^ And even if you're talking in general you still have a somewhat naive view. You just can't simply discuss racism and sexism with people and expect them to come out understanding and accepting of why's it's bad and should be repudiated 100% of the time. It's just not that simple.
Yeah, it's a sensitive topic, but calmly talking is far more productive than angrily yelling at people, which was my point about why SJWs cause tons of damage to any movement they happen to join.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-signs-trump-going-to-f2A2Aking-hate-being-president/
These articles calm me.
Has anyone brought up these supposed deals Trump has made over these past few days to keep American jobs from leaving the country?
The first case with Ford appears to be bogus. While Ford did plan on moving a plant over to Mexico it was never at the expense of American jobs, specifically in Kentucky. The plant in Kentucky was just going to shift production to producing a different kind of car (the better selling one) and the new plant in Mexico was going to produce the lesser selling car. No shut down. No job loss.
As for the other claim made by Trump involving a different company, Carrier, it appears to be more credible.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-disappointed-carrier-agreement-keep-232858468.html
Here are tweets regarding Ford.
[hide]
[/hide]And tweets regarding Carrier.
[hide]
[/hide]
lol Trump threw a bag of money at Carrier and exploited his veep's connections as Indiana governor. The only thing corporations need to do is threaten to move to Mexico and Trump will give them tax cuts.
I heard differently - that he threatened to revoke military contracts to Carrier if they moved. Though, I'm not entirely sure what kind of contracts an air conditioning company would get in the first place.
I feel like Milania Trump may be a whole lot more dangerous than we anticipated.
lol Trump threw a bag of money at Carrier and exploited his veep's connections as Indiana governor. The only thing corporations need to do is threaten to move to Mexico and Trump will give them tax cuts.
I heard differently - that he threatened to revoke military contracts to Carrier if they moved. Though, I'm not entirely sure what kind of contracts an air conditioning company would get in the first place.
This article mentions both of those reasons for why Carrier decided to stay.
http://www.attn.com/stories/13189/the-big-problem-with-trumps-deal-carrier
@Article:
Sources close to the deal indicated that Pence negotiated directly with the CEO of Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, and that he offered the company financial incentives to stay, along with a pledge from Trump to cut corporate taxes. CNBC also quoted sources who said that United Technologies didn't want to jeopardize lucrative government contracts, which would cost them much more than they'd save by moving the plants to Mexico.
But instead of calling it "a bag of money" they called it "financial incentives" and instead of saying "military contracts" they said "government contracts".
I feel like Milania Trump may be a whole lot more dangerous than we anticipated.
In her defence, that's her son, the video would probably do some serious psychological damage to the kid if he saw it, and targeting a child for views is quite simply a dick move. It has no relation to anything political, the guy was pulling assumptions out of his ass without considering the consequences for Barron, and even if he were on the spectrum, why publicise it? For money? Even if it leads to the kid getting bullied at school and attacked by mean children through no fault of his own? Melania's reaction is perfectly natural, and if it were your kid, you'd probably do the same.
Have some empathy for god's sake, I can understand attacking Trump, but attacking a mother for defending her child any way she can is just going way too far. She has every right to threaten a lawsuit, and she (rightly, in my view) did so.
It's a far cry to jump from 'mother in position of power defends child from unwarranted slander using legal means' to 'she's evil because she wants to censor opinions!'. Making law and using the law to your advantage are two very different things, to equate them is not reasonable.
I feel like Milania Trump may be a whole lot more dangerous than we anticipated.
I don't like Melania but I wouldn't say that's censorship.
Its a parent's job to protect their kid. And all that video does is attack a 10 yr old boy with unfounded comments.
Many of the things he says indicate autistic I see as a ten year old acting like a 10 yr old would.
I feel like Milania Trump may be a whole lot more dangerous than we anticipated.
Yeah I greatly dislike when people especially adults target kids because their parents are in the spot light. Barron (he didn't pick that name) should be seen as off limits.
It's like that Honey boo boo show. The kid was sorta the focus. But she's also a kid that has a train wreck family. That's not her fault.
In her defence, that's her son, the video would probably do some serious psychological damage to the kid if he saw it, and targeting a child for views is quite simply a dick move. It has no relation to anything political, the guy was pulling assumptions out of his ass without considering the consequences for Barron, and even if he were on the spectrum, why publicise it? For money? Even if it leads to the kid getting bullied at school and attacked by mean children through no fault of his own? Melania's reaction is perfectly natural, and if it were your kid, you'd probably do the same.
Have some empathy for god's sake, I can understand attacking Trump, but attacking a mother for defending her child any way she can is just going way too far. She has every right to threaten a lawsuit, and she (rightly, in my view) did so.
It's a far cry to jump from 'mother in position of power defends child from unwarranted slander using legal means' to 'she's evil because she wants to censor opinions!'. Making law and using the law to your advantage are two very different things, to equate them is not reasonable.
agreed.that she is scarily protective over her son is not really that weird.
I'm sorry that you've been hurt. I know how it feels to be falsely associated with bad people against your will, and that's an unfortunate part of the SJW cycle of destruction.
The rage-fueled backlash against SJWs is also a major problem, generally resulting in a lot of fighting and a lot of negative emotions that accomplish very little. You're essentially stuck in a situation where people you don't know who claim to represent you are picking fights with society en masse and allowing you to be the scapegoat, and few things in life are worse than an abusive relationship of that caliber.
Unfortunately, it's a complex problem involving large numbers of people and I'm really not sure how to solve it other than just sitting down and talking about it.
Yes, that's the strawman usage you were referencing. Rin was unfortunately mislabeled and judged when her views didn't directly oppose the views of extreme intersectional feminists (the group most plagued by SJWs right now). Her views were reasonable and not authoritarian, but unfortunately angry people didn't care. Most people would agree that Rin is not an SJW.
No, the conversations I've had were pretty clear. The way "SJW" is widely being used online is "Pejorative for Any vocal progressive".
Don't take my word for it however, check Wikipedia, and of course, follow the sources they cite rather than just taking what's there at face value. The common dominating theme of SJW is just "Vocal Progressive" and holds no other inherent connotation.
To underscore this, the term actually got added to the Oxford Dictionary in mid-2015, and what is their official definition based on the word's most common use?
@Oxford Dictionary:
social justice warrior
NOUNinformal, derogatory
A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views:
‘these social justice warriors want to apply their politically correct standards and rules to others' speech’
It's in the dictionary now. It has an official dictionary definition. You can look up what it "Means" in the dictionary. What it "Means" is "A person who is vocally progressive".
You're basically like a person right now arguing: "Stop calling yourselves 'gay' homosexual people, that word doesn't mean that! It means 'happy'! Stop using it wrong!"
It may have meant that at one time, but a different usage emerged and became so ubiquitous that it is now the dictionary definition of the term.
That being said, because of this definition, the way the word typically gets used is, I say: "Hey, I love Rey in the new Star Wars movie! It's awesome because girls who are growing up Star Wars fans now have a Main character Jedi girl to look up to!" and it gets met with "Star Wars is a guy's movie!
take everything from us!!"The problem now, is because it’s a word that's official dictionary definition is: "Derogatory word for Vocal Progressives", and that's how it's being used, vocal progressives like me now see it and immediately seeing it comes off to us as: "By using this word, I'm immediately invalidating your point of view and will not listen to it".
If I had to compare it to something else, it'd be like discussing Racism with someone using the term "Nr" to casually refer to black people who actually happen to be criminals (from the speaker's perspective) and every time someone tries to call him out on it he goes "No, I'm not calling ALL Black people Nrs, only the criminal ones who really legitimately deserve to be in prison".
Even if everything else that guy has to say is respectful and on point and he has what would otherwise be a valid point to make about racism, the fact that he's actually using the word "N****r", and not just to refer to the word, but to refer to people will cause literally everyone to just tune him out and ignore anything he has to say. It's just human nature. It's like if you’re watching a conservative call a liberal a "Libtard" or a Democrat call a Republican a "Repugnican". You see those clear insults meant to invalidate an entire side's argument in one swoop, and on some level at least, you roll your eyes and take the person using it less seriously.
If you don't want people reacting that way to the term "SJW" maybe stop using it? With the way you're using it, it seems "Extreme Left" or "Radical Left" might be more apt.
I'm really confused. Do you not believe that people who aren't die-hard racists or staunch defenders of racist groups exist?
Part of this problem is that, while you're right that people exist who are Not Die-hard racists who can be talked with, you still end up where the people in power as well as the news media have an aversion to talking about Race issues. Like it or not, you can find a dude on the street who is totally cool talking about these issues in a rational way… but the Politicians are ultimately the ones who will make the calls, and the news pundits are going to be the ones who's message reaches the largest crowd of people, and the conservative side of those two groups have been pushing a narrative that says there's no such thing as Racism anymore.
Bill O’Reilly
Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity
Eric Bolling
Here an article from The Federalist, a conservative news source that isn't Breitbart levels of biased, where a conservative is conceding that yes: A lot of conservatives like to pretend Racism isn't a thing.
To Quote it directly:
@ of The Federalist:
Too often, people of color find themselves trapped between a Left that exaggerates racism and a Right that pretends it doesn’t exist. Under these circumstances it is difficult to blame them for choosing the former.
[…]
Racism is real. It happens. It’s no good pretending it doesn’t. And it’s no good pretending that police deal with white kids the same way they deal with black kids. Irrational racist bias is still a part of our lives. It’s true that racism has a very different form than it did half a century ago. Our laws have moved towards equality, even to inequality to address historic racism, such as affirmative action. There isn’t much more the state can do to promote racial equality, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing we as Americans can do.
He goes on to explain other things I won't say I necessarily agree with, like he starts to try to give things he thinks would need to be done to fix Racism, but that's not what I was trying to highlight here. Just that the overall perception that Conservatives like to pretend racism doesn't exist IS a well-known problem that people have noticed.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
How would you suggest I describe these kinds of dangerous fanatics that morally subvert political movements by spreading panic and rage?
Part of this problem is that, while you're right that people exist who are Not Die-hard racists who can be talked with, you still end up where the people in power as well as the news media have an aversion to talking about Race issues. Like it or not, you can find a dude on the street who is totally cool talking about these issues in a rational way… but the Politicians are ultimately the ones who will make the calls, and the news pundits are going to be the ones who's message reaches the largest crowd of people, and the conservative side of those two groups have been pushing a narrative that says there's no such thing as Racism anymore.
This conversation keeps going like this:
(me) It's not cool to yell at people, you should discuss things calmly and rationally.
(other person) But the people in power are horrible and racist!
I don't understand why the second statement keeps being used as a response to the first. The existence of Bill O'Reilly and Milo Yiannopoulos is not a valid reason to harass and abuse your peers, and doing so is not going to accomplish anything.
Beautiful response, Rin.
How would you suggest I describe these kinds of dangerous fanatics that morally subvert political movements by spreading panic and rage?
By not wasting yours and others' time ruminating on a ridiculous strawman.
The "dangerous fanatical leftist" is a complete non-presence in any national-level debate. A boogeyman created by the alt-right and social conservatives to convince you that they're fighting an actual enemy, instead of just being shitheads themselves. Random Tumblr Gurl #387 who wants an all-female cast in every movie is an irrelevant non-entity when it comes to the very real issues we discuss here, which involve the stripping of human rights from marginalized minorities.
The panic and rage that real people are feeling is genuine and necessary. Stop trivializing it or otherwise blaming it for the problems created by the actual perpetrators.
This is not an enemy that deserves calm, rational discussion or anything less than complete opposition in the face of their inhumane policies and ideals. They spit on any chance for reconciliation by voting Trump.
@CCC:
By not wasting yours and others' time ruminating on a ridiculous strawman.
The "dangerous fanatical leftist" is a complete non-presence in any national-level debate. A boogeyman created by the alt-right and social conservatives to convince you that they're fighting an actual enemy, instead of just being shitheads themselves. Random Tumblr Gurl #387 who wants an all-female cast in every movie is an irrelevant non-entity when it comes to the very real issues we discuss here, which involve the stripping of human rights from marginalized minorities.
The panic and rage that real people are feeling is genuine and necessary. Stop trivializing it or otherwise blaming it for the problems created by the actual perpetrators.
I think a lot of crazies supporting historical movements like prohibition, the red scare and the Salem witch trials fit right in.
Were those people all dangerous fanatical leftists too? You need to face facts and realize that this kind of moral absolutism happens with startling regularity on both sides, and you could argue that Bannon and his ilk are damaging Trump's administration in a near-identical way.
This really isn't a left-or-right issue, these people exist on both sides and I've met them. Disposable income, free time and ignorant rage can do a lot of damage, as I'm sure you've seen the Westboro Baptist Church do.
With the vote difference in PA only being 46k, Jill Stein is officially a spoiler candidate in all three crucial states that Clinton lost.
Green Party writes history again!
With the vote difference in PA only being 46k, Jill Stein is officially a spoiler candidate in all three crucial states that Clinton lost.
Green Party writes history again!
But you see, Hillary gave speeches to Goldman Sachs and futhermore
Gary Johnson stole more votes from Trump than Jill Stein stole from Hillary though.
Gary Johnson stole more votes from Trump than Jill Stein stole from Hillary though.
You always say this when this topic is brought up, why?
Were those people all dangerous fanatical leftists too?
Prohibition = religious "moral" conservatives against the sinful temptations of alcohol
Red scare = "a promotion of fear of a potential rise of communism or radical leftism" by conservatives of the day (fun fact: my grandparents were blacklisted!)
Witch trials = religious wackjobs having blind belief in preachers over logic and science
None of your examples even come close to "fanatical leftism." They were all on the opposite side of the spectrum in one way or another. Is that somehow the point you were trying to make…? Not seeing it.
It's absolutely a left-right/progressive-conservative issue, and the conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. Every time.
They opposed alcohol.
They oppose(d) civil rights (and still do!).
They oppose(d) women voting (some still do).
They oppose religious freedom (it's only for Christians!).
They oppose gay rights.
They oppose trans rights.
They oppose gun reform.
They oppose police reform.
They oppose income equality.
They oppose minimum wage hikes.
They oppose saving the environment.
They oppose infrastructure.
They oppose NASA.
They oppose science itself.
They oppose a woman's right to bodily integrity.
They oppose marijuana legalization.
They oppose stem cell research to save lives.
Every inch of progress in modern society was fought for and hard won by progressive efforts, and it only happens when people on the left drag the resistant right kicking and screaming into the light, forcing them either to adapt or go extinct. They never go willingly or easily (why would they? seriously?), and they never will, no matter how much you want a polite roundtable discussion about it.
I honestly don't see a point in continuing this "debate" when you're so firmly committed to this baffling devil's advocate position. There are no winners.
To balance out the narrative of "third party candidates are always spoilers".
But this isn't about third parties in general, it's about jill stein who is a spoiler candidate. and that she directly contributed to trump being elected.
This country has always had a much bigger problem with violent fanatical conservatives than it does with violent fanatical leftists.
In her defence, that's her son, the video would probably do some serious psychological damage to the kid if he saw it, and targeting a child for views is quite simply a dick move. It has no relation to anything political, the guy was pulling assumptions out of his ass without considering the consequences for Barron, and even if he were on the spectrum, why publicise it? For money? Even if it leads to the kid getting bullied at school and attacked by mean children through no fault of his own? Melania's reaction is perfectly natural, and if it were your kid, you'd probably do the same.
Have some empathy for god's sake, I can understand attacking Trump, but attacking a mother for defending her child any way she can is just going way too far. She has every right to threaten a lawsuit, and she (rightly, in my view) did so.
It's a far cry to jump from 'mother in position of power defends child from unwarranted slander using legal means' to 'she's evil because she wants to censor opinions!'. Making law and using the law to your advantage are two very different things, to equate them is not reasonable.
On one hand, I can understand her wanting to protect her child, but on the other, this just continues to illustrate autism to be the end-all, be-all, worst thing that can happen to your child that too many people believe. It's half the reason anti-vaxxers toot their horns, because they illustrate autism as worse than your child getting small pox and the small pox virus getting stronger.
On one hand, I can understand her wanting to protect her child, but on the other, this just continues to illustrate autism to be the end-all, be-all, worst thing that can happen to your child that too many people believe. It's half the reason anti-vaxxers toot their horns, because they illustrate autism as worse than your child getting small pox and the small pox virus getting stronger.
It doesn't help though to possibly misdiagnos a kid he never met who he's only seen in weird public scenarios.
But thete is this weird thing where people are scared to death of their kids having sny form of autism or aspbergers butvwe have so many shows where the overwhelming genius character seems to fall under some spectrum.
But thete is this weird thing where people are scared to death of their kids having sny form of autism or aspbergers butvwe have so many shows where the overwhelming genius character seems to fall under some spectrum.
Not to mention it's not like it's some super contagious disease or anything or that.
How would you suggest I describe these kinds of dangerous fanatics that morally subvert political movements by spreading panic and rage?
You just came up with a fairly good way to describe them… "dangerous fanatics that morally subvert political movements by spreading panic and rage".
Or just "Extremist" or "Fanatic" works too. You seem to be talking more about tactics than ideology anyway, so using a term that includes "Social Justice" might not be apt anyway considering you are applying it to conservatives too.
@RoboBlue:
This conversation keeps going like this:
(me) It's not cool to yell at people, you should discuss things calmly and rationally.
(other person) But the people in power are horrible and racist!
I don't understand why the second statement keeps being used as a response to the first. The existence of Bill O'Reilly and Milo Yiannopoulos is not a valid reason to harass and abuse your peers, and doing so is not going to accomplish anything.
The problem is that you seem to be focusing on one side of the issue rather than looking at it from a coherent whole.
Your argument can easily be applied the other way around from the other perspective:
The conversation keeps going like this:
Me: Hey, racism is a problem we need to tackle and we need to try to do whatever we can to minimize it.
Other Person: Racism doesn’t exist! At all! We elected a Black president, so that means Racism is over!
The problem is that there are moderate and extreme voices on both sides of this issue, and they’re honestly creating a feedback loop at this point.
Some like me and CCC might argue that the “dangerous fanatical leftist” exists but doesn’t have nearly as loud of a voice at the national level, so it isn’t nearly as big of an issue…. I mean, I can name people in our media that have a high prescience like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity who have made the claim that Racism doesn’t exist… where are the high-level liberal pundits saying the dangerous liberal stuff?…
But ignoring that for a moment and, for the sake of discussion we’ll ignore that and say that these sides both have exactly equal levels of influence over the media and an equal level of permeation in the public consciousness.
It’s a feedback loop. Both sides actually feed each other. Yes, screaming “racist” at everyone and shutting down the conversation IS bad, but the only reason that works is because the conservative response is typically “Racism doesn’t exist”. To quote that author from the federalist again because he’s got a point:
@”The:
Too often, people of color find themselves trapped between a Left that exaggerates racism and a Right that pretends it doesn’t exist. Under these circumstances it is difficult to blame them for choosing the former.
When you are looking at two of the major political parties and one of them says “Hey, we hear you, and we want to help fix your problems” and the other says “Your problems literally don’t exist”, it makes it seem like you only have one choice to pick if you want the problem fixed. Even if some of the tactics used are wrong and are hurting more than helping, it’s still a choice between one side that admits there’s a problem and says it wants to fix it, and a side that says “Nope, nothing wrong at all”. It enables the crazies and the ones who go too far, because as long as the other side is constantly pretending there isn’t a problem at all, the side who at least admits there’s a problem is always going to look better by comparison to someone Experiencing the problem.
What’s more, in that atmosphere, can you entirely blame people for being angry and lashing out and acting on emotion? When you have an issue that is about your most basic human rights, that is honestly life or death in some circumstances like the Police shootings issue, can you entirely blame people for being angry that there are people Dying and yet Still the overarching conservative narrative remains that there isn’t a problem?
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
Were those people all dangerous fanatical leftists too? You need to face facts and realize that this kind of moral absolutism happens with startling regularity on both sides, and you could argue that Bannon and his ilk are damaging Trump's administration in a near-identical way.
Wait are you saying those things were leftist or progressive driven movements??
The only angle that functions on is many first wave feminists were for prohibition, but it was hardly just them.
The other two….the heck?
The fanatical leftism of Joe McCarthy.
@Monkey:
So did anything good happened this year internationally? Aside from ISIS being beaten up across the board?
It seems that whenever fate tossed a coin, it came up shit.
Trump is US.
Brexit in UK.
Filipino Trump in the Philippines.
Failed coup against Turkish Trump.I don't really know if Castro and Karimov is enough.
… my otp in my favorite show went from crack ship to probability
sounds stupid i know but it's the only thing that cheers me up anymore right now
also uh... pokemon?
In her defence, that's her son, the video would probably do some serious psychological damage to the kid if he saw it,
If Barron is anything like his father he'll just get mad and vent. At least he wouldn't be in the wrong if he did though.
Welp nothing makes sense anymore
More than half of Trump supporters, however, think repeal would help them personally.
Yeah because being without healthcare or considerably worse healthcare would certainly be nice.
I've often wondered about that myself; seems like being supported by people who only want you there so the world can end in fire (with you going to Hell in the process) would be somewhat off-putting
3DS Friend Code 0044-2806-5284
Yeah because being without healthcare or considerably worse healthcare would certainly be nice.
The thought of those people not having health care will be a good blessing to them as they also die of easily-treatable ailments.
I'm not surprised about Trump spouting totally different things about Pakistan. He really has the worst memory and there's always proof.
I'm not surprised about Trump spouting totally different things about Pakistan. He really has the worst memory and there's always proof.
Peoples opinions can change over the course of 4.5+ years. Pakistan also has a new Prime Minister since those old tweets. As our president-elect, would you honestly rather him go out of his way to strain our relationship with Pakistan instead?
Peoples opinions can change over the course of 4.5+ years.
Yeah except in this case Trump doesn't come off as very genuine. Dude's essentially blowing smoke up the prime minister's ass.
would you honestly rather him go out of his way to strain our relationship with Pakistan instead?
Depending on what he actually does he may wind up straining our relationship with India so it's not like someone isn't going to go away with hurt feelings.
Peoples opinions can change over the course of 4.5+ years. Pakistan also has a new Prime Minister since those old tweets. As our president-elect, would you honestly rather him go out of his way to strain our relationship with Pakistan instead?
He already is by doing business with India.
@Monkey:
So did anything good happened this year internationally? Aside from ISIS being beaten up across the board?
It seems that whenever fate tossed a coin, it came up shit.
Trump is US.
Brexit in UK.
Filipino Trump in the Philippines.
Failed coup against Turkish Trump.I don't really know if Castro and Karimov is enough.
If it helps, I've seen this passed around a few times for people really bummed about this year. A tiny bit of it may have or may be undone, but every little helps: http://helthehatter.tumblr.com/post/152910935316/good-things-that-happened-in-2016
Peoples opinions can change over the course of 4.5+ years. Pakistan also has a new Prime Minister since those old tweets. As our president-elect, would you honestly rather him go out of his way to strain our relationship with Pakistan instead?
That's amazing Louis. Tell us how Pakistani politics have changed since 2012 concerning the state elements involved in Taliban and Bin Laden related subterfuge with the ISI, and how the shift of Prime Ministers has effected this. Namely how a shift of power from a center-left party to an Islamic political party has decisively altered such matters.
Also this time please don't invent "facts" from thin air, and perhaps elect to stop responding at all if in fact that is all you are capable of responding with. Just a friendly suggestion.
Yeah except in this case Trump doesn't come off as very genuine. Dude's essentially blowing smoke up the prime minister's ass.
And so does pretty much every politician ever, lol.
Time will tell, lets give the man a chance. He's going to be our president soon, so we should want to see him succeed with and bring to fruition such intentions.
@Monkey:
That's amazing Louis. Tell us how Pakistani politics have changed since 2012 concerning the state elements involved in Taliban and Bin Laden related subterfuge with the ISI, and how the shift of Prime Ministers has effected this. Namely how a shift of power from a center-left party to an Islamic political party has decisively altered such matters.
Also this time please don't invent "facts" from thin air, and perhaps elect to stop responding at all if in fact that is all you are capable of responding with. Just a friendly suggestion.
Huh? :wassat:
Where do you come up with this stuff?
All I was alluding to is that it's silly to criticize Trump for being optimistic about his intent to strengthen relations with a country we currently have tensions with just because of some tweets he made nearly five years ago before he was a politician and while Pakistan had a different leader.
Also, I've never "invented" any facts. Just because you might not like what I have to say sometimes doesn't make the points any less valid. If this is something that bothers you, then I would suggest that you elect to use the ignore function to avoid any further triggering. Just a friendly and totally non passive-aggressive suggestion.
@CCC:
Prohibition = religious "moral" conservatives against the sinful temptations of alcohol
Red scare = "a promotion of fear of a potential rise of communism or radical leftism" by conservatives of the day (fun fact: my grandparents were blacklisted!)
Witch trials = religious wackjobs having blind belief in preachers over logic and scienceNone of your examples even come close to "fanatical leftism." They were all on the opposite side of the spectrum in one way or another. Is that somehow the point you were trying to make…? Not seeing it.
That's because fanatical authoritarians are not exclusive to the left, as I previously stated. I provided those examples to show you that the problem exists on the right too (and as Ubiq pointed out, have been historically more prevalent and done more long-term damage). You can't "debunk" the point I was making by using my words to support your views and simultaneously claim that I'm wrong.
@RoboBlue:
Were those people all dangerous fanatical leftists too? You need to face facts and realize that this kind of moral absolutism happens with startling regularity on both sides, and you could argue that Bannon and his ilk are damaging Trump's administration in a near-identical way.
This really isn't a left-or-right issue, these people exist on both sides and I've met them. Disposable income, free time and ignorant rage can do a lot of damage, as I'm sure you've seen the Westboro Baptist Church do.
@CCC:
It's absolutely a left-right/progressive-conservative issue, and the conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. Every time.
They opposed alcohol.
They oppose(d) civil rights (and still do!).
They oppose(d) women voting (some still do).
They oppose religious freedom (it's only for Christians!).
They oppose gay rights.
They oppose trans rights.
They oppose gun reform.
They oppose police reform.
They oppose income equality.
They oppose minimum wage hikes.
They oppose saving the environment.
They oppose infrastructure.
They oppose NASA.
They oppose science itself.
They oppose a woman's right to bodily integrity.
They oppose marijuana legalization.
They oppose stem cell research to save lives.
Every inch of progress in modern society was fought for and hard won by progressive efforts, and it only happens when people on the left drag the resistant right kicking and screaming into the light, forcing them either to adapt or go extinct. They never go willingly or easily (why would they? seriously?), and they never will, no matter how much you want a polite roundtable discussion about it.I honestly don't see a point in continuing this "debate" when you're so firmly committed to this baffling devil's advocate position. There are no winners.
So you're claiming that all conservatives have ever worked for throughout all of history has been morally evil? Really?
The things you listed are all bad things that the Republican Party has pushed for (and also all things that the Democratic party has pushed for), but you can't reasonably claim that there's a conservative consensus on those things. Do you seriously believe that most conservatives are against religious freedom, marijuana legalization and infrastructure?
Consider this important quote from Susan B Anthony:
What words can express her [the white woman’s] humiliation when, at the close of this long conflict, the government which she had served so faithfully held her unworthy of a voice in its councils, while it recognized as the political superiors of all the noble women of the nation the negro men just emerged from slavery, and not only totally illiterate, but also densely ignorant of every public question.
That quote, damning as it is, cannot and should not be used to condemn all feminists throughout history as racist and evil. Don't make the same mistake with other groups just because you disagree with them.
@Monkey:
Wait are you saying those things were leftist or progressive driven movements??
The only angle that functions on is many first wave feminists were for prohibition, but it was hardly just them.
The other two….the heck?
I was using them as examples to explain to CCC that I wasn't talking about an exclusively left-wing group. They were obviously all conservative, that was the point.
She then used my examples to disprove her own concept of a left-exclusive boogieman and then go on a weird rant about how the right has always been evil.
But this isn't about third parties in general, it's about jill stein who is a spoiler candidate. and that she directly contributed to trump being elected.
I guess, but the immediate conclusion people seem drawn to is "never vote independent because it spoils the good guy and brings about the downfall of society". I'm not really sure what the point of saying that Jill Stein spoiled the election for Hillary Clinton is otherwise.
And so does pretty much every politician ever, lol.
Lol Trump's not a politician, he's a shady business man from old money pretending to be one to help his friends, family, & business associates…..all the while settling petty scores.
Time will tell, lets give the man a chance.
If you want to give Mr. Tiny Baby hands and his crony's the chance to fuck us and the next generation every which way but loose go ahead. The rest us are going to be sitting here (hopefully) come 2020 looking back on the potential failure of his presidential administration and laughing at everyone who either thought Trump was the Great White Hope…...or wouldn't be as bad as Hillary would've been while reminding them how their fence sitting or gullibility was the very thing that set the bullshit in motion.
He's going to be our president soon, so we should want to see him succeed with and bring to fruition such intentions.
Succeed at what?
The only thing I wanna see is him hopefully getting impeached leading to the Republican party pissing off his base in the process. Or at the least see him and all posse get tossed out on their asses in 2020. I don't really have no reason to believe he will succeed so of course I'm not going to wish for it, as he doesn't deserve that.
Do you seriously believe that most conservatives are against religious freedom, marijuana legalization and infrastructure?
Do you have any proof, that they aren't?
Because they're the ones insisting that Muslims (and to a lesser extent) Jews are a blight on this country. They never have pushed for improving our infrastructure to my recollection…..Don't really know about Marijuana legalization but it's telling Democrats have been the ones pushing to legalize it for recreational and/or medicinal purposes while Republicans steadfastly refuse to expand medicaid in various states, trying to criminalize abortion both at the state and federal level, stamping out voting rights, keep trying to slash taxes to bring down deficits or some other logically dubious thing.
I've often wondered about that myself; seems like being supported by people who only want you there so the world can end in fire (with you going to Hell in the process) would be somewhat off-putting
3DS Friend Code 0044-2806-5284
Do you have any proof, that they aren't?
You're defending an extraordinary claim (a massive generalization about roughly half of the population), so the burden of proof falls upon you.
We're really just falling into the "literally all Republicans are racist" debate again, and I'm sick of it.
You're defending an extraordinary claim (a massive generalization about roughly half of the population), so the burden of proof falls upon you.
We're really just falling into the "literally all Republicans are racist" debate again, and I'm sick of it.
You're basically trying to play it off like for the last 30 years or so Republicans haven't actually done any of the things CCC listed off that they've done.
Even with the evidence pretty much being there to prove that they have. You're essentially saying we can't put the onus for certain things almost entirely on Republicans…...eventhough we actually can.
I mean I know you're trying to play devil's advocate as usual but this is borderline laughable because of it's absurdity. Also I wasn't talking about the population of the country.....most of the country aren't elected officials who have the power to make something legal or illegal.
When you are looking at two of the major political parties and one of them says “Hey, we hear you, and we want to help fix your problems” and the other says “Your problems literally don’t exist”, it makes it seem like you only have one choice to pick if you want the problem fixed. Even if some of the tactics used are wrong and are hurting more than helping, it’s still a choice between one side that admits there’s a problem and says it wants to fix it, and a side that says “Nope, nothing wrong at all”. It enables the crazies and the ones who go too far, because as long as the other side is constantly pretending there isn’t a problem at all, the side who at least admits there’s a problem is always going to look better by comparison to someone Experiencing the problem.
What’s more, in that atmosphere, can you entirely blame people for being angry and lashing out and acting on emotion? When you have an issue that is about your most basic human rights, that is honestly life or death in some circumstances like the Police shootings issue, can you entirely blame people for being angry that there are people Dying and yet Still the overarching conservative narrative remains that there isn’t a problem?
It's really interesting (and depressing) how that point appears to apply to both sides. The right looks racist and uncaring because some influential people on the right claim that one black president disproves racism, and the left looks racist and uncaring because some influential people on the left claim that white people can never be victims of racism.
We've gotten to a point where both sides talk past each other and an increasing number of people within both groups view the other group as irredeemably evil. :(
The right looks racist and uncaring because some influential people on the right claim that one black president disproves racism, and the left looks racist and uncaring because some influential people on the left claim that white people can never be victims of racism
Well, sure, maybe the right does have Congressmen and state legislatures who enact laws designed to keep minorities from voting and obstruct programs designed to help minorities achieve a level playing field but some liberal people outside of the government say mean things about white people. So both sides are just as bad.
Complicating things since 2009.
the left looks racist and uncaring because some influential people on the left claim that white people can never be victims of racism.
We've gotten to a point where both sides talk past each other and an increasing number of people within both groups view the other group as irredeemably evil. :(
Are you really comparing some people making generalized questionable comments to people in positions of power disregarding problems that impact the lives of thousands of minorities because they -as Rin stated- act like those problems magically don't exist?
Lol Trump's not a politician, he's a shady business man from old money pretending to be one to help his friends, family, & business associates…..all the while settling petty scores.
Uhh, this has nothing to do with anything regarding the point I was making, but okay. :wassat:
If you want to give Mr. Tiny Baby hands and his crony's the chance to fuck us and the next generation every which way but loose go ahead. The rest us are going to be sitting here (hopefully) come 2020 looking back on the potential failure of his presidential administration and laughing at everyone who either thought Trump was the Great White Hope…...or wouldn't be as bad as Hillary would've been while reminding them how their fence sitting or gullibility was the very thing that set the bullshit in motion.
He's got some potentially great things coming down the pipeline that I'm open-minded enough to rally behind. Plans to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure, plans to end TPP and plans to impose a 35% tariff on manufacturers trying to take American jobs overseas or across the border. These are all great things for middle-class America.
- driving up the deficit?
- causing millions to lose their health insurance or jobs?
- messing up our relationship with some of our allies?
- bringing Paul Ryan's dreams of killing social security to life?
- appointing a conservative or two to the supreme court and opening up the floodgates for the courts to overtturn or block progress?
The only thing I wanna see is him hopefully getting impeached leading to the Republican party pissing off his base in the process. Or at the least see him and all posse get tossed out on their asses in 2020. I don't really have no reason to believe he will succeed so of course I'm not going to wish for it, as he doesn't deserve that.
So you have no interest in seeing the man succeed even at things that would help a lot of people or mend relations with countries we have strained or tenuous relationships with? That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Well, sure, maybe the right does have Congressmen and state legislatures who enact laws designed to keep minorities from voting and obstruct programs designed to help minorities achieve a level playing field but some liberal people outside of the government say mean things about white people. So both sides are just as bad.
I just… is it completely impossible to have a discussion about how people outside of the government act without someone getting offended because "the right has bigots in power"?
Yes, clearly institutionalized bigotry on the right hurts minorities directly through government action. Institutionalized bigotry on the left hurts minorities by driving voters away from the Democrats, leaving the Republicans with more political power. These are problems that should be worked on and not dismissed with partisan bitterness.
When people dislike the Democrats, Republicans get elected. That's what happened this year.
Are you really comparing some people making generalized questionable comments to people in positions of power disregarding problems that impact the lives of thousands of minorities because they -as Rin stated- act like those problems magically don't exist?
No, I was not.
Uhh, this has nothing to do with anything regarding the point I was making, but okay. :wassat:
You pointed out all politician's give lip-service, more or less playing it off like Donald Trump is one of them…...eventhough he isn't, never was, and despite his being elected never will be. He'll just be "that guy 45".
Plans to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure,
I don't know what's more strange the fact you think he'll (and congress) will actually do this or the fact that something about spending that much on our infastructure is setting off alarm bells
in my head
plans to end TPP and plans to impose a 35% tariff on manufacturers trying to take American jobs overseas or across the border. These are all great things for middle-class America.
The TPP deal is a divisive one, and I can easily see Trump reneging on the second promise
especially since it might negatively impact his friends.
- Bush and Obama both drove it up. Obama more than Bush even
Obama drove it up due in no short part to Bush and the financial collapse.
What exactly did you expect Hillary to do differently? She's funded by the same corporate donors and special interests as Obama.
…..I'd take this bit seriously if you weren't pretty much ignoring the fact that Trump and some of his cabinet along with a good portion of congress are taking money from corporate donors
and special interests, you do know this right?
Or are we going to pretend most democrats like Republicans are against gun control or financial reform because they're being paid by the NRA and Corporations to do so?
- Trump has promised
Making a promise and actually doing something are two different things, Trump said he bring back glass-steagal along with keeping parts of the ACA do we have any reason to believe
he'll actually do this…..especially given how he lies and flip-flops?
To say nothing of the fact that with Republicans controlling congress neither of these two thingsare likely to happen anyway.
that he will drive down the costs of health insurance
Which he and republicans intend to do by either gutting or outright repealing the law.
If he can do that,
Which he very likely won't.
then fucking bravo! I'm covered under Obamacare and the damn thing is a fucking headache and a half. If he can repeal and replace it with something better or improve upon it so that it stops sucking and costing so much that would be fantastic in my opinion.
Part of it sucking has to do with things like certain states refusing to expand coverage the otherpart has to do with lack of the single payer option. You're putting an awful lot of blind faith into
people who have gone out of their way to undermine the law at every step and who have tried multiple times to repeal it. Not because it's a bad law mind you they just don't like the fact that t helps people….along with them taking money from special interests to talk shit about it.
- Let's give him a chance.
No, you're also in no position to argue this with your whining and insinuations about how bad Hillary was or would've been.
Trump promised to not touch social security.
Trump also vowed to put an end to cronyism and mitigate the influence of certain entities in ourpolitics, stop buying into his bullshit.
So you have no interest in seeing the man succeed even at things that would help a lot of people
If a good portion of Trump's proposals were practical or sensible, and if they didn't run the huge risk of screwing people over, along with Trump knowing what the hell he was doing. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt but unlike you I'm not that easily swayed by a man whose words are just as valuable as diplomas from his fake university.
mend relations with countries we have strained or tenuous relationships with?
We did nothing to strain our relationships with Russia or Pakistan. And Trump already looks like he's going to fuck up our improving relationships with Iran, Cuba, & along with India.
That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Which is weird because I'm not a bitter Bernie bro who either voted for Trump, Stein, or Johnson or simply chose to stay home in protest because I wanted to make a statement. Even at the risk of screwing myself and countless other people to the wall by allowing an unqualified hack to winthe presidency….."But it's not our fault Hillary lost, she was a terrible candidate the democrats should've never put up".
Institutionalized bigotry on the left hurts minorities by driving voters away from the Democrats,
This had considerably less to do with the democrats losing this election. That's also a bit of reach.
These are problems that should be worked on and not dismissed with partisan bitterness.
Now if only Republicans had taken this to heart back in 2008. Less people would've bought into the current president being a muslim and that somehow being a bad thing, his republican inspired healthcare law being a job killing and money losing piece of legislation, him being accused of dividing the country, his victories in 2008 and 2012 being owned to voter fraud, helped facilitate the rise of both the tea party and Donald Trump, etc.
When people dislike the Democrats, Republicans get elected. That's what happened this year.
People might've disliked democrats (or rather Hillary) but that dislike didn't typically have a whole lot of legitimacy to it.
I've often wondered about that myself; seems like being supported by people who only want you there so the world can end in fire (with you going to Hell in the process) would be somewhat off-putting
3DS Friend Code 0044-2806-5284
People might've disliked democrats but that dislike didn't typically have a whole lot of legitimacy to it.
It varies from person to person. Fake news aside, I think there were more legitimate reasons to dislike the Democrats this cycle than in the past.
 
