politicians?
and no democrats are running on supporting groomers?
I think its perfectly reasonable to hold someone accountable for the political positions of the candidates they support. At best they are indifferent to trans not having right.
|
Northern Ireland24410 Posts
On June 19 2023 01:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 00:50 JimmiC wrote:
The way I was trying to get you to think about the argument is you do not apply it evenly or logically to other groups (catholic church and scouts in this example) there for the reason you are presenting is not the actual reason, it is the justification. The right Currently uses the “groomer” for a whole host of biases because there is the easy “oh you support groomers” come back when the logic is challenged.
If you are interested there is a ton of research on unconscious bias, they are not just racial or sexual orientation but some are wealth and others. You can do tests where they basically change the people or group and it changes the outcomes. Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. Transgender rights don't harm the well-being of US citizens.The conservative argument boils down to this: there are bad individuals in the group (and outside of the group) abusing a specific element of the proposed rights for the group, therefore the whole group should not be awarded those rights. This argument is invalid. And no, I don't see me justifying violence. I explained the causality of the escalation, which is not the same as a justification. Doesnt that work both ways? So when people say to the people on the left - you support groomers - it is ridicolous (and rightly so) But when people say about maga - you are against trans rights - thats reasonable? Because latter is exactly what Magic Powers did in bolded part of his post.
Pretty reasonable. One may not personally hold that position, but if you’re happy to be part of a broader coalition that’s got a very determined and visible anti-trans element you’re making the calculation that you’re ok with trans people being thrown under the bus if some of your other political wants are achieved or pushed for.
|
On June 19 2023 01:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 00:50 JimmiC wrote:
The way I was trying to get you to think about the argument is you do not apply it evenly or logically to other groups (catholic church and scouts in this example) there for the reason you are presenting is not the actual reason, it is the justification. The right Currently uses the “groomer” for a whole host of biases because there is the easy “oh you support groomers” come back when the logic is challenged.
If you are interested there is a ton of research on unconscious bias, they are not just racial or sexual orientation but some are wealth and others. You can do tests where they basically change the people or group and it changes the outcomes. Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 00:27 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. Transgender rights don't harm the well-being of US citizens.The conservative argument boils down to this: there are bad individuals in the group (and outside of the group) abusing a specific element of the proposed rights for the group, therefore the whole group should not be awarded those rights. This argument is invalid. And no, I don't see me justifying violence. I explained the causality of the escalation, which is not the same as a justification. Doesnt that work both ways? So when people say to the people on the left - you support groomers - it is ridicolous (and rightly so) But when people say about maga - you are against trans rights - thats reasonable? Because latter is exactly what Magic Powers did in bolded part of his post.
Yes it's reasonable. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the laws being introduced by the Right in the last few years, but they aren't anti-trans by accident. They didn't trip and fall and suddenly "oops I wrote a whole bill banning any transgender care in my state". It's what they wanted to accomplish, which is why it's happening that way. It is likewise not an accident that we think the MAGA crowd is anti-trans.
|
|
|
On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... Show nested quote +On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again.
It's somewhat unfair to characterize something like "This book is gay" as an instruction manual on how to use the Grindr app. There's a lot more useful information in the book than that. For example, instructions on how to give a good blowjob (teeth is a big no-no) as well as instructions on safe-sex (remember never let the guy cum in your mouth). Some bigots want to ban books like these from our schools and other want to fight really hard against it. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's really really important to make sure 11-year-olds have access to information on how to use Grindr or how to give a good blowjob.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 19 2023 06:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. It's somewhat unfair to characterize something like "This book is gay" as an instruction manual on how to use the Grindr app. There's a lot more useful information in the book than that. For example, instructions on how to give a good blowjob (teeth is a big no-no) as well as instructions on safe-sex (remember never let the guy cum in your mouth). Some bigots want to ban books like these from our schools and other want to fight really hard against it. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's really really important to make sure 11-year-olds have access to information on how to use Grindr or how to give a good blowjob.
From the article:
Schoolchildren are being taught about anal sex and orgasms before they have reached puberty and set 'masturbation' as homework, secretive lesson plans reveal.
Many teachers are 'indoctrinating' children with scientifically false claims about biological sex, presenting gender as fluid and furthering a narrative that people can be born in the wrong body.
Ah, surely this will be a very good source that gives unbiased information with rational analysis. (Lol he said anal!)
|
On June 19 2023 06:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2023 06:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2023 00:14 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 08:55 JimmiC wrote:On June 17 2023 08:35 Razyda wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons.I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Regarding the interview and study mentioned there: It shows that anti x people voted for Trump not that all the people voting for Trump are anti x. Kind of every eagle is a bird, but not every bird is an eagle situation. Now I am not saying that there is no racists and whatever people in maga, only that maga itself isnt based on racism and so on. I think bolded is important part, especially if you connect it with the fact that most of the media hated Trump and current trend in the west is that if you dont like someone then you throw bunch of -ism at them, then it is no wonder that lots of people see entire movement as some maniacs with foaming mouth. On June 17 2023 04:23 JimmiC wrote:
It is the nonsensical nature of there thoughts to beliefs to policy. If you ask about Bud Light you will likely here it some how about protecting children or pedophilia. It makes no sense because they actually for the most part support orgs like the scouts and catholic church who have shown historically to have actually protected pedophiles. You can not say "I hate trans" or "I hate gays" but you can say I hate bud light, or I protect the children. You can do similar thought exercises with abortion, immigration, why things were better at whatever time. None of it makes sense without the hate/fear. As for church and scouts - idea behind both is actually quite enticing, it is just some individuals within them are deranged, but same is true for any organisation with lots of people (admittedly church takes the crown on this by a mile). Regarding protecting kids: I do think left went to far - there is at least one book which if adult person gave it to my kids I would be on police station before door slammed behind me, the one with the drawings which cant be shown on national tv or youtube, but somehow is appropriate for kids... also the one with instruction to use grinder(?) app. Not sure if its the same book or 2 different ones. Also some of the drag shows advertised as family friendly definitely do not seem as such. Now dont take me wrong - I dont think they all fit this description, but that some of them cross the line. Activism - as someone who was forced to march in parades on 1st May (workers day) with red or national flag I strongly believe schools shouldnt push any other agendas than teaching. They should be detached from politics, religions, or any movements. You’re going to have to link a source to get some context on your example. But I agree with your take that all large org and groups have bad people. My issue is that current MAGA folk are fine with that when it’s a scout, priest, republican congressman or whatever. But person in their group of others and they paint them all with the same brush and express overwhelming outrage void of logic. You will have to google "Gender queer" (images) and "This book is gay" (grinder thing) as I am not sure about forum guidelines in this instances. Also this article came up today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.htmlwhere again some materials given to kids had to be blurred in newspaper... On June 17 2023 18:23 Magic Powers wrote:On June 17 2023 08:25 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2023 04:09 Magic Powers wrote:As it concerns the underlying interests of the MAGA movement, I think people might be interested in this interview. Quoting one of the key parts: "MASON: So the colloquial stories we hear about Trump suggest that he somehow created a whole bunch of hatred in American politics. And instead, what this data shows is that what he did was serve as a place where people who already held a lot of animus towards marginalized groups, they all sort of gathered around him. So this was a latent faction of Americans that had just - that had already been sitting there and had already existed. So it's not necessarily that it's the Republican Party that is creating animus towards people, it's that there's this faction of Americans who really dislike marginalized groups. And they're attracted to one party or the other based on sort of the decisions of that party, and they're able to kind of hide within the party in order to make American politics be focused more on the party and not on this faction of people who are feeling a lot of hatred towards marginalized outgroups." tl;dr Trump or the Republican party didn't "create" hostility, they used the existing hostility some Americans felt towards marginalized people - like against black or trans people for example - and ended up channeling their energy favorably for Trump's election. Later in the interview it is explained that such existing hostility - anti-white for example - did not affect voter turnout for the Democratic party. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supportersAn additional thought from myself, as someone who used to hang out and debate with right-wingers of all sorts, is that they can lean on their defender's advantage that allows them to successfully block legislation. That advantage stems from the fact that they're defending the status quo (i.e. pushing against changes in legislation, rather than for) while arguing for the protection of America's great culture, of religious freedom, of minors and their parents, etc. etc. "MAGA" incapsulates this spirit in simple words. It's not that all Trump voters hate marginalized groups, but they're being strongly influenced and often outright manipulated by those who do in fact hate marginalized groups, thus often sounding practically like the radicals who support Trump for nefarious reasons. I don't want to turn this into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that, even though I think there's a lot more to say. Shame, was an interesting tangent. It’s why the totality of the movement is such a jumbled, incoherent mess so frequently. It’s a broad coalition of folks with pretty divergent views, loosely tied together by grievance politics and following a cult of personality. And the outrage wheel will perpetually keep spinning without touching tarmac, because most of the big, real grievances there aren’t deliverable any actual solution are not palatable to various sensibilities. Don’t like China’s growing ascendency, or big tech, but love all-American free market capitalism? Good luck reconciling all that. Agree or not with more left-wing analyses and prescriptions, they’re embedded behind fundamental principles, and there is a factoring of the cost part of cost/benefit analysis. Likewise more traditional right-leaning politics. The MAGA crowd? It’s pure fantasy land. It’s free market capitalism without the possibility that one is on the losing end of that stick. It’s a laissez-faire approach to speech and culture where somehow the output must align with what they enjoy. An attitude towards government involvement in various spheres that vacillates wildly depending on context. It’s professing to dislike corruption and cronyism while backing someone like Donald Trump to the bloody hilt. MAGA is indeed fantasy. The whole premise is that there's a threat to the country that must be stopped, when in reality the US couldn't be a lot more powerful and secure than it is now if it made any additional effort.This is also part of the problem. Right-wingers can make left-wingers look like lunatics. It's the same principle as that of a bully acting like a victim when his prey escalates and fights back with sufficient force. I used to not understand the purpose of radical left-wingers disrupting cases of right-wing speech and occasionally even jumping right-wingers during rallies. What I came to realize is that these isolated cases become more frequent as they no longer see a better path forward because they're fighting a losing fight in the courts (due to the defender's advantage as described earlier). The bully can pretend as if he had done nothing wrong (when in fact he has done plenty wrong) and his prey appears to be the one acting out. This dynamic creates a spiral of escalation and radicalism where left and right start to vote more favorably for less and less grounded candidates and instead inflammatory populism pops up everywhere, both left and right. Just because harmless one-cause legislation can never be pushed through successfully due to the "defense of values". Yet again a lot more things can be said about it, so I'm making a point here. Bolded: country being powerful and secure doesnt say anything about wellbeing of its citizens. During cold war Russia was powerful and secure, does that make people protesting there who ended in prisons, or had to run away from the country dangerous lunatics? Interestingly they were painted with pretty much the same words at the time, as maga is now. Italic bolded: you do know you justifying violence here? Also if right wingers were as they are often described, it would probably only happened once followed by the stories about activists which jumped right wingers and nobody ever seen or hear of them again. It's somewhat unfair to characterize something like "This book is gay" as an instruction manual on how to use the Grindr app. There's a lot more useful information in the book than that. For example, instructions on how to give a good blowjob (teeth is a big no-no) as well as instructions on safe-sex (remember never let the guy cum in your mouth). Some bigots want to ban books like these from our schools and other want to fight really hard against it. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's really really important to make sure 11-year-olds have access to information on how to use Grindr or how to give a good blowjob. From the article: Show nested quote +
Schoolchildren are being taught about anal sex and orgasms before they have reached puberty and set 'masturbation' as homework, secretive lesson plans reveal.
Many teachers are 'indoctrinating' children with scientifically false claims about biological sex, presenting gender as fluid and furthering a narrative that people can be born in the wrong body.
Ah, surely this will be a very good source that gives unbiased information with rational analysis. (Lol he said anal!)
My source is from the book itself. You can find excerpts from "This book is gay" online:
![[image loading]](https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21c/WY-MR-Library-Books/images/1e-Page_600.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
