EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4109
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35153 Posts
On December 19 2023 06:27 riotjune wrote: Uh, Jan 6? | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2558 Posts
On December 19 2023 07:05 sevencck wrote: Indeed. If you're up for it we can give it a whirl, though I think you'll need to contribute something more than this. As I said, it doesn't seem possible to reason with progressives any further. Oh, I do believe he won't. It's evident you're not at all worth debating. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
Reading is thinking with some one else's head instead of one's own. To think with one's own head is always to aim at developing a coherent whole—a system, even though it be not a strictly complete one; and nothing hinders this so much as too strong a current of others' thoughts, such as comes of continual reading. These thoughts, springing every one of them from different minds, belonging to different systems, and tinged with different colors, never of themselves flow together into an intellectual whole; they never form a unity of knowledge, or insight, or conviction; but, rather, fill the head with a Babylonian confusion of tongues. The mind that is over-loaded with alien thought is thus deprived of all clear insight, and is well-nigh disorganized. This is a state of things observable in many men of learning; and it makes them inferior in sound sense, correct judgment and practical tact, to many illiterate persons, who, after obtaining a little knowledge from without, by means of experience, intercourse with others, and a small amount of reading, have always subordinated it to, and embodied it with, their own thought. The really scientific thinker does the same thing as these illiterate persons, but on a larger scale. Although he has need of much knowledge, and so must read a great deal, his mind is nevertheless strong enough to master it all, to assimilate and incorporate it with the system of his thoughts, and so to make it fit in with the organic unity of his insight, which, though vast, is always growing. And in the process, his own thought, like the bass in an organ, always dominates everything and is never drowned by other tones, as happens with minds which are full of mere antiquarian lore; where shreds of music, as it were, in every key, mingle confusedly, and no fundamental note is heard at all. This is the earliest explanation I'm aware of for the midwit, which approaches complexity but without the cognitive horsepower to master it. The simpleton and the genius both have access to common sense, the genius having mastered and subsumed complexity under his own system of thought. So I appeal to your common sense and ask once again: Why is the effort to remove a leading candidate from the ballot an endorsement of democracy? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2558 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
On December 19 2023 08:09 sevencck wrote: Again, if you think the election is fraudulent, it is appropriate to protest. You won't entertain the possibility that people were protesting in good faith, calling it all just an insurrection to overturn democracy, all after protests lit cities on fire. Those are the accusations which do not meet the standard of good faith. People aren't saying Trump is a fascist because some people protested an election they thought was fraudulent. They're saying it because he convinced them it was fraudulent. The fascist part of Jan 6th wasn't people showing up to protest, it was the losing president egging them on. There's ample evidence that most of his aides told him he lost fairly, too, so while his believers can plausibly claim they were tricked by a liar, that doesn't hold up for Trump. (To be fair, it is conceivable that he is sufficiently deranged from decades of lying about everything and cheating at everything that he has started to genuinely believe his own lies, in which case there might be some insanity plea to be made. Haven't seen that one from him or any of his supporters though, but I'd plausibly be on board with that. ) | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On December 19 2023 09:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: People aren't saying Trump is a fascist because some people protested an election they thought was fraudulent. They're saying it because he convinced them it was fraudulent. The fascist part of Jan 6th wasn't people showing up to protest, it was the losing president egging them on. There's ample evidence that most of his aides told him he lost fairly, too, so while his believers can plausibly claim they were tricked by a liar, that doesn't hold up for Trump. (To be fair, it is conceivable that he is sufficiently deranged from decades of lying about everything and cheating at everything that he has started to genuinely believe his own lies, in which case there might be some insanity plea to be made. Haven't seen that one from him or any of his supporters though, but I'd plausibly be on board with that. ) Well if showing up to protest isn't fascist, then nor can the losing president "egging them on" be. If the people can't be relied on to protest responsibly then do we really believe in protest? If a leader must be punished for the irresponsible protest of the public, then do we really believe in these things? He did tell everyone to protest peacefully, but I suppose that's only a dog whistle if you've made your mind up about him. I will include a video link of Maxine Waters. By your reasoning is her behavior also fascist? I have doubts about the electoral result, but the purpose of democracy is that things aren't definitively known, the people voice their concerns, some of which take shape as uncertainty. As long as it falls under the rubric of law, I don't have a problem. Progressives increasingly act like everything is definitively known. The protests were an effort to overturn democracy itself. Trump needs to be kept off the ballot to safeguard democracy etc. I guess elections are a mere formality to such masterminds who know everything. The point is that democracy is a kind of referendum on reality. When you decide what is real and preclude other people's behaviors as terrorist and insurrectionist, you are in some sense projecting the opinion that you consider democracy unnecessary. Most of those people would tell you they were trying to protect democracy. Are you so sure they are wrong? | ||
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
On December 19 2023 07:05 sevencck wrote: Indeed. If you're up for it we can give it a whirl, though I think you'll need to contribute something more than this. As I said, it doesn't seem possible to reason with progressives any further. I think our contributions were of approximately equal value. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On December 19 2023 09:33 KwarK wrote: I think our contributions were of approximately equal value. Therein is your error. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
Lol | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On December 19 2023 09:38 JimmiC wrote: You seem to be missing the part that they believe it was fraudulent because of purposeful lies. The strange part is that now that is clear that they (and presumably you) were tricked that you are not made at the liar but mad at the other people for… ??? Well I guess and that they do also believe the lies? I’m not sure. Extend your reasoning. Those who vote differently were also tricked due to purposeful lies. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24690 Posts
On December 19 2023 09:48 JimmiC wrote: That is an interesting anecdote, but I find it really depressing as well. I'm sure many of the elected officials could do great things if they were honest and well meaning. But instead once they leave the closed the closed doors it is back to all the drama and fighting. I think part of it is just the stigma associated with the word nuclear. You could probably propose a re-invigoration of the entire nuclear power industry, but if you avoided the word "nuclear," you'd get double the traction lol | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On December 19 2023 09:43 KwarK wrote: You’re all trying way too hard for someone who is clearly not worth the time. Your time could be more productively used in flat earth YouTube channels comment sections. Your sneering contempt is doing wonders for your side politically, like I said. Good luck. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
741 Posts
On December 17 2023 22:29 micronesia wrote: Most things involve discrimination in the most general sense. Yes, the news item involving the holiday party with the intent to invite only persons of color politicians was discriminating against people. If the organizers had invited white politicians too, that would still be discriminating in a million ways (why wasn't I invited, for example? New York City politicians? Boston Teachers?), just not that one particular way. I don't think your first question is specific enough. The second question is getting warmer. Is discrimination based on race justified? My response is that this question has neither a yes or no answer. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It's easy to say "we should never discriminate based on race," but that's actually entirely implausible. Even simple things like identifying black politicians as 'black' (just the word black) are discriminating. Why didn't I call that white-as-heck politician black? I discriminated against non-black politicians when choosing to use the word black to refer only to the black politicians. Why didn't I include Asian-American politicians in my example? I think most people would agree in a simple example like that, it's okay to "discriminate based on race," and that's not really what we mean by discriminating against white politicians or politicians of color or anyone else. Unfortunately, what that means though is that we can't even have a good discussion about whether or not discrimination based on race is acceptable because we haven't established what individual examples of discrimination would or wouldn't be included in the relevant definition/connotations for "discrimination based on race." If the City of Boston put out a new law which said "only persons of color may be politicians in Boston anymore" that would be unacceptable. If the City of Boston political bodies coordinated several holiday parties, and one of them was only for inviting certain politicians based on race (like the news item), I agree the optics aren't good for a lot of people, but in many cases that act is entirely acceptable. In a different city if the situation was handled differently perhaps the race-based discrimination would be unacceptable. Trying to boil this down to "always ok" or "never okay" is a mistake, and seemingly a common one, which is why I refer to the fact that this issue is a bit more complicated than it first seems. edit: your third question also alludes to this Apologies for late answer. Bolded 1: I dont think so. Going this way yo would end up with conclusion that everything is discrimination, ergo word has no meaning whatsoever. Me eating an apple doesnt mean I am discriminating an orange, it just means that I am eating apple. However lets make assumption that there are degrees of discriminations and some are acceptable. So I will concede that it would be better if I phrased my question differently, eg: Do you think discrimination in the events Black Jack mention reach the degree whrere it shouldnt be tolerated? You dont have to answer, as you already did in another post. (I will quote at the end) Italic: Bolded Italic - if you reread your post you should realize that your answer is actually "yes" I think there is a difference between description and discrimination and intent has quite a bit to do with it. If for example you have a picture with MLK and JFK on it and child ask you which one is JFK you will say white one, if child ask you which one is MLK you say black one. This is not discrimination. contrary to that I would say saying "Black politician xxxxx proposed a bill...." is somewhat discriminatory, simply because word black is not needed there, well unless there would be white politician with the same name and surname, but i digress "Why didn't I call that white-as-heck politician black?" because that would be bizarre and somewhat confusing? Bolded 2 italic: I dont believe it means that. I would say than rather than trying to make such discussion fruitless by asking for individual examples, there is certain threshold above which it becomes unacceptable. Threshold is somewhat easy to establish - if something is unacceptable for one group of people, it shouldnt be acceptable for other group of people. Hence discrimination would look somewhat like this: On December 17 2023 22:29 micronesia wrote: If the City of Boston political bodies coordinated several holiday parties, and one of them was only for inviting certain politicians based on race (like the news item), I agree the optics aren't good for a lot of people, but in many cases that act is entirely acceptable. On December 17 2023 22:47 BlackJack wrote: So would it be fair to assume, that given their exists sufficient other parties and opportunities for everyone that you would also be okay if the white council members carved out one party for themselves that the rest of the board wasn’t invited to? On December 17 2023 22:49 micronesia wrote: No. Not today. Maybe tomorrow. The last quote also serves as an answer to my first question. | ||
| ||
