|
On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - I think your perception of that may be skewed by the nature of this forum (or rather just politics thread), which is left leaning and quite frankly few bans away from becoming echo chamber.
Italic - yes and I stand by it. I am not saying that Republicans are free of this issue, I do however think that the scale of it is much smaller on their side. (coincidently I think that dropping groomer/pedophiles rhetoric, helped Republicans immensely)
They didn't really drop it though, it's still a prominent part of their antitrans messaging. Democrats want men in your daughter's locker room and so on.
The scale of it happening is surprisingly comparable, at least it was surprising to me I hadn't really thought about it in detail before this night and it's shocking how easy it is to map out. There's "woke" which is probably the main one which goes to extremes like "groomer" but then you also have "communist" and so on. As far as I can see the main difference is that "woke" and "communist" aren't really insulting in the same way that "racist" and "fascist" are, but ultimately that makes a lot of sense morally so it probably won't change.
On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded 2 - I think this is were you are mistaken. There is no such thing as "systemic role", simply because nothing in nature stays stagnant, they may have acted like that in the past, but that doesnt mean that it will stay like that forever. I think Covid significantly speed up this process for Democrats because it showed them how much power they have and how easy it is to get rid of dissent. I dont think this is something you want government to learn.
I think it's quite naive to perceive that politicians used to not understand how power works and now they do so something is going to change. They knew what they were doing before and they know what they're doing now, they're not idiots. You live in a country that has a long history of repression of socialism, both nationally and internationally. Democrats and republicans have known how to get rid of dissent for as long as they've been part of that system. Democrats weren't not doing much out of incompetence or ignorance, they were not doing much out of ideology. They still have the same ideology, so it makes sense to me to expect more of the same type of governance from them in the future.
|
I think this discussion is derailing. Calling all Americans racist and sexist, that's a step too far. Making it a default assumption is absurd, there needs to be evidence. In your personal life you can be suspicious of people however much you want. An open accusation is something else.
Trump supporters? Yes, obviously they're both racist and sexist, they've proven it with their actions. A vote for Trump is a vote for racism and sexism. Unironically waving a Trump banner is also a vote for racism and sexism.
|
On November 12 2024 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - I think your perception of that may be skewed by the nature of this forum (or rather just politics thread), which is left leaning and quite frankly few bans away from becoming echo chamber.
Italic - yes and I stand by it. I am not saying that Republicans are free of this issue, I do however think that the scale of it is much smaller on their side. (coincidently I think that dropping groomer/pedophiles rhetoric, helped Republicans immensely) They didn't really drop it though, it's still a prominent part of their antitrans messaging. Democrats want men in your daughter's locker room and so on.The scale of it happening is surprisingly comparable, at least it was surprising to me I hadn't really thought about it in detail before this night and it's shocking how easy it is to map out. There's "woke" which is probably the main one which goes to extremes like "groomer" but then you also have "communist" and so on. As far as I can see the main difference is that "woke" and "communist" aren't really insulting in the same way that "racist" and "fascist" are, but ultimately that makes a lot of sense morally so it probably won't change.Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded 2 - I think this is were you are mistaken. There is no such thing as "systemic role", simply because nothing in nature stays stagnant, they may have acted like that in the past, but that doesnt mean that it will stay like that forever. I think Covid significantly speed up this process for Democrats because it showed them how much power they have and how easy it is to get rid of dissent. I dont think this is something you want government to learn.
I think it's quite naive to perceive that politicians used to not understand how power works and now they do so something is going to change. They knew what they were doing before and they know what they're doing now, they're not idiots. You live in a country that has a long history of repression of socialism, both nationally and internationally. Democrats and republicans have known how to get rid of dissent for as long as they've been part of that system. Democrats weren't not doing much out of incompetence or ignorance, they were not doing much out of ideology. They still have the same ideology, so it makes sense to me to expect more of the same type of governance from them in the future.
Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down.
Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much.
Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense).
On November 12 2024 18:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 12:22 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 12:00 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 11:18 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 07:30 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't?
[quote]
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right? Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature. You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page. If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this. Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there. If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that. ‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’ I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing. You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative I don't mind answering. I think part of the problems we have, not only on this forum but overall, lays in the fact that people trying to label everyone/everything. In my case people read my posts against Democrats/liberals and it seems decided that I must be republican/conservative. It is sort of "you are either with us or against us" sort of thinking, which I am not a fan of to be honest. Am I conservative? Hell no. Do I have some conservative values? Yes of course, and I think everyone has some (I happened to think that there cant be a society without some sort of conservative values - thinking of conservatism a bit as of tradition - it would be just bunch of people leaving in the same area) Of course I have also some liberal values (probably even more), I also happened to believe that pure conservatism is natural enemy of progress, by the very definition. My conclusion is that every human being should be some mix of the 2. I would agree that humans naturally have mixed politics, not really that the mix is between liberalism and conservatism as those two ideologies are extremely similar to each other  If we agree that every human is a mix, then surely when someone is called a conservative we are asserting that they side more with conservatives than they do with the other groups, which in your case appears to be true, rather than that they agree with everything conservatives have ever said. It doesn't seem very damaging to be doing that. And in my case it wouldn't be a with us or against us, as (you may not know this actually) I very much hate liberals. bolded - Is it though? even recently I specified that I am not supporting Trump, I am in opposition to Democrats. This are 2 very different things. For all Nazi, fascist, dictator talk I consider Trump ability to become a dictator at the same level as his ability to teleport, or resurrecting people (excluding situations in which he needs votes and read Gogol - where i find latter highly improbable). I am in agreement with John Oliver that Trump is like "A Hamster In An Attack Helicopter" although I think this is worst case scenario. What I disagree with him is that this time it will be different because he will have advisors. Advisors? Really? are we still talking about Trump? To follow someone advice you have to accept the fact that they know better than you... On the other side are Democrats. I think they are way more dangerous. It is always: "to protect x we take away a bit of this right", "to protect y we take a bit of this right" and so on. Issue with this is that rights are finite and government sure as hell wont be happily returning powers it once acquired (shouldn't Patriot Act be temporary? how is that going?). I believe what happened during Covid under Democrats was straight up authoritarian and plain awful. I also suspect that if Musk didnt bought Twitter and if Democrats would won this election US would be for all means and purposes one party state with Republicans in perpetual minority (cant obviously prove that, but if Democrats hold control of social media like they did during Covid, I am not sure how Republicans could win) On balance Trump may do some bad, or hopefully something good. Democrats on the other hand I dont see doing anything good. On the bolded part, yeah I do think so, really. I think that the way you frame political clashes shows a sense of belonging. For example when you were defending BJ earlier in the US thread, you explained that democrats are pushing away people who have slight disagreements with them and that's costing them votes and election, every critique is heresy and they're to blame if those heretics start voting for republicans. This analysis doesn't work as a neutral one, as Republicans are doing the exact same thing, the Democrats, the enemies, are pedophiles and groomers, enemies of the nation, and the people who have slight disagreements are RINOs and might as well be enemies. We even have an example on this forum as KwarK on this topic functions essentially as a Democrat. I think that you're more sensitive to the former than to the latter because you don't perceive yourself as a target of the latter. This is not even close to the same scale. Pretty much anyone with a Trump flag in their lawn is presumed to be a racist misogynist fascist by a large portion of Democrats. The amount of Republicans that see a Harris flag and think “they must molest children” is very small in comparison. Social media is filled with leftists posting on social media asking anyone that voted for Trump to cut ties with them and posts like “we can agree to disagree but not when it comes to wanting to enslave people” and nonsense like that. People with a Trump flag are racists. The presumption is reasonable.
At least I dont have to undermine point Nebuchad is making .
On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism.Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US.
Bolded - no it is not default, it is insane. If starting point of any discussion is based on that, then there is no real discussion to be had. If you start with such a premise then obviously any disagreement can be explained as proof of starting premise. More so any argument has less weight when coming from someone you think of as such, because even if their argument is correct you can automatically think "thats the trickery which gets you to dark side". If more people have default like you then no wonder left and right cant talk to each other.
|
On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down.
Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much.
Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense).
It could be that it was more prevalent in the past but they certainly haven't dropped it, in my last days on Twitter when I was trying to engage rightwingers it would frequently be the first thing they say to dismiss me, along with "pronouns". I also know that the last batch of ads in Pennsylvania from Republicans featured antitrans messaging, it was part of what they thought was important to convey to voters of a swing state in their last effort to reach them.
You can't really distinguish woke and racist by saying woke used to be something to be proud of, obviously the Republicans aren't using the term with that pride in mind. The main difference is that people who are woke will generally be open about the fact that they're woke, while racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy. But in terms of what's in their hearts, they're proud to be racists as well, don't worry. Otherwise they had the option to not be racists, and they still do, nobody's forcing them.
|
Welcome to the modern world people!
the four remaining occupants, three men and a woman, died in the crash.
https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2024/10/25/i-did-everything-i-could-canada-post-driver-recounts-helping-save-woman-from-fiery-tesla-crash/
“But as soon as I got out of the truck, they were yelling, you know, that they needed a bar or something to break the window because they were basically pounding the window with their hands, and that wasn’t getting anybody anywhere. So, I grabbed the bar out of the truck I had,” Harper recounted to CTV News Toronto on Friday.
You can't make this stuff up. It is hilarious that this awesome left wing news org never explicitly states the 4 dead people were trapped inside an unpowered Tesla. CP24 never explicitly states that you can not get out of an unpowered Tesla. Nice reporting guys! CP24 is part of basic Canadian cable and is run in every public place.
|
It is possible to escape from an unpowered Tesla, it's just not as intuitive or as simple as the methods in common cars. You have to know what you're doing. In an extreme case that can cost you the precious time that decides between life and death.
|
On November 12 2024 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down.
Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much.
Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense).
It could be that it was more prevalent in the past but they certainly haven't dropped it, in my last days on Twitter when I was trying to engage rightwingers it would frequently be the first thing they say to dismiss me, along with "pronouns". I also know that the last batch of ads in Pennsylvania from Republicans featured antitrans messaging, it was part of what they thought was important to convey to voters of a swing state in their last effort to reach them. You can't really distinguish woke and racist by saying woke used to be something to be proud of, obviously the Republicans aren't using the term with that pride in mind. The main difference is that people who are woke will generally be open about the fact that they're woke, while racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy. But in terms of what's in their hearts, they're proud to be racists as well, don't worry. Otherwise they had the option to not be racists, and they still do, nobody's forcing them.
Bolded - judging from this part of your reply to BlackJack post (particularly word fact in there) " There's an amount of fairness to this objection, and that's mostly because the comparison is between a violent accusation like "groomer" and a description of fact like "racism"" I am assuming that you are not a fan of Trump voters. I think this is why you paint the situation in a way which advantages Democrats side. " racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy", surely you realize that this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion.
- You are racist
- No I am not
- Well, of course you are going to say that.
This can go on for ever, with both sides being convicted they are right and never achieving anything. This kind of talk just deepen the divide.
Edit: I think instead of "this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion" It would illustrate my point better if I said "this causes somewhat closed loop"
|
On November 13 2024 00:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down.
Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much.
Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense).
It could be that it was more prevalent in the past but they certainly haven't dropped it, in my last days on Twitter when I was trying to engage rightwingers it would frequently be the first thing they say to dismiss me, along with "pronouns". I also know that the last batch of ads in Pennsylvania from Republicans featured antitrans messaging, it was part of what they thought was important to convey to voters of a swing state in their last effort to reach them. You can't really distinguish woke and racist by saying woke used to be something to be proud of, obviously the Republicans aren't using the term with that pride in mind. The main difference is that people who are woke will generally be open about the fact that they're woke, while racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy. But in terms of what's in their hearts, they're proud to be racists as well, don't worry. Otherwise they had the option to not be racists, and they still do, nobody's forcing them. Bolded - judging from this part of your reply to BlackJack post (particularly word fact in there) " There's an amount of fairness to this objection, and that's mostly because the comparison is between a violent accusation like "groomer" and a description of fact like "racism"" I am assuming that you are not a fan of Trump voters. I think this is why you paint the situation in a way which advantages Democrats side. " racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy", surely you realize that this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion. - You are racist - No I am not - Well, of course you are going to say that. This can go on for ever, with both sides being convicted they are right and never achieving anything. This kind of talk just deepen the divide. Edit: I think instead of "this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion" It would illustrate my point better if I said "this causes somewhat closed loop"
Well it's a loop yeah but that's also not how a conversation would go. There's generally a context associated with an accusation of racism, and then the conversation will be about whether that context is justifying the accusation or not. Saying "of course you are going to say that" at this moment doesn't really make any sort of point.
I live in a place that is socially conservative and I look like I should be far right so one thing that I used to do from time to time when strangers would come up to me and say suspicious things is pretend to be very racist, to see how much the people who are "not racist but" agree with me. Works pretty well most of the time, but there's a limit to the practice as I suppose you could say they're just agreeing with me to be civil.
A better option that I've done a lot of times recently is "Why not?"/"What is it about racism that you don't like", because they often have trouble answering this, it's not a question that they're used to facing. I did that to Danglars back in the day on transphobia and he legit couldn't come up with anything that he disliked about transphobia on the spot, it was only what he disliked about being called a transphobe, nothing about transphobia.
|
Almost all people possess "own group bias". No one is 100% objective. This can be conflated into claiming anyone and everyone is a bigot.
A better and more practical question is... how does one successfully navigate "own group bias".
|
On November 13 2024 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 00:31 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down.
Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much.
Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense).
It could be that it was more prevalent in the past but they certainly haven't dropped it, in my last days on Twitter when I was trying to engage rightwingers it would frequently be the first thing they say to dismiss me, along with "pronouns". I also know that the last batch of ads in Pennsylvania from Republicans featured antitrans messaging, it was part of what they thought was important to convey to voters of a swing state in their last effort to reach them. You can't really distinguish woke and racist by saying woke used to be something to be proud of, obviously the Republicans aren't using the term with that pride in mind. The main difference is that people who are woke will generally be open about the fact that they're woke, while racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy. But in terms of what's in their hearts, they're proud to be racists as well, don't worry. Otherwise they had the option to not be racists, and they still do, nobody's forcing them. Bolded - judging from this part of your reply to BlackJack post (particularly word fact in there) " There's an amount of fairness to this objection, and that's mostly because the comparison is between a violent accusation like "groomer" and a description of fact like "racism"" I am assuming that you are not a fan of Trump voters. I think this is why you paint the situation in a way which advantages Democrats side. " racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy", surely you realize that this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion. - You are racist - No I am not - Well, of course you are going to say that. This can go on for ever, with both sides being convicted they are right and never achieving anything. This kind of talk just deepen the divide. Edit: I think instead of "this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion" It would illustrate my point better if I said "this causes somewhat closed loop" Well it's a loop yeah but that's also not how a conversation would go. There's generally a context associated with an accusation of racism, and then the conversation will be about whether that context is justifying the accusation or not. Saying "of course you are going to say that" at this moment doesn't really make any sort of point.
I live in a place that is socially conservative and I look like I should be far right so one thing that I used to do from time to time when strangers would come up to me and say suspicious things is pretend to be very racist, to see how much the people who are "not racist but" agree with me. Works pretty well most of the time, but there's a limit to the practice as I suppose you could say they're just agreeing with me to be civil.A better option that I've done a lot of times recently is "Why not?"/"What is it about racism that you don't like", because they often have trouble answering this, it's not a question that they're used to facing. I did that to Danglars back in the day on transphobia and he legit couldn't come up with anything that he disliked about transphobia on the spot, it was only what he disliked about being called a transphobe, nothing about transphobia.
Bolded - while I think this apply in RL, I am doubtful whether it plays out similarly on the Internet.
Also "I look like I should be far right" not a fan of such statement although I suspect I know what you have in mind hence this part follows: "they're just agreeing with me to be civil" - Seems like far right look encourages people to be civil .
Italic - I like this approach although I think it has limitations, based mostly on a erudition of the person you are speaking to.
Edit: typo
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On November 13 2024 00:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welcome to the modern world people! https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2024/10/25/i-did-everything-i-could-canada-post-driver-recounts-helping-save-woman-from-fiery-tesla-crash/Show nested quote +“But as soon as I got out of the truck, they were yelling, you know, that they needed a bar or something to break the window because they were basically pounding the window with their hands, and that wasn’t getting anybody anywhere. So, I grabbed the bar out of the truck I had,” Harper recounted to CTV News Toronto on Friday. You can't make this stuff up. It is hilarious that this awesome left wing news org never explicitly states the 4 dead people were trapped inside an unpowered Tesla. CP24 never explicitly states that you can not get out of an unpowered Tesla. Nice reporting guys! CP24 is part of basic Canadian cable and is run in every public place.
What’s your issue with this particular story? Maybe my brain hasn’t kicked in for the day but I’m not sure what your point is
On November 13 2024 01:31 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Almost all people possess "own group bias". No one is 100% objective. This can be conflated into claiming anyone and everyone is a bigot.
A better and more practical question is... how does one successfully navigate "own group bias".
Self-reflection and criticism can reduce it. I think people who claim you can eliminate it entirely are talking out of their arse,
Earnestly engaging with folks who have different positions, provided they’re being earnest. You can get some alternative views through which to inform your own, but additionally people tend to spot hypocrisy, bias, blind spots in other people much better than themselves. So you might end up learning of some areas you could improve in.
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On November 13 2024 00:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 00:31 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down.
Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much.
Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense).
It could be that it was more prevalent in the past but they certainly haven't dropped it, in my last days on Twitter when I was trying to engage rightwingers it would frequently be the first thing they say to dismiss me, along with "pronouns". I also know that the last batch of ads in Pennsylvania from Republicans featured antitrans messaging, it was part of what they thought was important to convey to voters of a swing state in their last effort to reach them. You can't really distinguish woke and racist by saying woke used to be something to be proud of, obviously the Republicans aren't using the term with that pride in mind. The main difference is that people who are woke will generally be open about the fact that they're woke, while racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy. But in terms of what's in their hearts, they're proud to be racists as well, don't worry. Otherwise they had the option to not be racists, and they still do, nobody's forcing them. Bolded - judging from this part of your reply to BlackJack post (particularly word fact in there) " There's an amount of fairness to this objection, and that's mostly because the comparison is between a violent accusation like "groomer" and a description of fact like "racism"" I am assuming that you are not a fan of Trump voters. I think this is why you paint the situation in a way which advantages Democrats side. " racists will generally pretend they aren't racists as a political strategy", surely you realize that this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion. - You are racist - No I am not - Well, of course you are going to say that. This can go on for ever, with both sides being convicted they are right and never achieving anything. This kind of talk just deepen the divide. Edit: I think instead of "this creates rather uneven ground for any discussion" It would illustrate my point better if I said "this causes somewhat closed loop" Well it's a loop yeah but that's also not how a conversation would go. There's generally a context associated with an accusation of racism, and then the conversation will be about whether that context is justifying the accusation or not. Saying "of course you are going to say that" at this moment doesn't really make any sort of point. I live in a place that is socially conservative and I look like I should be far right so one thing that I used to do from time to time when strangers would come up to me and say suspicious things is pretend to be very racist, to see how much the people who are "not racist but" agree with me. Works pretty well most of the time, but there's a limit to the practice as I suppose you could say they're just agreeing with me to be civil. A better option that I've done a lot of times recently is "Why not?"/"What is it about racism that you don't like", because they often have trouble answering this, it's not a question that they're used to facing. I did that to Danglars back in the day on transphobia and he legit couldn't come up with anything that he disliked about transphobia on the spot, it was only what he disliked about being called a transphobe, nothing about transphobia.
Clever, borderline fiendish haha
There is something to it, rather logical that people will tell you what they actually believe, if they think you agree with them and are comfortable. What a guy says about women over some beers with his buddies might not match up with what he says on a date.
In a more disagreeable thru antagonistic environment, it can be hard to get honesty. But, sometimes honesty isn’t the problem, your conversational partners may not even know what their issues or, or why they have particular issues.
‘You’re a racist and don’t realise it’ may ultimately actually be correct, but it’s hardly a productive gambit. Not only are you raising a very loaded assessment of character, you’re making a second charge that somebody doesn’t understand their core identity.
Some of your framings really sidestep those issues rather neatly.
Another that I’ve found works quite well is ‘can you see why others might think that?’. Not that you have to agree, but can you see why a certain perception exists, that’s somewhat logical to think, even if you still ultimately disagree.
I’ve found it helpful in both sides of immigration debates for one. Both that not all anti-migrant sentiment is racist or xenophobic, but there are many people who are motivated by those two factors
|
On November 13 2024 00:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welcome to the modern world people! https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2024/10/25/i-did-everything-i-could-canada-post-driver-recounts-helping-save-woman-from-fiery-tesla-crash/Show nested quote +“But as soon as I got out of the truck, they were yelling, you know, that they needed a bar or something to break the window because they were basically pounding the window with their hands, and that wasn’t getting anybody anywhere. So, I grabbed the bar out of the truck I had,” Harper recounted to CTV News Toronto on Friday. You can't make this stuff up. It is hilarious that this awesome left wing news org never explicitly states the 4 dead people were trapped inside an unpowered Tesla. CP24 never explicitly states that you can not get out of an unpowered Tesla. Nice reporting guys! CP24 is part of basic Canadian cable and is run in every public place.
Your problem with this is that the media didn't report that Tesla is designed to be hard to get out of if unpowered, rather than the fact that it's designed that way and these people burned to death because of it? Do you think before you post?
|
United States42490 Posts
On November 12 2024 19:50 Timebon3s wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 18:47 KwarK wrote:On November 12 2024 12:22 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 12:00 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 11:18 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 07:30 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature.
You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page.
If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this.
Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there.
If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that.
‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’
I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing. You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative I don't mind answering. I think part of the problems we have, not only on this forum but overall, lays in the fact that people trying to label everyone/everything. In my case people read my posts against Democrats/liberals and it seems decided that I must be republican/conservative. It is sort of "you are either with us or against us" sort of thinking, which I am not a fan of to be honest. Am I conservative? Hell no. Do I have some conservative values? Yes of course, and I think everyone has some (I happened to think that there cant be a society without some sort of conservative values - thinking of conservatism a bit as of tradition - it would be just bunch of people leaving in the same area) Of course I have also some liberal values (probably even more), I also happened to believe that pure conservatism is natural enemy of progress, by the very definition. My conclusion is that every human being should be some mix of the 2. I would agree that humans naturally have mixed politics, not really that the mix is between liberalism and conservatism as those two ideologies are extremely similar to each other If we agree that every human is a mix, then surely when someone is called a conservative we are asserting that they side more with conservatives than they do with the other groups, which in your case appears to be true, rather than that they agree with everything conservatives have ever said. It doesn't seem very damaging to be doing that. And in my case it wouldn't be a with us or against us, as (you may not know this actually) I very much hate liberals. bolded - Is it though? even recently I specified that I am not supporting Trump, I am in opposition to Democrats. This are 2 very different things. For all Nazi, fascist, dictator talk I consider Trump ability to become a dictator at the same level as his ability to teleport, or resurrecting people (excluding situations in which he needs votes and read Gogol - where i find latter highly improbable). I am in agreement with John Oliver that Trump is like "A Hamster In An Attack Helicopter" although I think this is worst case scenario. What I disagree with him is that this time it will be different because he will have advisors. Advisors? Really? are we still talking about Trump? To follow someone advice you have to accept the fact that they know better than you... On the other side are Democrats. I think they are way more dangerous. It is always: "to protect x we take away a bit of this right", "to protect y we take a bit of this right" and so on. Issue with this is that rights are finite and government sure as hell wont be happily returning powers it once acquired (shouldn't Patriot Act be temporary? how is that going?). I believe what happened during Covid under Democrats was straight up authoritarian and plain awful. I also suspect that if Musk didnt bought Twitter and if Democrats would won this election US would be for all means and purposes one party state with Republicans in perpetual minority (cant obviously prove that, but if Democrats hold control of social media like they did during Covid, I am not sure how Republicans could win) On balance Trump may do some bad, or hopefully something good. Democrats on the other hand I dont see doing anything good. On the bolded part, yeah I do think so, really. I think that the way you frame political clashes shows a sense of belonging. For example when you were defending BJ earlier in the US thread, you explained that democrats are pushing away people who have slight disagreements with them and that's costing them votes and election, every critique is heresy and they're to blame if those heretics start voting for republicans. This analysis doesn't work as a neutral one, as Republicans are doing the exact same thing, the Democrats, the enemies, are pedophiles and groomers, enemies of the nation, and the people who have slight disagreements are RINOs and might as well be enemies. We even have an example on this forum as KwarK on this topic functions essentially as a Democrat. I think that you're more sensitive to the former than to the latter because you don't perceive yourself as a target of the latter. This is not even close to the same scale. Pretty much anyone with a Trump flag in their lawn is presumed to be a racist misogynist fascist by a large portion of Democrats. The amount of Republicans that see a Harris flag and think “they must molest children” is very small in comparison. Social media is filled with leftists posting on social media asking anyone that voted for Trump to cut ties with them and posts like “we can agree to disagree but not when it comes to wanting to enslave people” and nonsense like that. People with a Trump flag are racists. The presumption is reasonable. Everyone who listens to Joe Rogan are dipshits and all Trump supporters are racist. You sound like a really hateful person.
You seem to be confusing hate with contempt which is odd because I'm sure you have a lot of experience with both.
|
On November 12 2024 20:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism. Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US. So you would consider yourself a racist and a sexist?
Racist and sexist yes. A racist and a sexist no. You'll note I applied the same distinction to you.
Racism against first nations people is common where I am and I'm not immune to that. When interacting with a first nations person for the first time my guard will typically be up, because they tend to be displaced and substance-abusing. It's wrong of me and racist of me to discriminate based on their race - and while I expect the issue is a cultural/social one not a biological/physical one (I.E. I don't think they're an 'inferior race') I still should just fucking do better. For the most part I do my best, but imo that's what being 'a progressive' is - trying to notice and correct for your own social biases and biases toward you.
Racism/sexism or being racist/sexist doesn't begin at owning a confederate flag and pining for the good ol' days, it starts at seeing a woman in a leadership position and unconsciously thinking she's there because of diversity hire or some other caveat, or seeing that the majority of richest people in the US are white men and that's just the natural order.
|
On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - I think your perception of that may be skewed by the nature of this forum (or rather just politics thread), which is left leaning and quite frankly few bans away from becoming echo chamber.
Italic - yes and I stand by it. I am not saying that Republicans are free of this issue, I do however think that the scale of it is much smaller on their side. (coincidently I think that dropping groomer/pedophiles rhetoric, helped Republicans immensely) They didn't really drop it though, it's still a prominent part of their antitrans messaging. Democrats want men in your daughter's locker room and so on.The scale of it happening is surprisingly comparable, at least it was surprising to me I hadn't really thought about it in detail before this night and it's shocking how easy it is to map out. There's "woke" which is probably the main one which goes to extremes like "groomer" but then you also have "communist" and so on. As far as I can see the main difference is that "woke" and "communist" aren't really insulting in the same way that "racist" and "fascist" are, but ultimately that makes a lot of sense morally so it probably won't change.On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded 2 - I think this is were you are mistaken. There is no such thing as "systemic role", simply because nothing in nature stays stagnant, they may have acted like that in the past, but that doesnt mean that it will stay like that forever. I think Covid significantly speed up this process for Democrats because it showed them how much power they have and how easy it is to get rid of dissent. I dont think this is something you want government to learn.
I think it's quite naive to perceive that politicians used to not understand how power works and now they do so something is going to change. They knew what they were doing before and they know what they're doing now, they're not idiots. You live in a country that has a long history of repression of socialism, both nationally and internationally. Democrats and republicans have known how to get rid of dissent for as long as they've been part of that system. Democrats weren't not doing much out of incompetence or ignorance, they were not doing much out of ideology. They still have the same ideology, so it makes sense to me to expect more of the same type of governance from them in the future. Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down. Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much. Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense). Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 18:47 KwarK wrote:On November 12 2024 12:22 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 12:00 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 11:18 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 07:30 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature.
You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page.
If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this.
Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there.
If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that.
‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’
I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing. You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative I don't mind answering. I think part of the problems we have, not only on this forum but overall, lays in the fact that people trying to label everyone/everything. In my case people read my posts against Democrats/liberals and it seems decided that I must be republican/conservative. It is sort of "you are either with us or against us" sort of thinking, which I am not a fan of to be honest. Am I conservative? Hell no. Do I have some conservative values? Yes of course, and I think everyone has some (I happened to think that there cant be a society without some sort of conservative values - thinking of conservatism a bit as of tradition - it would be just bunch of people leaving in the same area) Of course I have also some liberal values (probably even more), I also happened to believe that pure conservatism is natural enemy of progress, by the very definition. My conclusion is that every human being should be some mix of the 2. I would agree that humans naturally have mixed politics, not really that the mix is between liberalism and conservatism as those two ideologies are extremely similar to each other If we agree that every human is a mix, then surely when someone is called a conservative we are asserting that they side more with conservatives than they do with the other groups, which in your case appears to be true, rather than that they agree with everything conservatives have ever said. It doesn't seem very damaging to be doing that. And in my case it wouldn't be a with us or against us, as (you may not know this actually) I very much hate liberals. bolded - Is it though? even recently I specified that I am not supporting Trump, I am in opposition to Democrats. This are 2 very different things. For all Nazi, fascist, dictator talk I consider Trump ability to become a dictator at the same level as his ability to teleport, or resurrecting people (excluding situations in which he needs votes and read Gogol - where i find latter highly improbable). I am in agreement with John Oliver that Trump is like "A Hamster In An Attack Helicopter" although I think this is worst case scenario. What I disagree with him is that this time it will be different because he will have advisors. Advisors? Really? are we still talking about Trump? To follow someone advice you have to accept the fact that they know better than you... On the other side are Democrats. I think they are way more dangerous. It is always: "to protect x we take away a bit of this right", "to protect y we take a bit of this right" and so on. Issue with this is that rights are finite and government sure as hell wont be happily returning powers it once acquired (shouldn't Patriot Act be temporary? how is that going?). I believe what happened during Covid under Democrats was straight up authoritarian and plain awful. I also suspect that if Musk didnt bought Twitter and if Democrats would won this election US would be for all means and purposes one party state with Republicans in perpetual minority (cant obviously prove that, but if Democrats hold control of social media like they did during Covid, I am not sure how Republicans could win) On balance Trump may do some bad, or hopefully something good. Democrats on the other hand I dont see doing anything good. On the bolded part, yeah I do think so, really. I think that the way you frame political clashes shows a sense of belonging. For example when you were defending BJ earlier in the US thread, you explained that democrats are pushing away people who have slight disagreements with them and that's costing them votes and election, every critique is heresy and they're to blame if those heretics start voting for republicans. This analysis doesn't work as a neutral one, as Republicans are doing the exact same thing, the Democrats, the enemies, are pedophiles and groomers, enemies of the nation, and the people who have slight disagreements are RINOs and might as well be enemies. We even have an example on this forum as KwarK on this topic functions essentially as a Democrat. I think that you're more sensitive to the former than to the latter because you don't perceive yourself as a target of the latter. This is not even close to the same scale. Pretty much anyone with a Trump flag in their lawn is presumed to be a racist misogynist fascist by a large portion of Democrats. The amount of Republicans that see a Harris flag and think “they must molest children” is very small in comparison. Social media is filled with leftists posting on social media asking anyone that voted for Trump to cut ties with them and posts like “we can agree to disagree but not when it comes to wanting to enslave people” and nonsense like that. People with a Trump flag are racists. The presumption is reasonable. At least I dont have to undermine point Nebuchad is making . Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism.Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US. Bolded - no it is not default, it is insane. If starting point of any discussion is based on that, then there is no real discussion to be had. If you start with such a premise then obviously any disagreement can be explained as proof of starting premise. More so any argument has less weight when coming from someone you think of as such, because even if their argument is correct you can automatically think "thats the trickery which gets you to dark side". If more people have default like you then no wonder left and right cant talk to each other.
If it's not the default, are you prepared to argue that our countries are not racist or sexist anymore? If so, when did we clear those bars?
It isn't difficult at all to go back not very long ago (historically) and find loads of examples of racism and sexism and homophobia etc. It's also easy to find modern examples that may allude to existing modern systemic sexism and racism. I find it harder to find examples of nationwide purity and egalitarianism.
That is why I say it is the default. Not because people are naturally horrible, but because the society we grew up in was racist and sexist and some of that is still 'normal'
|
Northern Ireland24945 Posts
On November 13 2024 10:26 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 20:37 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism. Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US. So you would consider yourself a racist and a sexist? Racist and sexist yes. A racist and a sexist no. You'll note I applied the same distinction to you. Racism against first nations people is common where I am and I'm not immune to that. When interacting with a first nations person for the first time my guard will typically be up, because they tend to be displaced and substance-abusing. It's wrong of me and racist of me to discriminate based on their race - and while I expect the issue is a cultural/social one not a biological/physical one (I.E. I don't think they're an 'inferior race') I still should just fucking do better. For the most part I do my best, but imo that's what being 'a progressive' is - trying to notice and correct for your own social biases and biases toward you. Racism/sexism or being racist/sexist doesn't begin at owning a confederate flag and pining for the good ol' days, it starts at seeing a woman in a leadership position and unconsciously thinking she's there because of diversity hire or some other caveat, or seeing that the majority of richest people in the US are white men and that's just the natural order.
Very well put.
Someone, alas I lve lost the source compared quite a few female candidates, and certain phrases tended to abound. Many that didn’t cross over to prior male candidates in their party, but were shared with female candidates in many disparate locales. Even very different parties politically.
Their conclusion effectively was that, it could be conscious or unconscious, or a mix but even today sexism does impact perceptions of candidates. I’ve a hard time arguing against that.
I also don’t believe it’s a conscious thing for many, but it’s there.
Trump can do whatever the fuck he wants for many, be as abrasive as he wants etc etc. He’s a strong independent man!
If say Clinton were to behave similarly, she’s a bossy, naggy, lecturing tyrant!
I’ve a real hard time believing that it’s purely a case by case judgement and sexism doesn’t factor in.
|
On November 13 2024 10:34 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 23:00 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded - I think your perception of that may be skewed by the nature of this forum (or rather just politics thread), which is left leaning and quite frankly few bans away from becoming echo chamber.
Italic - yes and I stand by it. I am not saying that Republicans are free of this issue, I do however think that the scale of it is much smaller on their side. (coincidently I think that dropping groomer/pedophiles rhetoric, helped Republicans immensely) They didn't really drop it though, it's still a prominent part of their antitrans messaging. Democrats want men in your daughter's locker room and so on.The scale of it happening is surprisingly comparable, at least it was surprising to me I hadn't really thought about it in detail before this night and it's shocking how easy it is to map out. There's "woke" which is probably the main one which goes to extremes like "groomer" but then you also have "communist" and so on. As far as I can see the main difference is that "woke" and "communist" aren't really insulting in the same way that "racist" and "fascist" are, but ultimately that makes a lot of sense morally so it probably won't change.On November 12 2024 21:35 Razyda wrote:
Bolded 2 - I think this is were you are mistaken. There is no such thing as "systemic role", simply because nothing in nature stays stagnant, they may have acted like that in the past, but that doesnt mean that it will stay like that forever. I think Covid significantly speed up this process for Democrats because it showed them how much power they have and how easy it is to get rid of dissent. I dont think this is something you want government to learn.
I think it's quite naive to perceive that politicians used to not understand how power works and now they do so something is going to change. They knew what they were doing before and they know what they're doing now, they're not idiots. You live in a country that has a long history of repression of socialism, both nationally and internationally. Democrats and republicans have known how to get rid of dissent for as long as they've been part of that system. Democrats weren't not doing much out of incompetence or ignorance, they were not doing much out of ideology. They still have the same ideology, so it makes sense to me to expect more of the same type of governance from them in the future. Bolded - from what I've seen it dropped quite a lot after beer thingy and Walmart. Although I think you are correct in describing it as their antitrans messaging, because it seems that at the same time pro trans messaging also got toned down. Italic - I agree with woke although not a communist with latter being nowhere as prominent as Fascist/Nazi. Also woke used to be something to be proud of, while Nazi not so much. Bolded 2 - By "understanding how much power they have" I meant more level of compliance, rather than mechanics of the law (if that makes sense). On November 12 2024 18:47 KwarK wrote:On November 12 2024 12:22 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 12:00 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 11:18 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 07:30 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph.
Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison.
Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing. You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative I don't mind answering. I think part of the problems we have, not only on this forum but overall, lays in the fact that people trying to label everyone/everything. In my case people read my posts against Democrats/liberals and it seems decided that I must be republican/conservative. It is sort of "you are either with us or against us" sort of thinking, which I am not a fan of to be honest. Am I conservative? Hell no. Do I have some conservative values? Yes of course, and I think everyone has some (I happened to think that there cant be a society without some sort of conservative values - thinking of conservatism a bit as of tradition - it would be just bunch of people leaving in the same area) Of course I have also some liberal values (probably even more), I also happened to believe that pure conservatism is natural enemy of progress, by the very definition. My conclusion is that every human being should be some mix of the 2. I would agree that humans naturally have mixed politics, not really that the mix is between liberalism and conservatism as those two ideologies are extremely similar to each other If we agree that every human is a mix, then surely when someone is called a conservative we are asserting that they side more with conservatives than they do with the other groups, which in your case appears to be true, rather than that they agree with everything conservatives have ever said. It doesn't seem very damaging to be doing that. And in my case it wouldn't be a with us or against us, as (you may not know this actually) I very much hate liberals. bolded - Is it though? even recently I specified that I am not supporting Trump, I am in opposition to Democrats. This are 2 very different things. For all Nazi, fascist, dictator talk I consider Trump ability to become a dictator at the same level as his ability to teleport, or resurrecting people (excluding situations in which he needs votes and read Gogol - where i find latter highly improbable). I am in agreement with John Oliver that Trump is like "A Hamster In An Attack Helicopter" although I think this is worst case scenario. What I disagree with him is that this time it will be different because he will have advisors. Advisors? Really? are we still talking about Trump? To follow someone advice you have to accept the fact that they know better than you... On the other side are Democrats. I think they are way more dangerous. It is always: "to protect x we take away a bit of this right", "to protect y we take a bit of this right" and so on. Issue with this is that rights are finite and government sure as hell wont be happily returning powers it once acquired (shouldn't Patriot Act be temporary? how is that going?). I believe what happened during Covid under Democrats was straight up authoritarian and plain awful. I also suspect that if Musk didnt bought Twitter and if Democrats would won this election US would be for all means and purposes one party state with Republicans in perpetual minority (cant obviously prove that, but if Democrats hold control of social media like they did during Covid, I am not sure how Republicans could win) On balance Trump may do some bad, or hopefully something good. Democrats on the other hand I dont see doing anything good. On the bolded part, yeah I do think so, really. I think that the way you frame political clashes shows a sense of belonging. For example when you were defending BJ earlier in the US thread, you explained that democrats are pushing away people who have slight disagreements with them and that's costing them votes and election, every critique is heresy and they're to blame if those heretics start voting for republicans. This analysis doesn't work as a neutral one, as Republicans are doing the exact same thing, the Democrats, the enemies, are pedophiles and groomers, enemies of the nation, and the people who have slight disagreements are RINOs and might as well be enemies. We even have an example on this forum as KwarK on this topic functions essentially as a Democrat. I think that you're more sensitive to the former than to the latter because you don't perceive yourself as a target of the latter. This is not even close to the same scale. Pretty much anyone with a Trump flag in their lawn is presumed to be a racist misogynist fascist by a large portion of Democrats. The amount of Republicans that see a Harris flag and think “they must molest children” is very small in comparison. Social media is filled with leftists posting on social media asking anyone that voted for Trump to cut ties with them and posts like “we can agree to disagree but not when it comes to wanting to enslave people” and nonsense like that. People with a Trump flag are racists. The presumption is reasonable. At least I dont have to undermine point Nebuchad is making . On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism.Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US. Bolded - no it is not default, it is insane. If starting point of any discussion is based on that, then there is no real discussion to be had. If you start with such a premise then obviously any disagreement can be explained as proof of starting premise. More so any argument has less weight when coming from someone you think of as such, because even if their argument is correct you can automatically think "thats the trickery which gets you to dark side". If more people have default like you then no wonder left and right cant talk to each other. If it's not the default, are you prepared to argue that our countries are not racist or sexist anymore? If so, when did we clear those bars? It isn't difficult at all to go back not very long ago (historically) and find loads of examples of racism and sexism and homophobia etc. It's also easy to find modern examples that may allude to existing modern systemic sexism and racism. I find it harder to find examples of nationwide purity and egalitarianism. That is why I say it is the default. Not because people are naturally horrible, but because the society we grew up in was racist and sexist and some of that is still 'normal'
Bolded - if you take flawed assumption as a base you will get to flawed conclusions by default. While it may come as a shock to you, the simple truth is, that yes "people are naturally horrible", does that mean that people are racists? No it doesn't, at all. You may disagree with statement that "people are naturally horrible", but it is simple denial. Let me explain to you history of human race on a simple QA:
Do you know why Germans committed atrocities they committed in doom camps?
Now answer to this is so simple, that it is astonishing. (and it comes from someone who had mandatory class trip to doom camp at age 10):
BECAUSE THEY COULD
and now my liberal friend, deal with this aswer.
|
On November 13 2024 10:26 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 20:37 BlackJack wrote:On November 12 2024 19:21 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 12 2024 13:14 BlackJack wrote:
You’re missing the crucial different that the fringe conspiracies of the cabal of baby eating pedophiles doesn’t include your average Dem voter. Nobody thinks Kwark is part of the cabal. Whereas everyone on the left thinks Trump voters are racist, misogynist fascists and you don’t even have to travel off this site for evidence of that. This is true insofar as 'everyone on the left' (read - some, or charitably 'most' people with progressive / inclusive ideology) thinks 'Trump voters' (read - not exclusively, but as part of a society that has issues with racism and sexism) are "racist, mysoginist fascists' (read - If you can accept that a society has widespread issues with racism and sexism then someone being racist or sexist is the default and reasonable to expect of someone). I expect you're racist and sexist - that's the default. I don't know why you're compelled to try protect trump supporters from the same criticism. Trump's only ever won the presidency when competing against women. I don't think that's wrong and I don't think it's the only reason, but I do think it's foolish to loudly shout that trump voters aren't sexist when they probably are. Don't worry, they're not special and unique flowers, you don't need to protect all... 74 million? of them. There's more than 74 million sexist people in the US. So you would consider yourself a racist and a sexist? Racist and sexist yes. A racist and a sexist no. You'll note I applied the same distinction to you. Racism against first nations people is common where I am and I'm not immune to that. When interacting with a first nations person for the first time my guard will typically be up, because they tend to be displaced and substance-abusing. It's wrong of me and racist of me to discriminate based on their race - and while I expect the issue is a cultural/social one not a biological/physical one (I.E. I don't think they're an 'inferior race') I still should just fucking do better. For the most part I do my best, but imo that's what being 'a progressive' is - trying to notice and correct for your own social biases and biases toward you. Racism/sexism or being racist/sexist doesn't begin at owning a confederate flag and pining for the good ol' days, it starts at seeing a woman in a leadership position and unconsciously thinking she's there because of diversity hire or some other caveat, or seeing that the majority of richest people in the US are white men and that's just the natural order.
I don’t even disagree with you to the extend that I think everyone has prejudices whether over or subconscious. But it doesn’t really have anything to do with my point. When Kwark and MP call Trump voters racist they aren’t using the word in the way you are using it and they are absolutely not applying it to themselves the way you are.
|
I am certain that totally non sexiest trump voters would have been fine if there had been a recording of Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris bragging of grabbing young men by the cock that had resurfaced during their respective campaigns.
I mean…
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
