|
On October 01 2020 00:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly. My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes. Don't support an openly racist politician if you don't want to be bundled up with his racist beliefs?
It's really not difficult.
|
On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican?
Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards).
|
On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards).
Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists?
EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK?
|
On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards).
What's a 45?
|
On October 01 2020 00:16 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:00 WombaT wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. EDIT 2: Biden's behaviour during the debate was also a bit shonky, too. There were MANY points where he'd find the camera, ignoring at that point whatever the question was, and address the American people (urging them to go out and vote) rather than answering the question asked or facing his opponent. Not once during the debate did I see Trump do that. Biden practically did it every time he or his son Hunter wasn't being attacked by Trump or didn't have a coherent answer to something he was being asked. I feel like it's also in a way disrepectful to the debate, just in a less in-your-face way. Where’s the shame? I literally don’t understand this. I don’t feel any shame in being white, while simultaneously I’m able to accept it’s pretty advantageous in certain ways. Likewise wealth doesn’t invalidate one’s own accomplishments, but it may mean somebody else with equivalent ones from a poor background may have had to work that much harder than you. It’s about being cognisant of these factors, not being ashamed of your own identity signifiers. On the inverse side of being white and a guy, which is kind of handy, I’m also bipolar and have medical difficulties that other people simply don’t have. I’m not envious or jealous of the accomplishments of others without that hurdle, but equally others being sensitive to mine and making adjustments helps greatly. My point is nobody should be made to be ashamed of their ethnicity. Labelling someone as a racist piece of shit (which happens to people who have a Trump sign on their lawn or a MAGA hat) and expecting a dialogue past that is the definition of high hopes. Support a racist/racist enabler and oh noes people might think you’re a racist, how awful. The conservative framing of ideas like white privilege equivocates it with original sin, when it really isn’t the case at all. Original sin is something inalienable, inescapable, something innate. Accepting you have a societal leg up and (ideally) acting in a way to neuter that leg up for others isn’t at all conferring fault on you as a person based on your innate racial characteristics.
The best-selling popularizers of a certain strand of antiracism do make racism into something very much like “original sin.” Yeah maybe “white privilege” can be distinguished from that, but it’s not wrong to say that there is a popular strand of antiracism that mixes up an odd blend of neoplatonism (a fallen world and an unreachable ideal), evangelical awakening, and racialized communism (racial inequalities matter more than non-racial inequalities). And its popular because its proselytizers are the most willing to come do a workshop at your business or agency for a large fee.
|
On October 01 2020 00:58 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). What's a 45?
45 is Trump (45th PotUS)
|
On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK?
Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling.
|
On October 01 2020 01:00 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:58 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). What's a 45? 45 is Trump (45th PotUS)
Ah, ok. Is calling a president by his position an actual thing in the US, or this an attempt to disempower his name?
|
United States97276 Posts
On October 01 2020 01:05 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 01:00 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:58 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). What's a 45? 45 is Trump (45th PotUS) Ah, ok. Is calling a president by his position an actual thing in the US, or this an attempt to disempower his name?
It’s an actual thing. His supporters refer to him as 45 sometimes too. I know some that exclusively refer to him as 45
|
On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling.
The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right?
|
On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right?
I doubt the KKK would support a candidate who was not white.
|
On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right?
Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws.
|
But apparently Trump > Biden cuz Chyna? :D
|
|
|
On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling.
And also the power of literally telling them to stand by and watch the polling places on his behalf. Strong condemnation from a strongman.
|
On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws.
Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement.
On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime.
If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment.
|
Having generational wealth isn't a crime.
Maybe it needs to be made one?
|
Is there a "who do you think won" poll somewhere in this thread?
|
On October 01 2020 02:05 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 01 2020 01:08 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 01:04 iamthedave wrote:On October 01 2020 00:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On October 01 2020 00:21 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:50 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 23:33 Arghmyliver wrote:On September 30 2020 23:13 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 30 2020 22:44 Erasme wrote:
You can't watch that debate and think that Trump's behavior is acceptable. Biden had some nice answers, nothing unexpected. I enjoyed his laughs and remarks towards Trump. If you somehow elect this absurdity twice, you will pay a steep price for it.
Btw, anyone with a brain knows that Trump thrives on white supremacy. You have to 3years of documented praises toward the movement from Trump. You can call it white supremacy if you want, but I see it more as ultra-nationalistic xenophobia, which isn't an exclusively "white" train of thought. Trump pointed out that he cancelled the racial sensitivity training because he believed it's racist and indoctrinates people into hating America. I don't disagree with that perspective. The Marxist language that seems to pervade these programmes and the shaming of [some] whites for the actions of their ancestors are imo helping Trump. Extremism is dangerous on both ends of the political spectrum, and Trump gives off the vibe that he cares more about economical prosperity than the idea of Equity, or as he and many others see it, gateway Communism. People say he didn't denounce the ideology of white supramacy during the debate. The thing is, he did. The problem was he did so before the moderator finished asking the question. He said "Sure". It was almost immediate, and he probably felt he'd done it at that point. When specifically asked to denounce Proud Boys he did not. I don't know much about that group but I did see a funny interview by a reporter of a Latino-American regional leader dude at one of their counter-protests. That doesn't gel with what I'd imagine a white supremist group would do and the reporter seemed a bit stupified at where to go with her narrative once the guy said he was Latino. EDIT: Trump's behaviour during the debate wasn't acceptable, though. Hopefully he can keep his mouth shut during his opponent's turn on round two. It was pretty silly. The "Proud Boys" are a neo-fascist paramilitary group. The fact is, 45 won't explicitly denounce white supremacists because he knows they will vote for him. Denying the existence of racism in the US is akin to supporting it. "I don't know much about this subject but I saw a funny interview with one person" certainly entitles you to an opinion, but you should acknowledge that any opinion formed in this way is factually baseless and, on it's own, scientifically irrelevant. Right, but the same can be said for the burden of proof of calling someone a white-supremist, only it's even harder to prove without some incident to substantiate it. It seems that you can throw that label around pretty casually these days, and the reprecussions, even in the absence of evidence, can be damaging. It's slander. I wasn't aware of who the Proud Boys really are and that one silly interview was the only thing I ever saw related to them. They just seemed like a bunch of chads who wanted to beat the shit out of people who they didn't agree with, which is essentially the same thing happening on the other side. EDIT: How many members do they really have, and how would comdemning their violence actually make them suddenly not vote Republican? Harder to prove than what? Prove that someone is not a white-supremacist? I sorta just give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and call them out when they act - you know - explicitly racist. Like saying that white supremacists are "good people." It's not slander. Slander would be something like "45 has sex with alligators" (although I hear he does spend a LOT of time around water hazards). Harder to prove for an individual than for an organization whose beliefs may be documented in some manifesto or whose actions are clearly deplorable. Without some concrete incident that actually defines a person as a racist, having one of two possible political preferences (when your justification may run deeper than skin) does not inherently mean you're a racist. Are non-white Trump supporters somehow white-supremists? EDIT: Didn't Trump condemn the KKK? Only after vacillating over and over and because people kept asking him to. They endorsed him you see. The KKK saw him as being on their side, same as the Proud Boys do. 'Tis the power of dog whistling. The KKK's shift from Democrat to Republican was pre-Trump, though. The only way they wouldn't have endorsed the Republicans' candidate at that point would have been if he wasn't white, right? Is this one of those "Democrats were the real racists because something something slavery / KKK" mistakes? The parties literally switched names when their identities changed, which is why "Dixiecrats" was a thing, and yet now the Republicans are the ones in the South. Rather than using labels of Democrat and Republican, which is historically confusing and literally backwards at some point in time, it's probably clearer to talk about liberals/progressives and conservatives. The party with socially progressive views is not the party that wanted to perpetuate slavery nor supported the KKK. The social liberals want gender/sex/LGBT/race equality/equity, in some capacity or another. The social conservatives are resistant to change. Notoriously racist and sexist groups extremely, disproportionately favor the current Republican party because that is the name of the current socially conservative group... that's why their rhetoric is xenophobic and sexist, and why they push for anti-immigration laws and anti-women laws. Conservatives are resistant to sudden and drastic overhauls to avoid diving into the deep end on day one. It's not an unreasonable method to tread carefully as you progress forward. There is definitely an element in every country, not just America, that are too conservative. There obviously has to be some forward progress, and I think America is less racist now than it was historically, but there's clearly room for improvement. On the subject of the blurred interpretive lines of equality and equity, they are not the same. With equality, everyone starts at the start line. With equity, everyone finishes the race at the same time. Life isn't equitable, and some people start the race in a Lamborghini while others have a bicycle. Having generational wealth isn't a crime. If you truly believe in religious freedoms, then you have to respect that an issue like abortion being not universally agreed upon is inevitable, along with other issues that religion can be sticky about. Gender-based disparities in income are not typically related to a gender-based disparity in hourly wage, but rather in hours worked. If you think conservative women who vote Republican on the basis that they are better for the economy than Democrats are somehow stupid, or prefer to be downtrodden, then you underestimate the social empowerment that can be gained through economic empowerment.
The people that you describe, who want slow, careful change, are liberal democrats in the US. The republican party doesn't want to progress slower, it wants to revert back the recent progress, "make America great again". The only time the slow, moderate change republican exists in the framework of republican politics is when someone wants to get elected and they specify that they are NOT like this, that they will fight actively to get the results republicans want.
It is common for republicans, when talking to liberals, to hide behind conservatism because it's a politically correct position. But they aren't that, we can see that through all of their beliefs and actions.
|
Trump has not united the republican party in any real way let alone the most out of anyone for a long long long while. Hes cetinly got a lot of racists and reactionaries out of the basement but he's failed to do anything about the libertarian problem and a lot of more moderate George bush republicans are only holding on for what he does for judges and a distrust/dislike for the other side.
George Bush united the Republican party into a machine that couldn't be denied. It may have been the last gasp of the Nixon-Reagon GOP machine but he made people proud to be republican in a way Obama made people proud to be democrat. George Bush was even prying the Hispanic vote away from democrats that would have made future elections very interesting if Obama didn't come next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
