|
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 |
On July 24 2018 22:24 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 22:05 JimmiC wrote:
I brought up a couple, and clarified that you in fact meant this. The easiest one was number of blacks in government. It used to be 100% white 0% black, now it is not. (I'm not re looking up these stats again). This argument reminds me so much of the debate I had with my liberal father. I was telling him about how McCain screwed over the Navajo and Hopi communities and sold tribal land off to a multinational mining corporation which was going to end up dumping waste into the water supply there. His predictable response was that the tribes allowed it by one of their own (Ben Shelly), the Navajo Nation president- as if that excuses it. Story: + Show Spoiler +It's the usual tactic I see used by liberals and capitalists many times to use a sell out of "their own" to co-opt and destroy resistance. Then use it to deflect. So truly typical.
any successful minority is a sellout. obama as the first african american president didn't actually matter.
|
On July 24 2018 22:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 22:19 Acrofales wrote:On July 24 2018 22:11 farvacola wrote:
We also allow absentee voting, whereas India does not. Thus, ID requirements implicate different concerns when they potentially burden some groups more than others. Netherlands allows absentee voting and has voter ID requirements. Voter has to fill out a card that authorizes another person to vote on his behalf (fill out your ID card number and sign it, and fill out the ID card number and name of the person you authorize). For voting abroad you need to register with the consulate (or if you'll just be on holiday, you can do this through your municipality) to send your ballot by snail mail. Next elections there will be trials with voting abroad through the digital platform, but I don't know yet how that will work. Is voting in the Netherlands federalized? Our system's lack of universality and susceptibility to the whims of state governments are big obstacles that need overcome imo. Yes it is, we also do logical things like sending a ballot to every eligible voter without requiring them to pre-register.
|
On July 24 2018 22:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 22:11 farvacola wrote:
We also allow absentee voting, whereas India does not. Thus, ID requirements implicate different concerns when they potentially burden some groups more than others. Netherlands allows absentee voting and has voter ID requirements. Voter has to fill out a card that authorizes another person to vote on his behalf (fill out your ID card number and sign it, and fill out the ID card number and name of the person you authorize). For voting abroad you need to register with the consulate (or if you'll just be on holiday, you can do this through your municipality) to send your ballot by snail mail. Next elections there will be trials with voting abroad through the digital platform, but I don't know yet how that will work.
The US is weird because each of our states has their own system for voting in federal elections and makes their own rules. So one state could create a system like the Netherlands, but the rest of the country could still be using in person, paper ballots.
I don’t know if we will or should ever move to pure digital voting. As much a tech has changed our lives, I think a physical ballot should always exist. It is to easy for someone to cast doubt on a purely digital system.
|
On July 24 2018 22:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 22:31 farvacola wrote:On July 24 2018 22:19 Acrofales wrote:On July 24 2018 22:11 farvacola wrote:
We also allow absentee voting, whereas India does not. Thus, ID requirements implicate different concerns when they potentially burden some groups more than others. Netherlands allows absentee voting and has voter ID requirements. Voter has to fill out a card that authorizes another person to vote on his behalf (fill out your ID card number and sign it, and fill out the ID card number and name of the person you authorize). For voting abroad you need to register with the consulate (or if you'll just be on holiday, you can do this through your municipality) to send your ballot by snail mail. Next elections there will be trials with voting abroad through the digital platform, but I don't know yet how that will work. Is voting in the Netherlands federalized? Our system's lack of universality and susceptibility to the whims of state governments are big obstacles that need overcome imo. Yes it is, we also do logical things like sending a ballot to every eligible voter without requiring them to pre-register.
That's awesome and we definitely need more policies like that.
|
On July 24 2018 22:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 22:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 24 2018 22:31 farvacola wrote:On July 24 2018 22:19 Acrofales wrote:On July 24 2018 22:11 farvacola wrote:
We also allow absentee voting, whereas India does not. Thus, ID requirements implicate different concerns when they potentially burden some groups more than others. Netherlands allows absentee voting and has voter ID requirements. Voter has to fill out a card that authorizes another person to vote on his behalf (fill out your ID card number and sign it, and fill out the ID card number and name of the person you authorize). For voting abroad you need to register with the consulate (or if you'll just be on holiday, you can do this through your municipality) to send your ballot by snail mail. Next elections there will be trials with voting abroad through the digital platform, but I don't know yet how that will work. Is voting in the Netherlands federalized? Our system's lack of universality and susceptibility to the whims of state governments are big obstacles that need overcome imo. Yes it is, we also do logical things like sending a ballot to every eligible voter without requiring them to pre-register. That's awesome and we definitely more policies like that.
Mass just passed a law registering everyone in the state to vote if they are eligible.
|
Opt-out voting registration is definitely the path forward.
|
|
|
On July 24 2018 22:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:15 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:05 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 21:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 24 2018 21:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 20:57 Gorsameth wrote:On July 24 2018 20:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
As they've said, they're perfectly aware of the phenomena at play and think that they can simultaneously be fully aware of it and use it as a defense for inaction and defensiveness without any irony. Just because people are aware of it and wanting to improve on it does not mean they are willing to give up healthcare, gay rights and a horde of other things for a minimally tiny chance of maybe one day getting something possible better. It's a long way to the Wiz carrying a strawman that poorly built, you sure you want to embark on this journey? (y/n) I think what you mean to say is that there are a lot of people that are mostly content with going back to fucking over the groups they agreed on earlier. Eventually, with enough lesser evilism and dreaming, we may get around to addressing the groups/issues we didn't have a conniption about and compare to the ending of all that is good and free in the world in a blind hysteria over some reality TV freak show. Do you believe Trump has had no lasting impact on the US? (y/n) Of course (he's had a lasting impact* edited for clarity), he's the president of the country. Sometimes I really wonder about you guys... On July 24 2018 21:10 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 16:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 14:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Aboriginal people in Canada are treated pretty terribly by the government. I'm not sure the tacts are "totally different" so much as Canada's treatment is more sterotypically moderately more humane than the sterotypically brutal nature of US policy/practices. But even that is largely misleading. Canada's treatment of aboriginal people has been plenty brutal in it's own right.
You don't get to use my name and mischaracterize my argument after lobbing a completely unacceptable (except by TL standards) personal attack, and act like I'm the unreasonable one.
Since you can't discuss things in a manner which doesn't shit up the thread with your poorly put together arguments and inability to understand what is being discussed, you need to at least keep my name and arguments out your posts Those in glass houses my friend. And like you I said without malice. And you are right historically, as ive brought up residential housing in the past. I believe seeker politely asked you and me to pm. So if you feel free to continue this discussion where you make up my lack of understanding and your facts, feel free. If Jinro nailed your point and I misinterpreted it, you could have saved a bunch of posts from a bunch of people and just stated it. I thought your point, and asked you, if you thought there was no measurable changes in comparisons to whites. People over estimating the change is a completely reasonable point. I was still waiting for those measurable improvements and you pointed to actors and Emmy's (besides the ones I pointed out were clearly critically flawed for the reasons I explained). Fortunately I think the whole thing was rather informative for those who were able to tell right away what I was saying before someone else explained it to them in a way that didn't upset them in a manner that blinded them from being able to see the point being made the whole time. I think I'm starting to understand IgnE's point about the benefit of people not understanding your argument even if arriving there from different circumstances. But now I find myself caught between letting you spout your argument unchallenged or confronting it by first establishing by what metrics "the tacts are completely different" and not merely degrees of difference. But also at a loss as the stuff I don't know is about Canada, not the US and this is the US politics thread in which you're arguing that Canada's approach is radically different than the US's. I'd really like to drop it but we just had the response which indicated that they saw you arguing that there are these problems in communities largely as a result of previous (and some current) policy but no idea what to do about it. But people know what to do about it. The people claiming not to know what to do just don't want to do it. Yes critically flawed. It is no better the 1960 I have seen the light, I had no idea that all black people in the government or places of power and authority that were not there in 1960 were the equivalent of "Jews who were Nazi's".\ A black middle class did not exist, now does. But you are right that is not measurable either. So on and so forth. I should have listened to others and realized a discussion with you is pointless because you are more interested in fighting and being "hardcore" then the truth. If you would just admit that there are some changes, or maybe Lenin and Stalin were not good guys, or so on the rest of your point would not be lost. But you go into hyperbole at some point, then die on that hill for 3-5 pages. Crazy. Honest question: Are you intentionally missing the point out of spite or something or do you still genuinely not even understand the premise that has been explained to you multiple times by different people already? On July 24 2018 21:10 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 20:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 20:46 screamingpalm wrote:
Just my own perspective here, but maybe liberals should spend less time condescending about "tone" and more time weighing substance. Perhaps show some of that empathy they preach? If you're having issues with what is being said, or even how, that says more about you than anything else. Figure out why it's making you so uncomfortable. GH is doing far better than I could possibly do talking to liberals though, and my family is full of them, heh. I gave up that attempt long ago. :D As they've said, they're perfectly aware of the phenomena at play and think that they can simultaneously be fully aware of it and use it as a defense for inaction and defensiveness without any irony. I dunno whether to call this an overgeneralisation or a strawman, but you can take your pick. I prefer "pithy summation demonstrated in close proximity" but to each their own. Unless you moved the goal posts I'm still trying to get through this from many pages back. Answer me this if you would please. In what measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's? I brought up a couple, and clarified that you in fact meant this. The easiest one was number of blacks in government. It used to be 100% white 0% black, now it is not. (I'm not re looking up these stats again). You could look at number of students in universities, and yes I did bring up Blacks in entertainment, which has changed dramatically and is very important in America. I'm not going to rehash everything. But this is what I am responding to. The social changes and changes in perception alone are huge and measurable. I was mostly agreeing with you up until you posted the above and then I wanted to check if you believed that statement or were using hyperbole. You stated that in fact you believe this statement, you asked me for reasons it was not true. I gave them, you called black politicians Nazi jews, and so on. Yeah, what kind of Black people aren't thankful for such improvements as Ben Carson at HUD and surely women should also be quite proud of progress demonstrated by Nikki Haley and Betsy Devos. Also did you guys even know that there is a BLACK entertainment channel!?!? I know you're arguing sincerely and attempting to belittle my argument but it's such an embarrassing attempt it's really hard to ignore. I'm not attempting to belittle your argument, I'm attempting to bring it back to reality so instead of upsetting and fighting with people you have a chance of convincing them. So how about instead of: Answer me this if you would please. In what measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's? You go with "There has been FEW MEANINGFUL ways that the gap between white and black people has been closed economically since the 60's" I think this might be more what you mean but it isn't what you said. Mine was a question/request in hopes people would examine more closely what and how they measure with consideration to the oft repeated "it's better than it used to be". Most importantly with a focus on whether Black and white people are closer or further away from each other when it comes to traditional measures of success in a democratic/capitalistic society like wealth, income, social mobility, and self-determination. Due to the nature of stuff like this I made sure to qualify what I was looking for with "measurable" to indicate to avoid subjective interpretation arguments like "people are less racist" for which any particular town or person may be true or wildly inaccurate. All sorts of hell broke loose after that, but rather than spaz out at the question think more on what 60+ years of freakishly loyal and proactive support of Democrats getting "FEW MEANINGFUL improvements" of which you cite Black people in office (without even addressing the whole Ben Carson aspect), college completion (sans the critical comparison to white people where when upon looking we find the gap has actually widened), and entertainment (clearly oblivious to the role of "entertainer" which white people have long expressed a comfort in allowing) as if you even thinking it's worth mentioning isn't demonstrative of how thin the stockpile is. The most comically demeaning part of it all though is the abstraction that you're the one bringing us towards reality. When you are looking at a gap, 100-0 then 90-10 is measurable and different.(made up numbers). Which was your question, now discussing whether it was meaningful is a decent discussion. I did not dodge the whole "Ben Carson" thing I never made it to it because I kept trying to discuss the first point to try to avoid the goalposts being moved. But yes I'm fully aware not every black politician has their people in mind. But I'm also aware that some do, a point you seem to have missed. The discussion of have the changes been measurable I'm going to avoid it with you, though probably interesting and you would have a perspective, but because of the way you discuss, you get your kicks by talking down to people and insulting them, with never bothering to understand there points because you feel 100% right on everything. I'm sure this makes you feel good, but it doesn't further your position so I'm not sure why you feel the need to always go this route, and quickly. Anyway, have a good one.
There are plenty of posters who I don't "talk down" to, but when your argument is so bad it's really hard to imagine you're making it sincerely and thinking that it doesn't look ridiculous. I honestly thought it was trolling for a while but I think it's clear by now that you're sincerely putting forth this argument in all earnest.
Normally I'd just ignore it, but people are so desperate to see the type of argument you're making made that they are willing to overlook some pretty glaring problems they would be all over if the roles were reversed and instead I was attempting to make a parallel argument with such specious supporting facts and overall poorly thought out logic. Not only that, but it's actually pulling out the "have you looked at these groups culture" type posts
|
On July 24 2018 22:33 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 22:24 screamingpalm wrote:On July 24 2018 22:05 JimmiC wrote:
I brought up a couple, and clarified that you in fact meant this. The easiest one was number of blacks in government. It used to be 100% white 0% black, now it is not. (I'm not re looking up these stats again). This argument reminds me so much of the debate I had with my liberal father. I was telling him about how McCain screwed over the Navajo and Hopi communities and sold tribal land off to a multinational mining corporation which was going to end up dumping waste into the water supply there. His predictable response was that the tribes allowed it by one of their own (Ben Shelly), the Navajo Nation president- as if that excuses it. Story: + Show Spoiler +It's the usual tactic I see used by liberals and capitalists many times to use a sell out of "their own" to co-opt and destroy resistance. Then use it to deflect. So truly typical. any successful minority is a sellout. obama as the first african american president didn't actually matter.
The ones that abandon their early campaign promises of holding banks accountable after getting bags full of money given to their campaign by said banks are, yes.
Assata Shakur, successful, not a sell out. In case you wanted an example.
|
TARP was really good because its saved the economy from going down the drain. TARP was really bad because we needed the help of the very people we wanted to punish for creating the problem in the first place. But the Republicans that passed TARP would never have let us put all those banks under government control during the crisis. Both options sucked.
|
|
|
On July 24 2018 23:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:48 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:15 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:05 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 21:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 24 2018 21:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's a long way to the Wiz carrying a strawman that poorly built, you sure you want to embark on this journey? (y/n)
I think what you mean to say is that there are a lot of people that are mostly content with going back to fucking over the groups they agreed on earlier. Eventually, with enough lesser evilism and dreaming, we may get around to addressing the groups/issues we didn't have a conniption about and compare to the ending of all that is good and free in the world in a blind hysteria over some reality TV freak show. Do you believe Trump has had no lasting impact on the US? (y/n) Of course (he's had a lasting impact* edited for clarity), he's the president of the country. Sometimes I really wonder about you guys... On July 24 2018 21:10 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 16:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I was still waiting for those measurable improvements and you pointed to actors and Emmy's (besides the ones I pointed out were clearly critically flawed for the reasons I explained).
Fortunately I think the whole thing was rather informative for those who were able to tell right away what I was saying before someone else explained it to them in a way that didn't upset them in a manner that blinded them from being able to see the point being made the whole time.
I think I'm starting to understand IgnE's point about the benefit of people not understanding your argument even if arriving there from different circumstances.
But now I find myself caught between letting you spout your argument unchallenged or confronting it by first establishing by what metrics "the tacts are completely different" and not merely degrees of difference. But also at a loss as the stuff I don't know is about Canada, not the US and this is the US politics thread in which you're arguing that Canada's approach is radically different than the US's.
I'd really like to drop it but we just had the response which indicated that they saw you arguing that there are these problems in communities largely as a result of previous (and some current) policy but no idea what to do about it.
But people know what to do about it. The people claiming not to know what to do just don't want to do it.
Yes critically flawed. It is no better the 1960 I have seen the light, I had no idea that all black people in the government or places of power and authority that were not there in 1960 were the equivalent of "Jews who were Nazi's".\ A black middle class did not exist, now does. But you are right that is not measurable either. So on and so forth. I should have listened to others and realized a discussion with you is pointless because you are more interested in fighting and being "hardcore" then the truth. If you would just admit that there are some changes, or maybe Lenin and Stalin were not good guys, or so on the rest of your point would not be lost. But you go into hyperbole at some point, then die on that hill for 3-5 pages. Crazy. Honest question: Are you intentionally missing the point out of spite or something or do you still genuinely not even understand the premise that has been explained to you multiple times by different people already? On July 24 2018 21:10 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 20:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
As they've said, they're perfectly aware of the phenomena at play and think that they can simultaneously be fully aware of it and use it as a defense for inaction and defensiveness without any irony. I dunno whether to call this an overgeneralisation or a strawman, but you can take your pick. I prefer "pithy summation demonstrated in close proximity" but to each their own. Unless you moved the goal posts I'm still trying to get through this from many pages back. Answer me this if you would please. In what measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's? I brought up a couple, and clarified that you in fact meant this. The easiest one was number of blacks in government. It used to be 100% white 0% black, now it is not. (I'm not re looking up these stats again). You could look at number of students in universities, and yes I did bring up Blacks in entertainment, which has changed dramatically and is very important in America. I'm not going to rehash everything. But this is what I am responding to. The social changes and changes in perception alone are huge and measurable. I was mostly agreeing with you up until you posted the above and then I wanted to check if you believed that statement or were using hyperbole. You stated that in fact you believe this statement, you asked me for reasons it was not true. I gave them, you called black politicians Nazi jews, and so on. Yeah, what kind of Black people aren't thankful for such improvements as Ben Carson at HUD and surely women should also be quite proud of progress demonstrated by Nikki Haley and Betsy Devos. Also did you guys even know that there is a BLACK entertainment channel!?!? I know you're arguing sincerely and attempting to belittle my argument but it's such an embarrassing attempt it's really hard to ignore. I'm not attempting to belittle your argument, I'm attempting to bring it back to reality so instead of upsetting and fighting with people you have a chance of convincing them. So how about instead of: Answer me this if you would please. In what measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's? You go with "There has been FEW MEANINGFUL ways that the gap between white and black people has been closed economically since the 60's" I think this might be more what you mean but it isn't what you said. Mine was a question/request in hopes people would examine more closely what and how they measure with consideration to the oft repeated "it's better than it used to be". Most importantly with a focus on whether Black and white people are closer or further away from each other when it comes to traditional measures of success in a democratic/capitalistic society like wealth, income, social mobility, and self-determination. Due to the nature of stuff like this I made sure to qualify what I was looking for with "measurable" to indicate to avoid subjective interpretation arguments like "people are less racist" for which any particular town or person may be true or wildly inaccurate. All sorts of hell broke loose after that, but rather than spaz out at the question think more on what 60+ years of freakishly loyal and proactive support of Democrats getting "FEW MEANINGFUL improvements" of which you cite Black people in office (without even addressing the whole Ben Carson aspect), college completion (sans the critical comparison to white people where when upon looking we find the gap has actually widened), and entertainment (clearly oblivious to the role of "entertainer" which white people have long expressed a comfort in allowing) as if you even thinking it's worth mentioning isn't demonstrative of how thin the stockpile is. The most comically demeaning part of it all though is the abstraction that you're the one bringing us towards reality. When you are looking at a gap, 100-0 then 90-10 is measurable and different.(made up numbers). Which was your question, now discussing whether it was meaningful is a decent discussion. I did not dodge the whole "Ben Carson" thing I never made it to it because I kept trying to discuss the first point to try to avoid the goalposts being moved. But yes I'm fully aware not every black politician has their people in mind. But I'm also aware that some do, a point you seem to have missed. The discussion of have the changes been measurable I'm going to avoid it with you, though probably interesting and you would have a perspective, but because of the way you discuss, you get your kicks by talking down to people and insulting them, with never bothering to understand there points because you feel 100% right on everything. I'm sure this makes you feel good, but it doesn't further your position so I'm not sure why you feel the need to always go this route, and quickly. Anyway, have a good one. There are plenty of posters who I don't "talk down" to, but when your argument is so bad it's really hard to imagine you're making it sincerely and thinking that it doesn't look ridiculous. I honestly thought it was trolling for a while but I think it's clear by now that you're sincerely putting forth this argument in all earnest. Normally I'd just ignore it, but people are so desperate to see the type of argument you're making made that they are willing to overlook some pretty glaring problems they would be all over if the roles were reversed and instead I was attempting to make a parallel argument with such specious supporting facts and overall poorly thought out logic. Not only that, but it's actually pulling out the "have you looked at these groups culture" type posts I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I'm making the argument that there has been measurable changes since the 1960's, we finally got to a point where you agree but don't think they are meaningful. No need to keep with the insults big guy, I get it you are REALLY smart. lol
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
|
On July 24 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
It's not like you seem to be ready to get past throwing out the personal insults either...
In any case, you two have already been told to take it to PM, right?
|
On July 24 2018 23:34 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
It's not like you seem to be ready to get past throwing out the personal insults either... In any case, you two have already been told to take it to PM, right?
If we were unable to conduct ourselves responsibly, yes. I think I've done that, the person throwing out personal insults like calling me racist, not so much.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 24 2018 23:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:48 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:15 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 22:05 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 21:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 24 2018 21:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's a long way to the Wiz carrying a strawman that poorly built, you sure you want to embark on this journey? (y/n)
I think what you mean to say is that there are a lot of people that are mostly content with going back to fucking over the groups they agreed on earlier. Eventually, with enough lesser evilism and dreaming, we may get around to addressing the groups/issues we didn't have a conniption about and compare to the ending of all that is good and free in the world in a blind hysteria over some reality TV freak show. Do you believe Trump has had no lasting impact on the US? (y/n) Of course (he's had a lasting impact* edited for clarity), he's the president of the country. Sometimes I really wonder about you guys... On July 24 2018 21:10 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2018 16:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I was still waiting for those measurable improvements and you pointed to actors and Emmy's (besides the ones I pointed out were clearly critically flawed for the reasons I explained).
Fortunately I think the whole thing was rather informative for those who were able to tell right away what I was saying before someone else explained it to them in a way that didn't upset them in a manner that blinded them from being able to see the point being made the whole time.
I think I'm starting to understand IgnE's point about the benefit of people not understanding your argument even if arriving there from different circumstances.
But now I find myself caught between letting you spout your argument unchallenged or confronting it by first establishing by what metrics "the tacts are completely different" and not merely degrees of difference. But also at a loss as the stuff I don't know is about Canada, not the US and this is the US politics thread in which you're arguing that Canada's approach is radically different than the US's.
I'd really like to drop it but we just had the response which indicated that they saw you arguing that there are these problems in communities largely as a result of previous (and some current) policy but no idea what to do about it.
But people know what to do about it. The people claiming not to know what to do just don't want to do it.
Yes critically flawed. It is no better the 1960 I have seen the light, I had no idea that all black people in the government or places of power and authority that were not there in 1960 were the equivalent of "Jews who were Nazi's".\ A black middle class did not exist, now does. But you are right that is not measurable either. So on and so forth. I should have listened to others and realized a discussion with you is pointless because you are more interested in fighting and being "hardcore" then the truth. If you would just admit that there are some changes, or maybe Lenin and Stalin were not good guys, or so on the rest of your point would not be lost. But you go into hyperbole at some point, then die on that hill for 3-5 pages. Crazy. Honest question: Are you intentionally missing the point out of spite or something or do you still genuinely not even understand the premise that has been explained to you multiple times by different people already? On July 24 2018 21:10 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 20:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
As they've said, they're perfectly aware of the phenomena at play and think that they can simultaneously be fully aware of it and use it as a defense for inaction and defensiveness without any irony. I dunno whether to call this an overgeneralisation or a strawman, but you can take your pick. I prefer "pithy summation demonstrated in close proximity" but to each their own. Unless you moved the goal posts I'm still trying to get through this from many pages back. Answer me this if you would please. In what measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's? I brought up a couple, and clarified that you in fact meant this. The easiest one was number of blacks in government. It used to be 100% white 0% black, now it is not. (I'm not re looking up these stats again). You could look at number of students in universities, and yes I did bring up Blacks in entertainment, which has changed dramatically and is very important in America. I'm not going to rehash everything. But this is what I am responding to. The social changes and changes in perception alone are huge and measurable. I was mostly agreeing with you up until you posted the above and then I wanted to check if you believed that statement or were using hyperbole. You stated that in fact you believe this statement, you asked me for reasons it was not true. I gave them, you called black politicians Nazi jews, and so on. Yeah, what kind of Black people aren't thankful for such improvements as Ben Carson at HUD and surely women should also be quite proud of progress demonstrated by Nikki Haley and Betsy Devos. Also did you guys even know that there is a BLACK entertainment channel!?!? I know you're arguing sincerely and attempting to belittle my argument but it's such an embarrassing attempt it's really hard to ignore. I'm not attempting to belittle your argument, I'm attempting to bring it back to reality so instead of upsetting and fighting with people you have a chance of convincing them. So how about instead of: Answer me this if you would please. In what measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's? You go with "There has been FEW MEANINGFUL ways that the gap between white and black people has been closed economically since the 60's" I think this might be more what you mean but it isn't what you said. Mine was a question/request in hopes people would examine more closely what and how they measure with consideration to the oft repeated "it's better than it used to be". Most importantly with a focus on whether Black and white people are closer or further away from each other when it comes to traditional measures of success in a democratic/capitalistic society like wealth, income, social mobility, and self-determination. Due to the nature of stuff like this I made sure to qualify what I was looking for with "measurable" to indicate to avoid subjective interpretation arguments like "people are less racist" for which any particular town or person may be true or wildly inaccurate. All sorts of hell broke loose after that, but rather than spaz out at the question think more on what 60+ years of freakishly loyal and proactive support of Democrats getting "FEW MEANINGFUL improvements" of which you cite Black people in office (without even addressing the whole Ben Carson aspect), college completion (sans the critical comparison to white people where when upon looking we find the gap has actually widened), and entertainment (clearly oblivious to the role of "entertainer" which white people have long expressed a comfort in allowing) as if you even thinking it's worth mentioning isn't demonstrative of how thin the stockpile is. The most comically demeaning part of it all though is the abstraction that you're the one bringing us towards reality. When you are looking at a gap, 100-0 then 90-10 is measurable and different.(made up numbers). Which was your question, now discussing whether it was meaningful is a decent discussion. I did not dodge the whole "Ben Carson" thing I never made it to it because I kept trying to discuss the first point to try to avoid the goalposts being moved. But yes I'm fully aware not every black politician has their people in mind. But I'm also aware that some do, a point you seem to have missed. The discussion of have the changes been measurable I'm going to avoid it with you, though probably interesting and you would have a perspective, but because of the way you discuss, you get your kicks by talking down to people and insulting them, with never bothering to understand there points because you feel 100% right on everything. I'm sure this makes you feel good, but it doesn't further your position so I'm not sure why you feel the need to always go this route, and quickly. Anyway, have a good one. There are plenty of posters who I don't "talk down" to, but when your argument is so bad it's really hard to imagine you're making it sincerely and thinking that it doesn't look ridiculous. I honestly thought it was trolling for a while but I think it's clear by now that you're sincerely putting forth this argument in all earnest. Normally I'd just ignore it, but people are so desperate to see the type of argument you're making made that they are willing to overlook some pretty glaring problems they would be all over if the roles were reversed and instead I was attempting to make a parallel argument with such specious supporting facts and overall poorly thought out logic. Not only that, but it's actually pulling out the "have you looked at these groups culture" type posts I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I'm making the argument that there has been measurable changes since the 1960's, we finally got to a point where you agree but don't think they are meaningful. No need to keep with the insults big guy, I get it you are REALLY smart. lol Edit: also I'm going to a little break from responding to you. Between the insulting me for you thinking I'm white, and the more subtle things such as capitalizing Black and not white. It appears to me that you are racist and it is getting hard to take. It is less disturbing to me than when white people do it for some reason, but it is still grating.
|
On July 24 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:34 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
It's not like you seem to be ready to get past throwing out the personal insults either... In any case, you two have already been told to take it to PM, right? If we were unable to conduct ourselves responsibly, yes. I think I've done that, the person throwing out personal insults like calling me racist, not so much.
When and if you were to call (say) xDaunt a racist, is it a personal insult which should be off limits?
|
On July 24 2018 23:43 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 23:34 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
It's not like you seem to be ready to get past throwing out the personal insults either... In any case, you two have already been told to take it to PM, right? If we were unable to conduct ourselves responsibly, yes. I think I've done that, the person throwing out personal insults like calling me racist, not so much. When and if you were to call (say) xDaunt a racist, is it a personal insult which should be off limits?
It would be yes.
EDIT: as to your other question: Depends. According to previous responses from mod staff regarding personal insults, if grounded in a preponderance of posts/consistent pattern it can be acceptable, not that I'm feeling lucky though.
|
On July 24 2018 23:43 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 23:34 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
It's not like you seem to be ready to get past throwing out the personal insults either... In any case, you two have already been told to take it to PM, right? If we were unable to conduct ourselves responsibly, yes. I think I've done that, the person throwing out personal insults like calling me racist, not so much. When and if you were to call (say) xDaunt a racist, is it a personal insult which should be off limits?
Half of the thread's posters would be banned if that were the standard.
|
On July 24 2018 23:17 Plansix wrote:
TARP was really good because its saved the economy from going down the drain. TARP was really bad because we needed the help of the very people we wanted to punish for creating the problem in the first place. But the Republicans that passed TARP would never have let us put all those banks under government control during the crisis. Both options sucked.
Just a couple weeks ago the 5th Circuit ruled that FHFA conservatorship structure was unconstitutional, though they kinda didn't make that many changes beyond that. Kind of an interesting tidbit about the government intervention and how there was a lot of people against it.
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/46098-court-of-appeals-declares-fhfa-structure-unconstitutional
|
On July 24 2018 23:43 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 23:34 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
It's not like you seem to be ready to get past throwing out the personal insults either... In any case, you two have already been told to take it to PM, right? If we were unable to conduct ourselves responsibly, yes. I think I've done that, the person throwing out personal insults like calling me racist, not so much. When and if you were to call (say) xDaunt a racist, is it a personal insult which should be off limits?
I don't understand why anyone would do this. There's no need. Just call his posts racist, which often they are to some degree, and you don't have to say anything about anyone's personal attributes.
|
On July 24 2018 23:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 23:43 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 23:34 Aquanim wrote:On July 24 2018 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
...
You seem to be incapable (based off repeated attempts from myself and others) of grappling with any sincerity the argument I made. Instead you've created arguments you're comfortable with dismantling. Like a disagreement about whether my contention was merely that your supporting facts weren't examples of meaningful improvements.
The arguments you're making are getting the treatment they warrant. But clearly you're not ready to get past the personal insult quite yet anyway.
It's not like you seem to be ready to get past throwing out the personal insults either... In any case, you two have already been told to take it to PM, right? If we were unable to conduct ourselves responsibly, yes. I think I've done that, the person throwing out personal insults like calling me racist, not so much. When and if you were to call (say) xDaunt a racist, is it a personal insult which should be off limits? Half of the thread's posters would be banned if that were the standard.
Oh, I'm well aware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
