|
It's funny (eh, not really) how much a post like this:
On October 31 2017 05:32 RealityIsKing wrote:
But the question is that are all those accusations true or are they just smokes and mirror that people are forced to believe due to political correctness.
This goes back to how the press was lying that trump raped people and how he is sexist and how no way Hillary was going to win.
And they are a lot of people that believes in that narrative. Lots of people belong to one hard end of the spectrum that uses absolutism words like "by anyone's definition."
It is important to have nuanced stance instead of going to the far end.
written in the context of Kwark asserting that Trump is undeniably bad at being president, demonstrates to a T the relevance and accuracy of this video:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 31 2017 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:It's funny (eh, not really) how much a post like this: Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 05:32 RealityIsKing wrote:
But the question is that are all those accusations true or are they just smokes and mirror that people are forced to believe due to political correctness.
This goes back to how the press was lying that trump raped people and how he is sexist and how no way Hillary was going to win.
And they are a lot of people that believes in that narrative. Lots of people belong to one hard end of the spectrum that uses absolutism words like "by anyone's definition."
It is important to have nuanced stance instead of going to the far end. written in the context of Kwark asserting that Trump is undeniably bad at being president, demonstrates to a T the relevance and accuracy of this video: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
And Kwark's post demonstrates the foolishness of dignifying it with a response. Don't feed the trolls.
|
I was told that it was acceptable to directly quote posts from the thread if there's concerns with them,
I highlighted the concerning portion in bold.
On November 25 2017 22:51 a_flayer wrote:I said this in a response to GreenHorizon saying some people are insulated from history. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement about the historical perspective of a large amount of uneducated people who only buy into the pro-bombing rhetoric. Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 07:48 a_flayer wrote:On November 25 2017 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote:On November 23 2017 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 23 2017 23:17 farvacola wrote:This has been hashed out in this thread numerous times already, but a push towards electing third parties on the national stage without some kind of change to FPTP voting is a recipe for exactly the thing Velr describes. Also, Happy Thanksgiving y'all  Fuck Thanksgiving. Also, bull. The parties are trash and both should be abandoned. Blaming FPTP and a two party system for sticking with these idiots is just a crappy excuse to enjoy the status quo. Just when I thought GH's take would be unique in my observed experience this Thanksgiving. Are you really that insulated from history? I suppose it would explain a bit. @P6 I'd read it. I feel like you nailed Kwark like Jesus to the cross. He'd be skimming some off the top too though Its like those hordes of Americans who think that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was done in an effort to end the war. Potentially even the lie that it saved lives somehow or that the Japanese would not surrender otherwise. Plansix responded with this. Which is very much the "insulated from history" perspective that I was referring to, and nothing else. You might even call it a post intended to bait me. Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 07:54 Plansix wrote:
Let’s not paint Imperial Japan as some victim of the mean Americans power. There are large sections of Asia that still hold a grudge against Japan, with good reason. And we totally dropped that bomb to end that war. And then they dropped the second one because the war didn’t end. Then Japan tried to end the war, but a bunch of generals in Japan totally thought they could still win and there was a fight to prevent the Emperor from delivering the message to the people about the surrender. So, as a response to that, after some really obvious trolling for which I clearly should have received a warning if not an outright ban, and some people vaguely continuing the discussion in my absence asking for more information, I quoted the wikipedia page with the opposite side to that. And then I am accused of being one-sided, etc? Its funny how some (hordes of?) Americans always seem to think of me as unreasonable when I am critical of the US and their military actions. The same thing happened on reddit when I posted there while I was banned here. I get downvoted and tons of nasty comments at night (while the Americans are awake) and then during the day my post would get upvoted again (as the Europeans wake up and responded with "why are you being downvoted lol"). Probably some paid Russians upvoting me too, though =)
direct link to the post in question:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=9320#186395
|
wow, we've actually got some advocating ethnic cleansing in the thread. I am surprised.
|
On December 07 2017 01:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 00:59 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2017 00:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 07 2017 00:35 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2017 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 06 2017 16:30 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 16:06 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 15:21 mozoku wrote:
I'm generally somewhat pro-Israel but I don't see how the US unilaterally settling a dispute helps anything here. I could be persuaded though. I'm not ultra-informed on Israel-Palestine. It doesn't. Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method. The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit. The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation. There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either. It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate. As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to. The US has been trying to "broker" this peace for how long now? 30+ years. It takes a lot of hubris and wishful thinking to believe the same thing we've been doing for decades has a decent shot at working. Fact is, the conditions aren't that different than the late 80s early 90s. The area has traded PLO for Hamas, and the situation in Iraq has destabilized the region. Pretending that the stance that Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is going to broker peace is pure folly. You can make the argument that we've went from .5% to 0%, but honestly, this is blowing smoke. Also, for the record, I think the US should have nothing to do in the region. All we've done is created more danger for ourselves, lost treasure and blood, and for what? Because Israel is a "democracy"? Lol. Please. Give me my tax-money back and the thousands of American's lives lost for "hegemony" and Empire. 1) It's not been trying especially hard to broker the peace. 2) Even had it been 30 years of trying hard to broker peace I still don't see why giving up on peace is desirable. 3) The illusion had value. Words matter. 4) The argument that negotiation has failed so provocation is the obvious new strategy doesn't seem valid. I'd look at it almost as saying "okay our current approach isn't working so we need to do try something different". The status quo is that the situation will just keep sliding downhill bit by bit - there will be repeated flare-ups which result in a few hundred more dead, a few thousand more displaced and the West Bank/ Gaza Strip getting even shittier than they were before. We can keep hoping that while we keep things in a delicate balance that only occasionally slips we can find the perfect solution, but that's what we've been doing for the last couple decades. It's sort of looking like we're clinging to a false hope. The solution that everyone wants died with Yitzhak Rabin. Maybe Palestine needs a bit of a kick in the ass, and a symbolic recognition of Jerusalem is that. Their negotiating position about what they want as part of a two state solution might be right, but there's no way Israel is going to give it to them. The US will never really strongarm Israel either. Maybe the Palestinians will, for now, have to accept a little less. if that were the actual case made, i'd be willing to consider it; but that's not the case being made. also, trying something different that still won't work isn't really a plan. it's just inflaming things for no gain. i'ts been clear for ages that palestine is demanding things they will never be able to get; they're understandably unwilling to accept less. pressure will not change that, especially not a midl inflammatory thing like this which doesn't actually change the situation on the ground much at all. a tiny "kick in the ass" like this is nothing compared to what else has happened there, so it won't chnage anything. Trump is a blithering idiot and Kushner probably couldn't make peace between two girls in middle school. That doesn't change the fact that what we're doing in the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine, just isn't working. Palestine is in a shit situation, and it doesn't matter what moral, ethical or legal claim or case they have to what they demand, they will need to concede and take less because they've got a 2 7 offsuit and Israel has pocket aces. Yeah... If tomorrow Russia by some miracle obliterated the US army and took over the east coast, do you think the US should sign a peace treaty giving away the east coast rather then fight to the last for their home because 'its not gonna happen anyway'? Should the varies European resistances have just given up during WW2 when it looked bleak? People have fought against impossible odds for their home throughout history. Telling the Palestinians to just give up is completely devoid of reality. The only reason Palestinians have any land at all is the fact that it would be bad PR to kick em out. Not a great comparison. Also "bleak" is a tremendous understatement. In your eyes, what non-handout path do they have? What will allow Palestinians to beat Israel? In my eyes, no path actually even exists. The question is do you support circumstantial (outside the specific ethnicity) ethnic cleansing or is it dependent on the ethnicity being cleansed? TIL the poli thread, like the Senate, has bipartisan support of ethnic cleansing... User was warned for this post
Not everything has to work in extremes, "Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar."
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
JBright
I call bullshit. He is literally advocating ethnic cleansing.
|
Are we playing the label-then-recoil-in-shock game again?
I’m not surprised, zlefin. It’s clear people in the thread had a disagreement on the Middle East conflict and some wanted to attack the other as moral reprobates.
|
On December 07 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:
Are we playing the label-then-recoil-in-shock game again?
I’m not surprised, zlefin. It’s clear people in the thread had a disagreement on the Middle East conflict and some wanted to attack the other as moral reprobates.
No , it seems quite a few people simply don't understand what ethnic cleansing is, you being one of them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Strictly by definition, “moving people from their residence by force” does fall under ethnic cleansing. The connotations are a wee bit different from the famous gas chamber scenario so going around asking, “do you or do you not admit to supporting ethnic cleansing” repeatedly is kind of stupid.
I could kind of see it either way.
|
also, dont' we have an actual thread for the israel issue?
I wanted to stick to the us politics issue of the embassy move; but people keep shifting into more general israel/palestine issues. I thought there was a thread for that.
(i'm ignoring some other people's response cuz they're not worth responding to)
|
On December 07 2017 03:38 LegalLord wrote:
Strictly by definition, “moving people from their residence by force” does fall under ethnic cleansing. The connotations are a wee bit different from the famous gas chamber scenario so going around asking, “do you or do you not admit to supporting ethnic cleansing” repeatedly is kind of stupid.
I could kind of see it either way.
That's what we have "genocide" for.
|
On December 07 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:
also, dont' we have an actual thread for the israel issue?
I wanted to stick to the us politics issue of the embassy move; but people keep shifting into more general israel/palestine issues. I thought there was a thread for that.
(i'm ignoring some other people's response cuz they're not worth responding to)
The US is a major supporter of Israel, so you should expect it to come up from time to time in the thread. Trump’s expected actions today and the promised responses from Erdogan and PLO and other parties are the foreign policy branch of politics.
|
On December 07 2017 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 01:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2017 01:12 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2017 00:59 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2017 00:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 07 2017 00:35 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2017 00:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 06 2017 16:30 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 16:18 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 16:06 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't.
Israel is built on top of Palestine and is currently in the process of ethnic cleansing, albeit slowly through forceful displacement with bulldozers and armed escorts for settlements, rather than the usual mass graves method.
The Palestinians engaged in an asymmetrical guerrilla response leading to escalation by both sides and generally bad shit.
The US, as the global hegemon and the only country with any leverage over Israel at all (due to the huge annual cash payments that the US makes for some reason), was tasked with brokering some kind of peace deal between the two sides and to give the appearance of fairness deliberately avoided acknowledging de facto Israel control over Jerusalem. Doing so helped maintain the commitment to a peaceful resolution to the situation.
There's absolutely no upside to breaking that. It doesn't materially impact what's actually happening out there in any way. Nothing is improved for anyone. All it does is lets the world know that the US is not interested in a good faith negotiation between the two sides. The situation for Israel isn't improved because the US was already not especially interested in good faith negotiations, but now there is really no reason for Palestinians to come to the table either.
It's the senseless smashing of a US brokered truce and I'm pretty certain that some kind of Arab backlash is Trump's intended result. He wants to cry "look how much they hate us" so he's out to drum up some hate.
As with everything else Trump touches there's a damn good reason things were the way they were and it's not because everyone running the country pre-2017 was an idiot. The US has a great many carefully planned and calculated policy positions which should not be overturned based upon to the whims of whatever tweets he happens to be exposed to. The US has been trying to "broker" this peace for how long now? 30+ years. It takes a lot of hubris and wishful thinking to believe the same thing we've been doing for decades has a decent shot at working. Fact is, the conditions aren't that different than the late 80s early 90s. The area has traded PLO for Hamas, and the situation in Iraq has destabilized the region. Pretending that the stance that Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is going to broker peace is pure folly. You can make the argument that we've went from .5% to 0%, but honestly, this is blowing smoke. Also, for the record, I think the US should have nothing to do in the region. All we've done is created more danger for ourselves, lost treasure and blood, and for what? Because Israel is a "democracy"? Lol. Please. Give me my tax-money back and the thousands of American's lives lost for "hegemony" and Empire. 1) It's not been trying especially hard to broker the peace. 2) Even had it been 30 years of trying hard to broker peace I still don't see why giving up on peace is desirable. 3) The illusion had value. Words matter. 4) The argument that negotiation has failed so provocation is the obvious new strategy doesn't seem valid. I'd look at it almost as saying "okay our current approach isn't working so we need to do try something different". The status quo is that the situation will just keep sliding downhill bit by bit - there will be repeated flare-ups which result in a few hundred more dead, a few thousand more displaced and the West Bank/ Gaza Strip getting even shittier than they were before. We can keep hoping that while we keep things in a delicate balance that only occasionally slips we can find the perfect solution, but that's what we've been doing for the last couple decades. It's sort of looking like we're clinging to a false hope. The solution that everyone wants died with Yitzhak Rabin. Maybe Palestine needs a bit of a kick in the ass, and a symbolic recognition of Jerusalem is that. Their negotiating position about what they want as part of a two state solution might be right, but there's no way Israel is going to give it to them. The US will never really strongarm Israel either. Maybe the Palestinians will, for now, have to accept a little less. if that were the actual case made, i'd be willing to consider it; but that's not the case being made. also, trying something different that still won't work isn't really a plan. it's just inflaming things for no gain. i'ts been clear for ages that palestine is demanding things they will never be able to get; they're understandably unwilling to accept less. pressure will not change that, especially not a midl inflammatory thing like this which doesn't actually change the situation on the ground much at all. a tiny "kick in the ass" like this is nothing compared to what else has happened there, so it won't chnage anything. Trump is a blithering idiot and Kushner probably couldn't make peace between two girls in middle school. That doesn't change the fact that what we're doing in the Middle East, especially Israel and Palestine, just isn't working. Palestine is in a shit situation, and it doesn't matter what moral, ethical or legal claim or case they have to what they demand, they will need to concede and take less because they've got a 2 7 offsuit and Israel has pocket aces. Yeah... If tomorrow Russia by some miracle obliterated the US army and took over the east coast, do you think the US should sign a peace treaty giving away the east coast rather then fight to the last for their home because 'its not gonna happen anyway'? Should the varies European resistances have just given up during WW2 when it looked bleak? People have fought against impossible odds for their home throughout history. Telling the Palestinians to just give up is completely devoid of reality. The only reason Palestinians have any land at all is the fact that it would be bad PR to kick em out. Not a great comparison. Also "bleak" is a tremendous understatement. In your eyes, what non-handout path do they have? What will allow Palestinians to beat Israel? In my eyes, no path actually even exists. The question is do you support circumstantial (outside the specific ethnicity) ethnic cleansing or is it dependent on the ethnicity being cleansed? TIL the poli thread, like the Senate, has bipartisan support of ethnic cleansing... User was warned for this post Show nested quote +Not everything has to work in extremes, "Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar."
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
JBright I call bullshit. He is literally advocating ethnic cleansing.
I'm with GH here, that warning makes no sense since Mohdoo is actually arguing for it.
|
On December 07 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:
also, dont' we have an actual thread for the israel issue?
I wanted to stick to the us politics issue of the embassy move; but people keep shifting into more general israel/palestine issues. I thought there was a thread for that.
(i'm ignoring some other people's response cuz they're not worth responding to)
you know that saying "im ignoring you" is not actually ignoring anything right?
|
On December 07 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:
(i'm ignoring some other people's response cuz they're not worth responding to)
This is much more effective if you actually ignore the responses.
Also, you responded to me in the main thread not half an hour before writing this. Does my identity and whether or not I'm worth responding to vary by the hour or something?
|
I'm just surprised to see a mod action from JBright
|
|
|
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit?
|
Yeah, there's a point where just letting these people casually assert that millions of other people are dangerous monsters does more harm than good.
|
On December 15 2017 01:15 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, there's a point where just letting these people casually assert that millions of other people are dangerous monsters does more harm than good.
Seems like a natural progression to justify the ethnic cleansing that was being advocated for the other day. All of this is connected and it's not the first time many people have seen it, but it's going to take an even darker turn before long if an example isn't made.
|
On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit?
Oh, this is just rich.
Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree.
Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
