|
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 |
Elections have consequences. Every bad thing happening to Trump voters in terms of things like immigration and the economy (tariffs) were easy to see coming.
|
On August 04 2018 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 05:57 Toadesstern wrote:U.S. deports Mexican wife of American Marine veteran
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. government deported a Mexican woman on Friday who had lived in the country illegally for nearly two decades despite efforts by lawmakers to keep her in Florida with her husband, a Marine Corps veteran, and her two American children.
Alejandra Juarez, 38, was joined by her family and her congressman, Darren Soto, at Orlando International Airport for tearful farewells before her flight back to Mexico.
Juarez sought to illegally enter the United States in 1998 and was ordered to be removed, precluding her future chances at getting a visa or becoming a citizen, according to Soto and media interviews Juarez has given.
She illegally re-entered the country in 2000, the same year she married Temo Juarez, a Mexico native who went on to serve in the war in Iraq with the U.S. Marines and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen.
After being discovered in the country during a 2013 traffic stop, she had been required to check in every six months with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
Her lawyers said to reporters she was only now being deported because of U.S. Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigration.
ICE, which did not respond to questions on Friday, has said that Juarez’s re-entry after her removal is considered a felony.
“Mr President, you deporting me is not going to hurt just me; you’re making a veteran suffer,” Alejandra Juarez said at the airport. “You always say you love veterans. If you really love veterans, why didn’t you pardon me?”
Her husband has told reporters that he voted for Trump in the 2016 election.
rump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was criticized by immigrant groups for deporting scores of non-citizen U.S. military veterans and for deporting immigrants whose only crime was re-entering the country after an earlier removal order.
Under new guidelines issued by the Obama administration in 2014, however, Juarez was considered a low priority for removal, her lawyers said.
Trump, a Republican, broadened ICE’s focus within days of taking office in 2017, saying no immigrants should be considered exempt from law enforcement.
Soto, a Democratic congressman, has sponsored a so-called private bill that would grant Juarez a visa if passed, a last-ditch, frequently unsuccessful recourse for immigrants who have exhausted other avenues.
Juarez has said her youngest daughter, who is nine years old, will come to live with her in Mexico because her husband frequently travels for his work running a flooring business. source: www.reuters.comman that's just sad... imagine being that husband having to try and explain that to your children that's like the ultimate "nono, he's obviously only going to go after the other people comming in here. Not us" Not sure if he told reporters he voted for Trump as some sort of self-punishment or because he knows that's the best plan to keep his wife in the country (appealing to Trump's vanity/ego). Also had to make sure this wasn't the most vindictive breakup possible.
yeah that idea crossed my mind as well... like there's no way he's actually that stupid.... right? So maybe he did it on purpose but I don't want to believe that there are garbo people like that out there, especially if they have children.
So for now I'll just take it at face value. I don't see a chance of Trump pardoning her though. That's exactly the kind of people his supporters want out of the country and they'd go mad over that.
I'll admit there is a non-0% chance that the guy wanted to divorce her and thought this is the best way to make sure he gets the kids though.
|
On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 04:29 Nebuchad wrote:On August 04 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote:
I think we all got it, but politely disagreed with his assessment. But its nice you found someone that agrees with you on this subject. I don't think he did though. P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt). + Show Spoiler +(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.) That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all. You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging. So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do. First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here. Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude. Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references. I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts. i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously. i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of: "trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed" is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument. i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive. ...dammit... I knew as soon as I wrote that "laughably" you were going to do that. That's what I get for trying to score rhetorical points. Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found. I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents.
Conversations aren't easy when people can't even agree on what basic, important words like 'racism' mean, especially when those words describe central problems in American society.
|
On August 04 2018 06:31 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 04:29 Nebuchad wrote:On August 04 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote:
I think we all got it, but politely disagreed with his assessment. But its nice you found someone that agrees with you on this subject. I don't think he did though. P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt). + Show Spoiler +(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.) That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all. You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging. So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do. First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here. Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude. Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references. I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts. i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously. i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of: "trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed" is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument. i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive. ...dammit... I knew as soon as I wrote that "laughably" you were going to do that. That's what I get for trying to score rhetorical points. Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found. I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents. Conversations aren't easy when people can't even agree on what basic, important words like 'racism' mean, especially when those words describe central problems in American society.
Arguing over what it means is also how people avoid addressing the problem meant to be described. White Americans know it's worse to be Black, the fact of the matter is they can't be bothered to do what it takes to fix it and don't see "what's in it for them" or why it's their problem.
Everything else is a distraction from that issue really.
|
|
|
On August 03 2018 18:22 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:32 On_Slaught wrote:On August 03 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders was asked today if she thought the press were the enemy multiple times and she wouldnt say no. Absolutely shameful. But I guess we already knew she was a piece of shit that since she is paid to lie to America every day.
People love to downplay how dangerous this administration is to our democratic norms, it I dont buy it. I have no problem with labeling the press as the enemy. Do you really think that any rational conservative would consider the NYT or CNN as being friendly to a conservative agenda? Of course not. The press as a whole is predominantly liberal if not left wing. As a result, the press as a whole has been hostile to conservative interests for generations. Trump is merely the first conservative president to point it out and act accordingly. Just wow. This is a pretty outrageous position. That somehow the standard for media should be its ability to not offend conservatives as opposed to reporting the truth is a joke. That the press is reporting things the President doesn't like makes it the enemy of the people is dangerous. Are you just going to ignore the fact that Trump thinks "negative news coverage" is fake news and that fake news is why the press is the enemy of the people? Are you just going to ignore that the reason Trump says this is not to help conservatives, but rather to make it so people dont believe negative things about him? Are you just going to ignore the damage this does to the prospect of holding the executive accountable? Sad. "Reporting the truth?" Oh, please. What the press decides to report just as important as how they report it. The disparity in reporting is obvious. Trump rarely gets good press.![[image loading]](https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/2d6e29f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/415x413+0+0/resize/415x413!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2Fd1%2Fa1%2F66a0df135db923bbc6655795b341%2F122717-trump-pew-coverage.png) And Trump's precise motivation for attacking the press is besides the point. I agree with his attack not because of Trump, but because I have recognized the press as being biased against my political and cultural interests for as long as I have been politically aware (and even before then). What most of you still seem to miss is that Trump got to where he is today because of political conditions and temperaments in the electorate that pre-date him. Trump's political genius is in being the first conservative politician to seize upon those currents and ride them. I have to ask... do you genuinely not care that Donald Trump lies again and again? Does it not matter to you that the President - your President - simply does not tell the truth? And if the President is a liar... how do you expect people to report on those lies? The tone was set the moment he lied about the size of his inauguration crowd. As for his 'political genius', we all know that he won because he was up against the most hated political figure in modern US politics. And he still lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever.
There are a lot of things that I don't like about Trump, and his loose relationship with the truth is one of them. But the point remains that he doesn't get a fair shake from the press. And like I have argued previously, the press has made a serious strategic blunder in challenging Trump on every little thing and refusing to give him any credit for anything good that he has done. There's a reason why #fakenews, which was created by the mainstream media, backfired so horribly such that the mainstream press had to retire the term.
Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:
I saw that article on Qanon lol. Almost posted it as I pondered how the hell we will ever make progress in this country. Getting news off of social media and cracking down on sites like youtube hosting this trash. The only reason they allow this stuff on their service is due to the complete liability protection they receive from the Communications Decency Act. That law needs to be updated. There was a bit on NPR about how Google, etc. have until now resisted any sort of filtering tech, because they know if they have it people will demand it. But apparently Google may be doing something so they can get into the Chinese market. Could be an interesting development. People have been saying this since 2014 when the focus was video game boobies and women with opinions, these youtube personalities and google make bank peddling these conspiracy theories and harassment campaigns. From patreon to go-fund-me, these sites have made money from supporting these snake oil merchant who are causing real harm. I remember jokers like Sargon of Akkad and Vox Day talking about evil SJWs/women ruining science fiction, spreading lies about people they didn’t like and riling up harassment campaigns all the way through 2014-2015. And now both of them are political actors, peddling hate and conspiracies for profit. All thanks to Google and other social media. I dunno. Episode 8 kinda proved their point. And it's not exactly the only shining example. I admit to being genuinely disappointed to see you of all people engaging in this sort of trash argumentation. You've struck me as a fairly intelligent poster in the past, but this is garbage-tier thinking not just posting. Like there weren't terrible sci-fi movies before SJW's turned up? There weren't terrible movies of all stripes without their involvement? Bad writing makes movies bad. And SJW-friendly movies are no better or worse for that than non-SJW movies. Though what those are, is kind of hard to tell. Seemingly, it's a retroactive label put onto anything the speaker doesn't like; which is why almost everyone who seriously uses those three initials is a fucking moron who should be ignored, and almost without exception those people fall to pieces if put in an environment where their shitty beliefs are challenged. Sargon of Akkad in particular is guilty of this. I really hope you consider him beneath you. If not, there's a very revealing debate he had with a feminist in which she tore him completely to pieces and he failed to successfully counter anything she said. And she wasn't even a prominent feminist thinker who really knows their stuff, just a youtube poster with a degree. As for episode 8, the things that make it a controversial movie are stupid writing decisions, not 'SJW' politics, unless you're an idiot. The fact that an entire third of the movie could be cut without affecting the plot one iota, for example. The fact that it outright junks almost all the plot threads from the original without paying any of them off in a satisfying manner (writing 101 right there), and the absurd mixed messages the movie sends about self-sacrifice and survival when you compare Rose's speech to Finn to how multiple other characters in the series, franchise, and the same movie have behaved. These are the problems with episode 8. not that Rian Johnson wanted to put women in charge everywhere. Some bad writers can be described as SJWs. Some great ones proudly wear the term. And that's what makes the argument trash. It's all about focusing on the negatives, and ignoring the evidence that proves it to be what it is; nonsense peddled by people who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about. Half of the examples they use - and yes I've listened to these arguments and looked into them to check - don't even prove the point they think they do, as a lot of things that happen that are blamed on 'SJWs' are often the result of executive meddling that has nothing at all to do with the desires of the person they're blaming, focus group testing (which is almost never involving 'SJW's), or complete random chance.
I disagree with the proposition that the SJW politics did not cause Episode 8 to be bad. If anything, I think that SJW politics is the central cause of Episode 8 being bad, and that the bad writing that you refer to is merely a symptom of this larger problem. As just one example, you note that 1/3 of the movie (the Rose/Fin nonsense) could have been cut without affecting the plot. Well let us not forget why that plot is there. It serves the purpose of putting the young masculine hotshots in their proper, subordinate place to their feminist betters (Holdo > Poe, Rose > Finn). Hell, fee free to tell me which male character other than Kylo Renn isn't emasculated by the end of the movie.
But that's not the worst part of the SJW political influence on the movie. The worst part is undoubtedly to moral ambiguity and moral relativism that Rian Johnson thrusts into the Star Wars universe (admittedly, there are elements of this in Rogue One). Star Wars has always been fundamentally a story of good versus evil. Now I'm sure the Plansix's of the world will call this quaint and make it clear that they prefer Rian Johnson's "more complex" vision of the Star Wars universe. My response is as follows: go watch Game of Thrones or create your own fucking franchise. Leave Star Wars alone, and don't turn it into something that it's not.
|
On August 04 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 06:31 iamthedave wrote:On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 04:29 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't think he did though. P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt). + Show Spoiler +(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.) That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all. You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging. So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do. First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here. Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude. Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references. I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts. i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously. i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of: "trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed" is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument. i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive. ...dammit... I knew as soon as I wrote that "laughably" you were going to do that. That's what I get for trying to score rhetorical points. Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found. I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents. Conversations aren't easy when people can't even agree on what basic, important words like 'racism' mean, especially when those words describe central problems in American society. Arguing over what it means is also how people avoid addressing the problem meant to be described. White Americans know it's worse to be Black, the fact of the matter is they can't be bothered to do what it takes to fix it and don't see "what's in it for them" or why it's their problem. Everything else is a distraction from that issue really.
What I don't get is why the language coming from the left seems purpose built to distract people from the problem you are trying to solve.
If every time this was mentioned, someone said the bolded part of your quote, things would be fine and we could talk about that, but people go off on tangents about white privilege and how all white people are racist and the left get behind them and then the argument becomes about what racism is.
It happens all the time, and if it isn't deliberately provoked by the left to be a distraction from the issue they want to fix, then its an extraordinary case of counter productive tactics.
The language used is aggressive and because of that people on the other side get defensive.
Note I am talking about practicality and how people normally react in these situations, I'm not saying anything about what is morally right or wrong and I'm not assigning victim status to anyone.
|
The most amusing part about the whole star wars thing is that there is nothing about Rian Johnson that makes him a SJW, the term is just a place holder for “person who did a thing I didn’t like.”
|
On August 04 2018 06:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 18:22 iamthedave wrote:On August 03 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:32 On_Slaught wrote:On August 03 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders was asked today if she thought the press were the enemy multiple times and she wouldnt say no. Absolutely shameful. But I guess we already knew she was a piece of shit that since she is paid to lie to America every day.
People love to downplay how dangerous this administration is to our democratic norms, it I dont buy it. I have no problem with labeling the press as the enemy. Do you really think that any rational conservative would consider the NYT or CNN as being friendly to a conservative agenda? Of course not. The press as a whole is predominantly liberal if not left wing. As a result, the press as a whole has been hostile to conservative interests for generations. Trump is merely the first conservative president to point it out and act accordingly. Just wow. This is a pretty outrageous position. That somehow the standard for media should be its ability to not offend conservatives as opposed to reporting the truth is a joke. That the press is reporting things the President doesn't like makes it the enemy of the people is dangerous. Are you just going to ignore the fact that Trump thinks "negative news coverage" is fake news and that fake news is why the press is the enemy of the people? Are you just going to ignore that the reason Trump says this is not to help conservatives, but rather to make it so people dont believe negative things about him? Are you just going to ignore the damage this does to the prospect of holding the executive accountable? Sad. "Reporting the truth?" Oh, please. What the press decides to report just as important as how they report it. The disparity in reporting is obvious. Trump rarely gets good press.And Trump's precise motivation for attacking the press is besides the point. I agree with his attack not because of Trump, but because I have recognized the press as being biased against my political and cultural interests for as long as I have been politically aware (and even before then). What most of you still seem to miss is that Trump got to where he is today because of political conditions and temperaments in the electorate that pre-date him. Trump's political genius is in being the first conservative politician to seize upon those currents and ride them. I have to ask... do you genuinely not care that Donald Trump lies again and again? Does it not matter to you that the President - your President - simply does not tell the truth? And if the President is a liar... how do you expect people to report on those lies? The tone was set the moment he lied about the size of his inauguration crowd. As for his 'political genius', we all know that he won because he was up against the most hated political figure in modern US politics. And he still lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever. There are a lot of things that I don't like about Trump, and his loose relationship with the truth is one of them. But the point remains that he doesn't get a fair shake from the press. And like I have argued previously, the press has made a serious strategic blunder in challenging Trump on every little thing and refusing to give him any credit for anything good that he has done. There's a reason why #fakenews, which was created by the mainstream media, backfired so horribly such that the mainstream press had to retire the term. Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:
I saw that article on Qanon lol. Almost posted it as I pondered how the hell we will ever make progress in this country. Getting news off of social media and cracking down on sites like youtube hosting this trash. The only reason they allow this stuff on their service is due to the complete liability protection they receive from the Communications Decency Act. That law needs to be updated. There was a bit on NPR about how Google, etc. have until now resisted any sort of filtering tech, because they know if they have it people will demand it. But apparently Google may be doing something so they can get into the Chinese market. Could be an interesting development. People have been saying this since 2014 when the focus was video game boobies and women with opinions, these youtube personalities and google make bank peddling these conspiracy theories and harassment campaigns. From patreon to go-fund-me, these sites have made money from supporting these snake oil merchant who are causing real harm. I remember jokers like Sargon of Akkad and Vox Day talking about evil SJWs/women ruining science fiction, spreading lies about people they didn’t like and riling up harassment campaigns all the way through 2014-2015. And now both of them are political actors, peddling hate and conspiracies for profit. All thanks to Google and other social media. I dunno. Episode 8 kinda proved their point. And it's not exactly the only shining example. I admit to being genuinely disappointed to see you of all people engaging in this sort of trash argumentation. You've struck me as a fairly intelligent poster in the past, but this is garbage-tier thinking not just posting. Like there weren't terrible sci-fi movies before SJW's turned up? There weren't terrible movies of all stripes without their involvement? Bad writing makes movies bad. And SJW-friendly movies are no better or worse for that than non-SJW movies. Though what those are, is kind of hard to tell. Seemingly, it's a retroactive label put onto anything the speaker doesn't like; which is why almost everyone who seriously uses those three initials is a fucking moron who should be ignored, and almost without exception those people fall to pieces if put in an environment where their shitty beliefs are challenged. Sargon of Akkad in particular is guilty of this. I really hope you consider him beneath you. If not, there's a very revealing debate he had with a feminist in which she tore him completely to pieces and he failed to successfully counter anything she said. And she wasn't even a prominent feminist thinker who really knows their stuff, just a youtube poster with a degree. As for episode 8, the things that make it a controversial movie are stupid writing decisions, not 'SJW' politics, unless you're an idiot. The fact that an entire third of the movie could be cut without affecting the plot one iota, for example. The fact that it outright junks almost all the plot threads from the original without paying any of them off in a satisfying manner (writing 101 right there), and the absurd mixed messages the movie sends about self-sacrifice and survival when you compare Rose's speech to Finn to how multiple other characters in the series, franchise, and the same movie have behaved. These are the problems with episode 8. not that Rian Johnson wanted to put women in charge everywhere. Some bad writers can be described as SJWs. Some great ones proudly wear the term. And that's what makes the argument trash. It's all about focusing on the negatives, and ignoring the evidence that proves it to be what it is; nonsense peddled by people who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about. Half of the examples they use - and yes I've listened to these arguments and looked into them to check - don't even prove the point they think they do, as a lot of things that happen that are blamed on 'SJWs' are often the result of executive meddling that has nothing at all to do with the desires of the person they're blaming, focus group testing (which is almost never involving 'SJW's), or complete random chance. I disagree with the proposition that the SJW politics did not cause Episode 8 to be bad. If anything, I think that SJW politics is the central cause of Episode 8 being bad, and that the bad writing that you refer to is merely a symptom of this larger problem. As just one example, you note that 1/3 of the movie (the Rose/Fin nonsense) could have been cut without affecting the plot. Well let us not forget why that plot is there. It serves the purpose of putting the young masculine hotshots in their proper, subordinate place to their feminist betters (Holdo > Poe, Rose > Finn). Hell, fee free to tell me which male character other than Kylo Renn isn't emasculated by the end of the movie. But that's not the worst part of the SJW political influence on the movie. The worst part is undoubtedly to moral ambiguity and moral relativism that Rian Johnson thrusts into the Star Wars universe (admittedly, there are elements of this in Rogue One). Star Wars has always been fundamentally a story of good versus evil. Now I'm sure the Plansix's of the world will call this quaint and make it clear that they prefer Rian Johnson's "more complex" vision of the Star Wars universe. My response is as follows: go watch Game of Thrones or create your own fucking franchise. Leave Star Wars alone, and don't turn it into something that it's not.
You really didn't get the point of Poe's character arc in the movie did you?
|
On August 04 2018 07:16 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 06:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 18:22 iamthedave wrote:On August 03 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:32 On_Slaught wrote:On August 03 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders was asked today if she thought the press were the enemy multiple times and she wouldnt say no. Absolutely shameful. But I guess we already knew she was a piece of shit that since she is paid to lie to America every day.
People love to downplay how dangerous this administration is to our democratic norms, it I dont buy it. I have no problem with labeling the press as the enemy. Do you really think that any rational conservative would consider the NYT or CNN as being friendly to a conservative agenda? Of course not. The press as a whole is predominantly liberal if not left wing. As a result, the press as a whole has been hostile to conservative interests for generations. Trump is merely the first conservative president to point it out and act accordingly. Just wow. This is a pretty outrageous position. That somehow the standard for media should be its ability to not offend conservatives as opposed to reporting the truth is a joke. That the press is reporting things the President doesn't like makes it the enemy of the people is dangerous. Are you just going to ignore the fact that Trump thinks "negative news coverage" is fake news and that fake news is why the press is the enemy of the people? Are you just going to ignore that the reason Trump says this is not to help conservatives, but rather to make it so people dont believe negative things about him? Are you just going to ignore the damage this does to the prospect of holding the executive accountable? Sad. "Reporting the truth?" Oh, please. What the press decides to report just as important as how they report it. The disparity in reporting is obvious. Trump rarely gets good press.And Trump's precise motivation for attacking the press is besides the point. I agree with his attack not because of Trump, but because I have recognized the press as being biased against my political and cultural interests for as long as I have been politically aware (and even before then). What most of you still seem to miss is that Trump got to where he is today because of political conditions and temperaments in the electorate that pre-date him. Trump's political genius is in being the first conservative politician to seize upon those currents and ride them. I have to ask... do you genuinely not care that Donald Trump lies again and again? Does it not matter to you that the President - your President - simply does not tell the truth? And if the President is a liar... how do you expect people to report on those lies? The tone was set the moment he lied about the size of his inauguration crowd. As for his 'political genius', we all know that he won because he was up against the most hated political figure in modern US politics. And he still lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever. There are a lot of things that I don't like about Trump, and his loose relationship with the truth is one of them. But the point remains that he doesn't get a fair shake from the press. And like I have argued previously, the press has made a serious strategic blunder in challenging Trump on every little thing and refusing to give him any credit for anything good that he has done. There's a reason why #fakenews, which was created by the mainstream media, backfired so horribly such that the mainstream press had to retire the term. On August 03 2018 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:
I saw that article on Qanon lol. Almost posted it as I pondered how the hell we will ever make progress in this country. Getting news off of social media and cracking down on sites like youtube hosting this trash. The only reason they allow this stuff on their service is due to the complete liability protection they receive from the Communications Decency Act. That law needs to be updated. There was a bit on NPR about how Google, etc. have until now resisted any sort of filtering tech, because they know if they have it people will demand it. But apparently Google may be doing something so they can get into the Chinese market. Could be an interesting development. People have been saying this since 2014 when the focus was video game boobies and women with opinions, these youtube personalities and google make bank peddling these conspiracy theories and harassment campaigns. From patreon to go-fund-me, these sites have made money from supporting these snake oil merchant who are causing real harm. I remember jokers like Sargon of Akkad and Vox Day talking about evil SJWs/women ruining science fiction, spreading lies about people they didn’t like and riling up harassment campaigns all the way through 2014-2015. And now both of them are political actors, peddling hate and conspiracies for profit. All thanks to Google and other social media. I dunno. Episode 8 kinda proved their point. And it's not exactly the only shining example. I admit to being genuinely disappointed to see you of all people engaging in this sort of trash argumentation. You've struck me as a fairly intelligent poster in the past, but this is garbage-tier thinking not just posting. Like there weren't terrible sci-fi movies before SJW's turned up? There weren't terrible movies of all stripes without their involvement? Bad writing makes movies bad. And SJW-friendly movies are no better or worse for that than non-SJW movies. Though what those are, is kind of hard to tell. Seemingly, it's a retroactive label put onto anything the speaker doesn't like; which is why almost everyone who seriously uses those three initials is a fucking moron who should be ignored, and almost without exception those people fall to pieces if put in an environment where their shitty beliefs are challenged. Sargon of Akkad in particular is guilty of this. I really hope you consider him beneath you. If not, there's a very revealing debate he had with a feminist in which she tore him completely to pieces and he failed to successfully counter anything she said. And she wasn't even a prominent feminist thinker who really knows their stuff, just a youtube poster with a degree. As for episode 8, the things that make it a controversial movie are stupid writing decisions, not 'SJW' politics, unless you're an idiot. The fact that an entire third of the movie could be cut without affecting the plot one iota, for example. The fact that it outright junks almost all the plot threads from the original without paying any of them off in a satisfying manner (writing 101 right there), and the absurd mixed messages the movie sends about self-sacrifice and survival when you compare Rose's speech to Finn to how multiple other characters in the series, franchise, and the same movie have behaved. These are the problems with episode 8. not that Rian Johnson wanted to put women in charge everywhere. Some bad writers can be described as SJWs. Some great ones proudly wear the term. And that's what makes the argument trash. It's all about focusing on the negatives, and ignoring the evidence that proves it to be what it is; nonsense peddled by people who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about. Half of the examples they use - and yes I've listened to these arguments and looked into them to check - don't even prove the point they think they do, as a lot of things that happen that are blamed on 'SJWs' are often the result of executive meddling that has nothing at all to do with the desires of the person they're blaming, focus group testing (which is almost never involving 'SJW's), or complete random chance. I disagree with the proposition that the SJW politics did not cause Episode 8 to be bad. If anything, I think that SJW politics is the central cause of Episode 8 being bad, and that the bad writing that you refer to is merely a symptom of this larger problem. As just one example, you note that 1/3 of the movie (the Rose/Fin nonsense) could have been cut without affecting the plot. Well let us not forget why that plot is there. It serves the purpose of putting the young masculine hotshots in their proper, subordinate place to their feminist betters (Holdo > Poe, Rose > Finn). Hell, fee free to tell me which male character other than Kylo Renn isn't emasculated by the end of the movie. But that's not the worst part of the SJW political influence on the movie. The worst part is undoubtedly to moral ambiguity and moral relativism that Rian Johnson thrusts into the Star Wars universe (admittedly, there are elements of this in Rogue One). Star Wars has always been fundamentally a story of good versus evil. Now I'm sure the Plansix's of the world will call this quaint and make it clear that they prefer Rian Johnson's "more complex" vision of the Star Wars universe. My response is as follows: go watch Game of Thrones or create your own fucking franchise. Leave Star Wars alone, and don't turn it into something that it's not. You really didn't get the point of Poe's character arc in the movie did you?
I got it just fine. It's pretty clear once you ask yourself why Admiral Holdo is in there as opposed to them just using Admiral Akbar or, god forbid, a new male resistance leader.
|
On August 04 2018 06:53 xDaunt wrote:
But that's not the worst part of the SJW political influence on the movie. The worst part is undoubtedly to moral ambiguity and moral relativism that Rian Johnson thrusts into the Star Wars universe (admittedly, there are elements of this in Rogue One). Star Wars has always been fundamentally a story of good versus evil.
And it's not now? What has changed, exactly?
|
On August 04 2018 06:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 18:22 iamthedave wrote:On August 03 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:32 On_Slaught wrote:On August 03 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders was asked today if she thought the press were the enemy multiple times and she wouldnt say no. Absolutely shameful. But I guess we already knew she was a piece of shit that since she is paid to lie to America every day.
People love to downplay how dangerous this administration is to our democratic norms, it I dont buy it. I have no problem with labeling the press as the enemy. Do you really think that any rational conservative would consider the NYT or CNN as being friendly to a conservative agenda? Of course not. The press as a whole is predominantly liberal if not left wing. As a result, the press as a whole has been hostile to conservative interests for generations. Trump is merely the first conservative president to point it out and act accordingly. Just wow. This is a pretty outrageous position. That somehow the standard for media should be its ability to not offend conservatives as opposed to reporting the truth is a joke. That the press is reporting things the President doesn't like makes it the enemy of the people is dangerous. Are you just going to ignore the fact that Trump thinks "negative news coverage" is fake news and that fake news is why the press is the enemy of the people? Are you just going to ignore that the reason Trump says this is not to help conservatives, but rather to make it so people dont believe negative things about him? Are you just going to ignore the damage this does to the prospect of holding the executive accountable? Sad. "Reporting the truth?" Oh, please. What the press decides to report just as important as how they report it. The disparity in reporting is obvious. Trump rarely gets good press.And Trump's precise motivation for attacking the press is besides the point. I agree with his attack not because of Trump, but because I have recognized the press as being biased against my political and cultural interests for as long as I have been politically aware (and even before then). What most of you still seem to miss is that Trump got to where he is today because of political conditions and temperaments in the electorate that pre-date him. Trump's political genius is in being the first conservative politician to seize upon those currents and ride them. I have to ask... do you genuinely not care that Donald Trump lies again and again? Does it not matter to you that the President - your President - simply does not tell the truth? And if the President is a liar... how do you expect people to report on those lies? The tone was set the moment he lied about the size of his inauguration crowd. As for his 'political genius', we all know that he won because he was up against the most hated political figure in modern US politics. And he still lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever. There are a lot of things that I don't like about Trump, and his loose relationship with the truth is one of them. But the point remains that he doesn't get a fair shake from the press. And like I have argued previously, the press has made a serious strategic blunder in challenging Trump on every little thing and refusing to give him any credit for anything good that he has done. There's a reason why #fakenews, which was created by the mainstream media, backfired so horribly such that the mainstream press had to retire the term. Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:
I saw that article on Qanon lol. Almost posted it as I pondered how the hell we will ever make progress in this country. Getting news off of social media and cracking down on sites like youtube hosting this trash. The only reason they allow this stuff on their service is due to the complete liability protection they receive from the Communications Decency Act. That law needs to be updated. There was a bit on NPR about how Google, etc. have until now resisted any sort of filtering tech, because they know if they have it people will demand it. But apparently Google may be doing something so they can get into the Chinese market. Could be an interesting development. People have been saying this since 2014 when the focus was video game boobies and women with opinions, these youtube personalities and google make bank peddling these conspiracy theories and harassment campaigns. From patreon to go-fund-me, these sites have made money from supporting these snake oil merchant who are causing real harm. I remember jokers like Sargon of Akkad and Vox Day talking about evil SJWs/women ruining science fiction, spreading lies about people they didn’t like and riling up harassment campaigns all the way through 2014-2015. And now both of them are political actors, peddling hate and conspiracies for profit. All thanks to Google and other social media. I dunno. Episode 8 kinda proved their point. And it's not exactly the only shining example. I admit to being genuinely disappointed to see you of all people engaging in this sort of trash argumentation. You've struck me as a fairly intelligent poster in the past, but this is garbage-tier thinking not just posting. Like there weren't terrible sci-fi movies before SJW's turned up? There weren't terrible movies of all stripes without their involvement? Bad writing makes movies bad. And SJW-friendly movies are no better or worse for that than non-SJW movies. Though what those are, is kind of hard to tell. Seemingly, it's a retroactive label put onto anything the speaker doesn't like; which is why almost everyone who seriously uses those three initials is a fucking moron who should be ignored, and almost without exception those people fall to pieces if put in an environment where their shitty beliefs are challenged. Sargon of Akkad in particular is guilty of this. I really hope you consider him beneath you. If not, there's a very revealing debate he had with a feminist in which she tore him completely to pieces and he failed to successfully counter anything she said. And she wasn't even a prominent feminist thinker who really knows their stuff, just a youtube poster with a degree. As for episode 8, the things that make it a controversial movie are stupid writing decisions, not 'SJW' politics, unless you're an idiot. The fact that an entire third of the movie could be cut without affecting the plot one iota, for example. The fact that it outright junks almost all the plot threads from the original without paying any of them off in a satisfying manner (writing 101 right there), and the absurd mixed messages the movie sends about self-sacrifice and survival when you compare Rose's speech to Finn to how multiple other characters in the series, franchise, and the same movie have behaved. These are the problems with episode 8. not that Rian Johnson wanted to put women in charge everywhere. Some bad writers can be described as SJWs. Some great ones proudly wear the term. And that's what makes the argument trash. It's all about focusing on the negatives, and ignoring the evidence that proves it to be what it is; nonsense peddled by people who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about. Half of the examples they use - and yes I've listened to these arguments and looked into them to check - don't even prove the point they think they do, as a lot of things that happen that are blamed on 'SJWs' are often the result of executive meddling that has nothing at all to do with the desires of the person they're blaming, focus group testing (which is almost never involving 'SJW's), or complete random chance. I disagree with the proposition that the SJW politics did not cause Episode 8 to be bad. If anything, I think that SJW politics is the central cause of Episode 8 being bad, and that the bad writing that you refer to is merely a symptom of this larger problem. As just one example, you note that 1/3 of the movie (the Rose/Fin nonsense) could have been cut without affecting the plot. Well let us not forget why that plot is there. It serves the purpose of putting the young masculine hotshots in their proper, subordinate place to their feminist betters (Holdo > Poe, Rose > Finn). Hell, fee free to tell me which male character other than Kylo Renn isn't emasculated by the end of the movie. But that's not the worst part of the SJW political influence on the movie. The worst part is undoubtedly to moral ambiguity and moral relativism that Rian Johnson thrusts into the Star Wars universe (admittedly, there are elements of this in Rogue One). Star Wars has always been fundamentally a story of good versus evil. Now I'm sure the Plansix's of the world will call this quaint and make it clear that they prefer Rian Johnson's "more complex" vision of the Star Wars universe. My response is as follows: go watch Game of Thrones or create your own fucking franchise. Leave Star Wars alone, and don't turn it into something that it's not.
Holdo puts Poe in his place because they are a paramilitary group and as such, have a chain of command. Poe is being a bad soldier by being openly disobedient and demanding information he has no right to demand. This would be no different if the genders were reversed or if Leia wasn't unconscious. The problem with Holdo's character(and is really a problem with this new trilogy) is that you're supposed to know things by reading the novels or consuming material for characterization as opposed to things like the PA system in the rebel base in Rogue One calling for Hera Syndulla.
Rose is a prime example of you completely missing the theme in the movie about hero worship. Like Luke being the Jedi who swooped out of nowhere with a laser sword and saved the galaxy, Finn has already been elevated to myth by being the defector that help save the galaxy from losing their Republic and being immediately retaken by the largest Imperial faction. But he's just a coward who channeled his inner Jackie Chan and realized he doesn't want any trouble. Rose is starstruck with the Finn she thinks he is, but he's assuredly not, and tries to make him into that. The same way Luke isn't some mythical hero with the power to conquer the galaxy, but gets wrapped up into it anyway.
|
On August 04 2018 06:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 06:31 iamthedave wrote:On August 04 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:31 IgnE wrote:On August 04 2018 05:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 04 2018 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt). + Show Spoiler +(I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.) That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all. You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging. So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do. First of all, it's fairly seldom that IgnE actually "slams" me on anything. In fact, he very rarely engages me or my opinions directly, generally preferring to serve as the "xDaunt interpreter" for all of the hopelessly lost people in this thread that have difficulty fathoming how someone like me exists, much less understanding half of what I say or why I might have a point. I wish he did engage my points more, because I'd much rather have a conversation with him than most anyone else around here. Second, and to the extent that Igne does directly engage me or my opinions, you are correct in that he is far more effective at arguing with me than most anyone else around here. And there's no mystery as to why that is. He digests my arguments before responding, whereas most people simply respond with some horrifically misplaced dismissive attitude. Sooo I'm back to thinking you're missing the parts of Igne's posts that basically laughingly dismiss your position, but by way of substantive argument and obscure (for here at least) references. I don't disagree with you that the thread liberals are typically terrible at reading and responding to your (or pretty much any post that disagrees with them) posts. i dont laughingly dismiss his position. i take it very seriously. i am not opposed to all criticism of trump's rhetoric. i am on record at multiple points saying trump is a dangerous idiot. i just think that the standard line of: "trump is a dangerous fascist out of touch with reality. every day he says something even more alarming than before. 'alternative facts' are just crazy deranged talk. we need to return to an agreed framework where certain things are assumed" is just a totally obtuse, unreflective response that refuses to really reckon with the real break in dominant discourse. its not that simple. anyone, for example, who takes chomsky's ideas in Manufacturing Consent seriously cannot in good faith make such an unqualified argument. i do think that demands for civility can be oppressive in certain situations. but i also think that civility and charity are necessary in order to have a conversation. i think there is an ethical demand to be open to conversation on some level in a democracy. conversation demands thoughtfulness. i am optimistic about rhetoric, broadly conceived, and really believe in the possibility of change, which in its most basic form is changing your mind. how to go about that is an open question, but some things seem clearly counterproductive. ...dammit... I knew as soon as I wrote that "laughably" you were going to do that. That's what I get for trying to score rhetorical points. Also got the feeling I was to your left (or more radical I guess) regarding civility and the influence of race on policy, so I think this confirms that. I think we've both tried to get at the issue you highlight from a lot of angles, doesn't seem any of it is making much headway. Though I think I've made some progress despite the protestations and the proof is in the pudding. Of course it could be merely correlation without any causational relationship to be found. I'm unsure a conversation is still possible though. Looks to me to be more of a situation of people marshaling their forces and preparing to do battle. With one faction (the people) woefully unprepared for their opponents. Conversations aren't easy when people can't even agree on what basic, important words like 'racism' mean, especially when those words describe central problems in American society. Arguing over what it means is also how people avoid addressing the problem meant to be described. White Americans know it's worse to be Black, the fact of the matter is they can't be bothered to do what it takes to fix it and don't see "what's in it for them" or why it's their problem. Everything else is a distraction from that issue really. What I don't get is why the language coming from the left seems purpose built to distract people from the problem you are trying to solve. If every time this was mentioned, someone said the bolded part of your quote, things would be fine and we could talk about that, but people go off on tangents about white privilege and how all white people are racist and the left get behind them and then the argument becomes about what racism is. It happens all the time, and if it isn't deliberately provoked by the left to be a distraction from the issue they want to fix, then its an extraordinary case of counter productive tactics. The language used is aggressive and because of that people on the other side get defensive. Note I am talking about practicality and how people normally react in these situations, I'm not saying anything about what is morally right or wrong and I'm not assigning victim status to anyone.
Confronting that reality is hard and takes some serious self-accountability that most people aren't prepared for. As a US citizen I can relate a bit, when thinking globally.
How to get past this part is probably something psychiatrist and psychologists are going to have to figure out because Black people have tried pretty much everything and more than once.
|
Yes because clearing putting a male in his place is what they wanted to get across instead of you know him growing as a person into someone who can lead.
You could lob a bunch of those complaints at the original franchise. Subplots that didn't really didn't matter in the end? Stupid plans from the heros? Female leaders? How is it now that it is all SJW bs? This is literally the same type of shit Star Wars has been doing for ages.
The new trilogy is almost a soft reboot of the original with how closely they are paralleling them and you can definitely see how they modeled TLJ after Empire. With that comes constraints and personally it was an ok movie (better then the prequels at the very least). I personally wished they wouldn't have done it this way and taken the franchise in an entirely new direction but hey I guess Disney wanted to play it safe.
|
On August 04 2018 06:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 18:22 iamthedave wrote:On August 03 2018 05:43 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:32 On_Slaught wrote:On August 03 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 05:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Sanders was asked today if she thought the press were the enemy multiple times and she wouldnt say no. Absolutely shameful. But I guess we already knew she was a piece of shit that since she is paid to lie to America every day.
People love to downplay how dangerous this administration is to our democratic norms, it I dont buy it. I have no problem with labeling the press as the enemy. Do you really think that any rational conservative would consider the NYT or CNN as being friendly to a conservative agenda? Of course not. The press as a whole is predominantly liberal if not left wing. As a result, the press as a whole has been hostile to conservative interests for generations. Trump is merely the first conservative president to point it out and act accordingly. Just wow. This is a pretty outrageous position. That somehow the standard for media should be its ability to not offend conservatives as opposed to reporting the truth is a joke. That the press is reporting things the President doesn't like makes it the enemy of the people is dangerous. Are you just going to ignore the fact that Trump thinks "negative news coverage" is fake news and that fake news is why the press is the enemy of the people? Are you just going to ignore that the reason Trump says this is not to help conservatives, but rather to make it so people dont believe negative things about him? Are you just going to ignore the damage this does to the prospect of holding the executive accountable? Sad. "Reporting the truth?" Oh, please. What the press decides to report just as important as how they report it. The disparity in reporting is obvious. Trump rarely gets good press.And Trump's precise motivation for attacking the press is besides the point. I agree with his attack not because of Trump, but because I have recognized the press as being biased against my political and cultural interests for as long as I have been politically aware (and even before then). What most of you still seem to miss is that Trump got to where he is today because of political conditions and temperaments in the electorate that pre-date him. Trump's political genius is in being the first conservative politician to seize upon those currents and ride them. I have to ask... do you genuinely not care that Donald Trump lies again and again? Does it not matter to you that the President - your President - simply does not tell the truth? And if the President is a liar... how do you expect people to report on those lies? The tone was set the moment he lied about the size of his inauguration crowd. As for his 'political genius', we all know that he won because he was up against the most hated political figure in modern US politics. And he still lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever. There are a lot of things that I don't like about Trump, and his loose relationship with the truth is one of them. But the point remains that he doesn't get a fair shake from the press. And like I have argued previously, the press has made a serious strategic blunder in challenging Trump on every little thing and refusing to give him any credit for anything good that he has done. There's a reason why #fakenews, which was created by the mainstream media, backfired so horribly such that the mainstream press had to retire the term. Show nested quote +On August 03 2018 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2018 02:20 screamingpalm wrote:
I saw that article on Qanon lol. Almost posted it as I pondered how the hell we will ever make progress in this country. Getting news off of social media and cracking down on sites like youtube hosting this trash. The only reason they allow this stuff on their service is due to the complete liability protection they receive from the Communications Decency Act. That law needs to be updated. There was a bit on NPR about how Google, etc. have until now resisted any sort of filtering tech, because they know if they have it people will demand it. But apparently Google may be doing something so they can get into the Chinese market. Could be an interesting development. People have been saying this since 2014 when the focus was video game boobies and women with opinions, these youtube personalities and google make bank peddling these conspiracy theories and harassment campaigns. From patreon to go-fund-me, these sites have made money from supporting these snake oil merchant who are causing real harm. I remember jokers like Sargon of Akkad and Vox Day talking about evil SJWs/women ruining science fiction, spreading lies about people they didn’t like and riling up harassment campaigns all the way through 2014-2015. And now both of them are political actors, peddling hate and conspiracies for profit. All thanks to Google and other social media. I dunno. Episode 8 kinda proved their point. And it's not exactly the only shining example. I admit to being genuinely disappointed to see you of all people engaging in this sort of trash argumentation. You've struck me as a fairly intelligent poster in the past, but this is garbage-tier thinking not just posting. Like there weren't terrible sci-fi movies before SJW's turned up? There weren't terrible movies of all stripes without their involvement? Bad writing makes movies bad. And SJW-friendly movies are no better or worse for that than non-SJW movies. Though what those are, is kind of hard to tell. Seemingly, it's a retroactive label put onto anything the speaker doesn't like; which is why almost everyone who seriously uses those three initials is a fucking moron who should be ignored, and almost without exception those people fall to pieces if put in an environment where their shitty beliefs are challenged. Sargon of Akkad in particular is guilty of this. I really hope you consider him beneath you. If not, there's a very revealing debate he had with a feminist in which she tore him completely to pieces and he failed to successfully counter anything she said. And she wasn't even a prominent feminist thinker who really knows their stuff, just a youtube poster with a degree. As for episode 8, the things that make it a controversial movie are stupid writing decisions, not 'SJW' politics, unless you're an idiot. The fact that an entire third of the movie could be cut without affecting the plot one iota, for example. The fact that it outright junks almost all the plot threads from the original without paying any of them off in a satisfying manner (writing 101 right there), and the absurd mixed messages the movie sends about self-sacrifice and survival when you compare Rose's speech to Finn to how multiple other characters in the series, franchise, and the same movie have behaved. These are the problems with episode 8. not that Rian Johnson wanted to put women in charge everywhere. Some bad writers can be described as SJWs. Some great ones proudly wear the term. And that's what makes the argument trash. It's all about focusing on the negatives, and ignoring the evidence that proves it to be what it is; nonsense peddled by people who don't know the first thing about what they're talking about. Half of the examples they use - and yes I've listened to these arguments and looked into them to check - don't even prove the point they think they do, as a lot of things that happen that are blamed on 'SJWs' are often the result of executive meddling that has nothing at all to do with the desires of the person they're blaming, focus group testing (which is almost never involving 'SJW's), or complete random chance. I disagree with the proposition that the SJW politics did not cause Episode 8 to be bad. If anything, I think that SJW politics is the central cause of Episode 8 being bad, and that the bad writing that you refer to is merely a symptom of this larger problem. As just one example, you note that 1/3 of the movie (the Rose/Fin nonsense) could have been cut without affecting the plot. Well let us not forget why that plot is there. It serves the purpose of putting the young masculine hotshots in their proper, subordinate place to their feminist betters (Holdo > Poe, Rose > Finn). Hell, fee free to tell me which male character other than Kylo Renn isn't emasculated by the end of the movie. But that's not the worst part of the SJW political influence on the movie. The worst part is undoubtedly to moral ambiguity and moral relativism that Rian Johnson thrusts into the Star Wars universe (admittedly, there are elements of this in Rogue One). Star Wars has always been fundamentally a story of good versus evil. Now I'm sure the Plansix's of the world will call this quaint and make it clear that they prefer Rian Johnson's "more complex" vision of the Star Wars universe. My response is as follows: go watch Game of Thrones or create your own fucking franchise. Leave Star Wars alone, and don't turn it into something that it's not.
Ok, I can tackle this quite easily.
Male characters not emasculated: Luke and Finn
Luke begins emasculated; guilt has led to him abandoning his place in the universe and disappearing off to a rock to die. He concludes the story by humiliating Kylo Ren on the eve of his victory and immortalising himself as a symbol of the resistance in the process, without ever submitting to the dark side of the force.
Finn has been a gutless coward for two movies, with no real desire to be involved in the fight, frequently attempting to run and hide when problems come. By the end of this he has stood up to captain Phasma - the symbol of his fear - though not truly defeated her on his own, and dedicated himself to the cause enough that he alone was willing to sacrifice his life to try and stop the First Order from penetrating the Resistance's final base.
Both characters are in no way emasculated. And that's from someone who HATED Finn's arc in the movie. This isn't even an in-depth analysis, and further reveals the bias that's colouring your view of the film. Finn and Luke's arcs are both basic storytelling, without even hiding where they're going step by step. As in I knew where both were going after about ten minutes of the movie (or in Finn's case, half an hour of Force Awakens or so, can't quite remember when he's properly introduced).
Oh, and Poe, of course. Poe goes through a basic character development arc where he's reckless and thoughtless and gets people killed, and by the end of the movie learns to take a step back, think tactically, and as a result saves the entire resistance, thus becoming the hero in actuality that he always thought he was before, achieving his ultimate potential and flowering from a simple hotheaded ace pilot into a true leader of the resistance, stepping into the role of senior female figures who were past their prime but wiser than him due to their additional years (Leia and Holdo). Again, this is basic writing. Shittily practiced, and undercut by the way it's paced, but this is text written ten feet high on the screen, no subtext or subtlety whatsoever. One of the main problems with Poe's arc is the way it's written he wasn't wrong to distrust Holdo or to assume she was being passive and waiting for them all to die; they should have had Holdo explain the plan but have Poe reject it because he thinks he has a better idea. As it was, her being so mysterious made Poe's actions entirely justifiable, fucking up an incredibly basic bit of storytelling.
As for the second point... what? The fuck? Are you talking about?
The First Order are basically space nazis. Even more than the Empire, they're obviously, blatantly evil. Resistance = good, First Order = bad, this is in no way ameliorated at any point in The Last Jedi. The scene in Canto Bite, in all its shittiness, does nothing more than bring in elements of the expanded universe that already established that people got rich off the resistance and Empire war back in the day. That's really nothing special. Nor does it affect the central conflict. In fact, the entire reason that section is pointless is because it has no bearing on the main conflict. Yes, there are some rich arseholes who are going to benefit from the war irrespective. So what? The First Order are still evil, the resistance are still the good guys.
The one and only area of complexity is the relationship between Kylo Ren and Rey, but the movie ends with Kylo Ren essentially laughing in her face and saying I WAS EVIL ALL ALONG, DUMBASS, after Luke took her to one side and said HE WAS EVIIL ALL ALONG, DUMBASS, after Han tried to get through to his son and Kylo said HA HA, I WAS EVIL ALL ALONG, DUMBASS!!!!
And I'll emphasis, I really didn't like The Last Jedi, but this is below bargain basement film analysis you're engaging in. Like, the points you're making don't even match the actual movie that actually exists (even if most of what it attempts is screwed up by poor plotting/writing).
I'm baffled that anyone feels The Last Jedi made the Star Wars Universe 'grey' because it happened to include a scene (that is entirely comparable to Cloud City, another locale led by an ostensibly neutral figure that benefits economically from staying out of the conflict, though not as directly as in Canto, mixed with Jabba's Palace in Return of the Jedi for the seedy criminal element feeding off the Empire's underbelly) where stormtroopers aren't shooting at people or the heroes aren't opining about how eeeeeevil the First Order is.
So, to recap.
Point the first: The point of Canto Bight is absolutely not to place Finn in a subordinate position to Rose. If anything, it places both of them in the subordinate position to a third MALE character (the weirdo hacker) who continuously makes both of them look bad, saves them, gets them off world, and is basically in control of every scene he's in AND he gets away with a fat stack of cash at the end of it. The point of Canto Bight is to give Finn something to do, and that's why it feels extraneous; Finn has nothing to do but he's meant to be a main character. While there, there's some political point made about how gunrunners sell to both sides. This is a political point you can object to... but it's so tame that I can't see how anyone can object.
Point the second: The moral relativism is fictional. Non-existent. Luke did not try to murder Ren, Ren just thinks he did. Rey rejects the pull of the Dark Side. Kylo embraces his demons instead of fighting them. The Jedi are still heroes of the resistance, who are still the hope of the universe - this is EXPLICITLY stated - while Kylo Ren has embraced the Dark Side, and the First Order intends to crush everyone before it. Luke's bitter rejection of the Jedi order and his purpose is concluded by his acceptance of both and a hero's idealised death, one hundred per cent following in the footsteps of Ben Kenobi. And Yoda tells us the Jedi will live on. And a kid with a broom shows it. Every single element in the plot that could have led to some genuine ambiguity is revealed to go nowhere near that.
|
For the record, I'd still rather we discuss the whole "now it's not about good vs evil", but please don't fall for the trap of accepting that a female character being right while a male character is wrong is an emasculating thing?
|
|
|
On August 04 2018 07:31 JimmiC wrote:
Movies and art in general are able to mean different things to different people.
You don’t understand, TLJ is objectively bad. Please way my 7 part series on YouTube explaining why and click on my patreon page.
On August 04 2018 07:30 Nebuchad wrote:
For the record, I'd still rather we discuss the whole "now it's not about good vs evil", but please don't fuall for the trap of accepting that a female character being right while a male character is wrong is an emasculating thing?
It takes a special type of person to watch those scenes and feel emasculated.
|
I haven't seen TLJ yet, and this is the american politics thread; so can people avoid the topic and/or use spoilers at least?
On August 04 2018 06:15 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 05:57 Toadesstern wrote:U.S. deports Mexican wife of American Marine veteran
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. government deported a Mexican woman on Friday who had lived in the country illegally for nearly two decades despite efforts by lawmakers to keep her in Florida with her husband, a Marine Corps veteran, and her two American children.
Alejandra Juarez, 38, was joined by her family and her congressman, Darren Soto, at Orlando International Airport for tearful farewells before her flight back to Mexico.
Juarez sought to illegally enter the United States in 1998 and was ordered to be removed, precluding her future chances at getting a visa or becoming a citizen, according to Soto and media interviews Juarez has given.
She illegally re-entered the country in 2000, the same year she married Temo Juarez, a Mexico native who went on to serve in the war in Iraq with the U.S. Marines and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen.
After being discovered in the country during a 2013 traffic stop, she had been required to check in every six months with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
Her lawyers said to reporters she was only now being deported because of U.S. Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigration.
ICE, which did not respond to questions on Friday, has said that Juarez’s re-entry after her removal is considered a felony.
“Mr President, you deporting me is not going to hurt just me; you’re making a veteran suffer,” Alejandra Juarez said at the airport. “You always say you love veterans. If you really love veterans, why didn’t you pardon me?”
Her husband has told reporters that he voted for Trump in the 2016 election.
rump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was criticized by immigrant groups for deporting scores of non-citizen U.S. military veterans and for deporting immigrants whose only crime was re-entering the country after an earlier removal order.
Under new guidelines issued by the Obama administration in 2014, however, Juarez was considered a low priority for removal, her lawyers said.
Trump, a Republican, broadened ICE’s focus within days of taking office in 2017, saying no immigrants should be considered exempt from law enforcement.
Soto, a Democratic congressman, has sponsored a so-called private bill that would grant Juarez a visa if passed, a last-ditch, frequently unsuccessful recourse for immigrants who have exhausted other avenues.
Juarez has said her youngest daughter, who is nine years old, will come to live with her in Mexico because her husband frequently travels for his work running a flooring business. source: www.reuters.comman that's just sad... imagine being that husband having to try and explain that to your children that's like the ultimate "nono, he's obviously only going to go after the other people comming in here. Not us" Not sure if he told reporters he voted for Trump as some sort of self-punishment or because he knows that's the best plan to keep his wife in the country (appealing to Trump's vanity/ego). Also had to make sure this wasn't the most vindictive breakup possible. yeah that idea crossed my mind as well... like there's no way he's actually that stupid.... right? So maybe he did it on purpose but I don't want to believe that there are garbo people like that out there, especially if they have children. So for now I'll just take it at face value. I don't see a chance of Trump pardoning her though. That's exactly the kind of people his supporters want out of the country and they'd go mad over that. I'll admit there is a non-0% chance that the guy wanted to divorce her and thought this is the best way to make sure he gets the kids though.
there most definitely are people that stupid out there. in particular they make a bunch of rationalizations and assume the people they're voting for would make reasonable exceptions; the kind of reasonable exceptions they themselves think they'd make. And of course often they haven't thought it through that well in the first place.
|
United States42682 Posts
On August 04 2018 05:57 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +U.S. deports Mexican wife of American Marine veteran
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. government deported a Mexican woman on Friday who had lived in the country illegally for nearly two decades despite efforts by lawmakers to keep her in Florida with her husband, a Marine Corps veteran, and her two American children.
Alejandra Juarez, 38, was joined by her family and her congressman, Darren Soto, at Orlando International Airport for tearful farewells before her flight back to Mexico.
Juarez sought to illegally enter the United States in 1998 and was ordered to be removed, precluding her future chances at getting a visa or becoming a citizen, according to Soto and media interviews Juarez has given.
She illegally re-entered the country in 2000, the same year she married Temo Juarez, a Mexico native who went on to serve in the war in Iraq with the U.S. Marines and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen.
After being discovered in the country during a 2013 traffic stop, she had been required to check in every six months with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
Her lawyers said to reporters she was only now being deported because of U.S. Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigration.
ICE, which did not respond to questions on Friday, has said that Juarez’s re-entry after her removal is considered a felony.
“Mr President, you deporting me is not going to hurt just me; you’re making a veteran suffer,” Alejandra Juarez said at the airport. “You always say you love veterans. If you really love veterans, why didn’t you pardon me?”
Her husband has told reporters that he voted for Trump in the 2016 election.
rump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was criticized by immigrant groups for deporting scores of non-citizen U.S. military veterans and for deporting immigrants whose only crime was re-entering the country after an earlier removal order.
Under new guidelines issued by the Obama administration in 2014, however, Juarez was considered a low priority for removal, her lawyers said.
Trump, a Republican, broadened ICE’s focus within days of taking office in 2017, saying no immigrants should be considered exempt from law enforcement.
Soto, a Democratic congressman, has sponsored a so-called private bill that would grant Juarez a visa if passed, a last-ditch, frequently unsuccessful recourse for immigrants who have exhausted other avenues.
Juarez has said her youngest daughter, who is nine years old, will come to live with her in Mexico because her husband frequently travels for his work running a flooring business. source: www.reuters.comman that's just sad... imagine being that husband having to try and explain that to your children that's like the ultimate "nono, he's obviously only going to go after the other people comming in here. Not us"
'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
