Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - D.W.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50
General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 10:37:45 AM »
Was there a single word about the economy? I didn’t hear one thing about it. Weird.
Not hardly enough.  Touched trade I guess.  But no policy/leadership.

Nothing on infrastructure either?  WTF.  Trump's inaction on this one should be a big deal.  Maybe they're afraid they'd remind him about it and he'd pounce to work on it before the election?  And the political loss is somehow more important than him doing something good for the country?  I, just don't know why they'd avoid that.

Maybe they just all agree, and no division means no sparks and that's not sexy tv...

Glad it's not just me on the "OMG they're not gonna call on me, are they?!" look I kept seeing on Booker's face.   :D

General Comments / Re: Koch foods should be held to account
« on: September 13, 2019, 10:33:26 AM »
Fair or lawful? 
Why argue about fairness when what is really at issue is lawmaking, enforcement and trade policy?

and as you describe below you seem to be unaware of a inconsistency in your thoughts
More accurate to say that I'm not as familiar with the assault allegations.  Which, I suppose proves some points about the omnipresence of negative news against Trump in comparison.

If Rock Star finds a groupie in his dressing room, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her, that parses differently from Trump finding a woman in an area where she was seeking him out, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her in what way?

What if the groupie really did like the Rock Star but hated the way they were treated and only had sex because they were afraid to fight back, or because they believed it would start a relationship?
"Fight back" implies a lot.  It could range from standing up for themselves to physically fending off sexual assault...  Cannot answer that part.  As to the last part.  That's consensual.  Unless you want to dive down a rabbit hole of delusional behavior somehow nullifying consent?  None of this tact makes much sense to me as it relates to this discussion.

Why if Bill Clinton is accused of an assault do you respond as if it it were a consensual situation?
Again, deflection because I don't recall the specifics of those.  I wasn't watching the soap opera that was politics as closely then.  Also... it wasn't him on tape talking about it. 

I do assume they both (Bill/Trump) exploit their fame / power to have sex with people (other than their wives).  Did they cross lines?  Seems plausible.  Assault?  IDK, maybe they are above the law and can disappear these problems effectively.

I'm not giving Bill a pass and assuming it's all lies against him.  I just didn't follow his alleged misdeeds as closely as I do Trump's.  I've also said I don't think Trump's statement was a confession of actual rape, only that what he described in a manner that (to me) seemed to indicate he thought it was pretty awesome, that he was able to.  And doing so in a manner that heavily implied he knows this because he's done it before, and possibly often.  HE said that.  Not someone claiming he said it, or did it.  That is a big distinction to me. 

The creepy part about Trump's role in it was his seeming belief that all women are groupies.
Bingo.  A groupie is someone who wants to get close to their idol / powerful target for affection or attention.  You don't see how it changes things when one assumes ALL these women he comes into contact with want him to do these things?  That assuming consent or entitlement is dangerous and disgusting? 

I'm not about to dive into defending Bill's sexual history.  Maybe I should read back on the assault allegations against him.  Granted, he's no longer president...  And I think his wife's aspirations in that regard have been sufficiently derailed that he can be relegated to the history books.  Unless scandals / charges sweep him back into the spotlight...

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 12, 2019, 11:03:03 PM »
So I get that he's the DNC fave... but Biden doesn't perform well in debates, at all.   :-\

As much as I love Sanders, he seems fueled on 100% outrage.  I'd like to see some more calm responses from him than calls to urgency to fight the evils of the status quo.  :P

Warren did pretty well I thought.  And a lot of the peanut gallery did as well or better than expected, given the deck stacked against them in the way these things are structured. 

Harris I think could have done better.  Booker did well but looked like a deer in headlights until he started to answer.  Which, he then did quite well. 

I liked a lot of what Yang had to say but don't think I can get past that bonkers game he made out of his opening statement. 

I liked that the non-front runners are mostly green enough to actually answer questions posed to them, rather than answering somewhat related questions that nobody asked about.  At least, more so than is standard...

If we are fortunate it won't ever happen again.
So... ummm opening comments of the debate tonight, Andrew Yang starts with turning things into a game show.   :o

there were literal stories of Clinton using his police escorts to bring him women and multiple stories of assaults.
I don't really care if a president cannot keep it in their pants as long as it's consensual and not assault.  What Trump was describing was assault. 

Arranging to have sex with groupies is unseemly and, unpresidential (at least the being obvious about it part) but it's not assault...  My views on sex is pretty wide open.  My views on being openly disrespectful to your family however is another thing and I do hold that against people.  Another very non-PC of me strike I held against Hillary.  Smacks of victim blaming on my part but letting your husband disrespect you like that irked me.  Accepting it, probably(?) out of political calculation for her own aspirations though makes me shiver a bit. 

That this president cheated on wives with new lovers, and later married one of them, (or was it 2?), I find tacky and a character flaw, but it's probably worth being compared against Bill.  Assault allegations or joking that you are able to (implying you just may have done so) is different.  At least to me.

But if one were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (I'm admittedly not) I could see someone coming away with the understanding that because he's rich/famous these women WANT him to do these things.  I heard it as, "I can do this and get away with it."  But I guess (if strain myself to the point of hurting something) I get how someone may take away that he's just describing them as his groupies.   If you see it that way, I guess there would be a double standard with Bill, for the most part, getting a pass.  It's probably a lot more superficial as well.  Bill was portrayed as charming / attractive.  Trump as a buffoon / gross.  That shouldn't matter, but probably did/does, quite a lot.

Granted, I think he would not have been president had a similar tape been released before his election.  Trump's 'brand' was an outrageous egomaniac.  Him saying this 'shocking thing' was... on brand.  It's simply not for anyone else who's perused the highest office before.  If we are fortunate it won't ever happen again. 

It has to be a literal confession that Trump, not only can do it (which pre-Weinstein was probably a factual truth, and may even still be a truth for a lot of celebrities), but does do it, or believes it's his right to do it.  I think Fen's point is that there's not enough context to demonstrate he does do it, it's in the context of criticizing/bragging about celebrity culture - which almost requires for the context that it's being acknowledged as as exceptional or not right.
Thanks I guess to both of you for demonstraiting the thought process that allows some to excuse this.  I didn't ever really understand it before.  That you can convince yourselfs that this was social comentary or criticisim of a sub-culture BY Trump is eye opening.  I had incorrectly assumed this was a head in the sand issue, not one there was a mental "out" available for anyone.  So, thanks for that.

It's the kinda answer I got into heated exchange with Pete way back when the SSM issue was constantly in the news where I got scolded for insisting a line of reasoning was BS / disingeuous.  So I'll just take it at face value.  It makes a lot more sense then the sheer volume of America that would choose to ignore/excuse the behavior.

So if you're options are A or B, go with C?  Inherent in what I was asking is the unstated assertion that what you are suggesting was never going to work.  Cheney didn't respond at all, and was (and still is) painted as some sort of primordial evil.
Maybe it wouldn't work.  But the retort I would have is, do you gain anything by attempting to fight back?  I would suggest he's only digging the whole deeper and ignoring it would be the better play.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe Bush Jr. and Cheney were wrong.  I suppose you could operate under the theory that "well THAT didn't work, let's try something else!"  /shrug

My grandma use to, on rare ocasion, say something "obviously" racist.  Not with any mallice really but just one of those, "Jesus grandma, you cannot say that!"  99.9% of the time, no issues.  I think Trump does the same thing, maybe a different percentage.  :P  It's not concious.  He just kinda soaks in some awful things and ocasionally lets some of it loose.  Does he hate ALL Jews or African Americans or Mexicans?  No (Well, maybe on the last one...)  But he does say some terrible *censored* that consensus has decided is no longer acceptable (if it ever was in "polite society") 

I get that a lot of people sling the Hitler thing around, but I don't recall Bush Jr. being painted with that brush.  Then again, maybe I just found the comparison stupid and dismissed it.  Possible. 

Honestly, to me, for someone with her background and the amount of baggage she carried the fact of her private servers was absolutely disqualifying.
  Between that and the DNC leaks coming out, let's just say I was pretty ashamed of the Democratic team last election. 

I still believe that Hillary is the only candidate who could have lost to Trump, and Trump the only candidate who could have lost to Hillary.

Well, I suppose to be fair I do believe he has sexually assaulted young women.  I find that entirely plausible and consistent with his public persona.  Now maybe he hasn't.  It could be he's so pathetic that this type of bragging is his way of compensating for his failing masculinity.

The context we are constantly being told to take into consideration, makes me lean towards the former rather than the latter probability. 

Is it the same as him saying he COULD shoot someone and get away with it?  Without context?  I suppose I could see that.  It could just be another fantasy of an inadequate man.  Hell, he may have enough money that he could have been speaking the literal truth on that one.   A supposition bolsters by my suspicion (I'd say "the fact that", but I'll leave that argument alone for now) he's gotten away with some heinous activities already. 

All that said, he's AFAIK not admitted to criminal assault.  Anyone who views that statement as such is dumb.  It is an indication that he believes he could do so and get away with it, that he may have done so, or that he wishes he had; and that it would make him appear more macho to his perceived audience when making such a statement.  Any of that makes him disgusting.

He most certainly bragged about his means/opportunity/desire to sexually assault women.  Anyone who sees it as an admission of guilt is reaching though.  He is, objectively, without morals when it comes to his treatment of women.  No coordinated media attack needed.  A large part of the country knew he was a cretin and excused it.  Maybe thousands and thousands were cheering as he did so.  :P

I guess the mistake I think you are making is the assumption that your interpretation is not what outrages (most?) people. 

It doesn't have to be a literal confession of sexual assault to be so outrageous as to have derailed most mere mortal's campaigns.   ::)

I'm shocked you find that one murky is all.   Though Trump the philosopher, discussing the moral decay of celebrity culture, gave me a chuckle.

My biggest problem with the headline thing isn't that it's confusing whether to believe them or not, but much worse - it's generally murky about what subtle reality the headline is trying to get you to accept.
That's the example you went with?  Yikes...

We were talking about objective morality in another thread.  :P

And if your only options are to lash out like Trump or let the media (95% hostile and deliberately manipulative) define you?
Are you asking?  Ignore it or address it calmly and refute the outrageous claims and explain your position.  If they continue to portray you unfairly I do genuinely believe you will sway some people to seeing that and potentially even siding with you.

Compare that to the current strategy and the only direction you go is down.  He convinces nobody.  He is fortunate to hold onto as many supporters as he has at any given moment with his 'allies' doing up to the minute calculations on if THIS is the straw that broke the camel's back and they should abandon ship now, or still fear a backlash from HIS supporters should they turn against POTUS.

Interesting with the Bush Jr. being Hitler.  I don't think I've ever encountered that.  Useful idiot meme still persists.  Cheney as a monster?  Ya.  That one I've seen.  But I think a lot of the beef against Jr. was... That descriptor.  Junior.  The same thing that made me instinctively reject Hillary is what made me dislike Jr.  Nepotism/dynastic aspiration.  I got no clue where it came from.  Did something in my grade school social studies stick and make me reject hereditary empires?  I wouldn't have thought so, but the idea of anyone married to a former president or the child of a past president leading the country is awful.  I'd shout "NO" at my computer screen / car radio when someone would suggest Michelle Obama should consider running. 

Now, there is a lot about HRC I disliked besides her last name, but she did have some good qualifications.  I did grudgingly vote for her over Trump but... ick!  Jr. was easier to avoid because I didn't like his politics and wasn't inclined to vote against his opponent.  I start from the belief that cashing in on the name recognition of a past president is a strike against you. 

Do you remember how much of a laughingstock Bush Jr was?
I do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the best option is to lash out like a petulent child when attacked as Trump prefers?  I don't recall Bush Jr doing so.  Was his lack of... fight? a misscalculation?
So when analyzing who's worse remember that the current environment didn't exist when Bush was in office.
Chicken or egg issue here. /shrug

How much of it is people making their own conclusions, and how much is being fed by interested parties stirring the pot?
Not sure how this could be answered.  I tend to avoid a lot of the 'telling you what to think' type media and go digging for facts.  I know for a fact nobody else in my family is inclined to this.  And I'm sure that if I had someone counter to my political beliefs reviewing my media consumption they could be convinced I'm doing nothing but consuming biased anti-Trump garbage.  And to some extent, I'm sure they'd be correct, just as I believe I do 'better than average' at avoiding just that.  I'm sure we're all terrible judges at determining to what extent our opinions are influenced by others.

Your point about headlines only is a huge one.  This is a big pet peve of mine.  Sensationalist distorting garbage infuriates me.  HOWEVER, I run out of fingers counting the times I've clicked on such links SURE that they were distorting garbage, only to find out, no, he honestly DID say/do what the headline implied.  Maybe they are still guilty of click-bait, but the meat of the issue was actually true.  I think a large part of why I hate him is he's broken my radar on what is satire/parody/or just nutso slander...

Dangerous IMO sure, but the perception is just worse.

Not sure if you meant it in this context but I like the idea of foreign nations believing that our leadership is potentially dangerous. It can bring people to the table as no statesmanship could.
I've given this one a lot of thought.  If only one could KNOW it was strategy, and not just folly.  But, if you could, the strategy wouldn't work.  Thus far, I'm unimpressed with the results.  It has made for some... interesting 'opportunities' that may never have occurred otherwise.   ::)

Do you really thing that the characterization of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt is the same as the characterization of Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon?
My whole point was Trump cannot be included there.  But even with him being omitted from the list, you do make a good point.  There is a difference.  It has been amazingly exaggerated with Trump however.  It makes the snipes at Bush Jr. look trivial in comparison. 

Bush Jr. may not have been what a lot of the country wanted in a president, but he seemed to understand what was expected of the office and at least wanted to live up to that standard. 

Pop culture and even the press, when taken as a whole, do treat the parties differently.  I don't argue that.  But both parties (until recently) understood that the office of the president was a position that should be treated with respect.  And filled in a respectful manner. 

You "don't know" and yet you thought it worth mentioning?  Just to virtue signal?
I cannot KNOW what all people who opposed Obama believe.  I thought it worth mentioning because I believe it explains a lot of what I observed.  The two party system is cause for a lot of friction and it explains a lot about how we treat "the other side's" president when "our side" is out of office.  But it doesn't explain it all. 

There is opposition and even disrespect out of a difference of political beliefs.  Then there's hatred of the president as a person.  I brought it up because there IS a similarity going on here as I see it.  Both the last two presidents we see opposition far beyond simple matters of a disagreement with policy.

Again, Trump is in fact doing a lot of things that the majority of the country has claimed it wants.  He's actively not ignoring issues like the border, and unfair trade that the politicians have been lying about for decades.  He's signed off on multiple compromises, something his sainted predecessor found impossible because he wouldn't concede anything.
Agreed.  I may be in stark disagreement with HOW he's handling these things, but if he better fit the image of 'someone presidential' instead of someone on the next season of some parody White House reality TV show, I'd probably not find him as repellent as I do. 

But combine that with someone who's 'style' is to sow chaos and bombard with distractions and intentionally outrage people as strategy, and I'm so tied in knots with wanting a return to normalcy that he can do no good in my eyes.  This 'strategy' cannot be rewarded.  We cannot fracture this country for shot term political gains, even if some of those issues did need to be addressed.  HOW we reach national goals is as important as seeing them addressed to me.  Some costs are too high, and I'm not talking about new-found belief by the GOP that the deficit is irreverent.

We complain a lot, A LOT about career diplomats and politicians, but we do have this stereotypical vision in our heads of what that person is.

Convince me that you believe that without regard to party.
I didn't even get into if I agreed it was a good thing all the time.  I get the desire for spoilers and mold breakers.  I was just commenting that we DO have expectations.  When they are broken it's going to be a binary reaction.  Either it 'was necessary' and is a good thing, or it is entirely repellent to us and is a catastrophic thing.

I agree with this, he doesn't fit any mold on this.  On the other hand, the "mold conforming politicians" have for decades just lied to us about what they wanted to do and then not done it.  He's not in that mold for sure.
Interesting turn of phrase, without context one would probably infer you were calling him honest.  Well spun.  :)

Not clear to me if you're making this as a substantive claim, or as an attribution to others.
I was explaining the knee jerk reaction.  There are many sources out there of people looking at this seriously and supporting or refuting these points.  I was just saying that when faced with a mold breaker who is not perusing 'our goals', the rush to judgement will see that 'abnormality' in the worst possible light, first. 

This is why "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is so snappy and sticks around.  I think even many of us on the left know there is some truth to it.  He gets under our skin in ways that a 'normal' GOP President should not.  Policy wise he's not the end of the world/nation.  Dangerous IMO sure, but the perception is just worse.  The only thing that makes me justify that reaction is I believe the perception is having an impact far beyond just politics.  It's impacting the character of our whole country as people attempt to merge his behavior and views, and unfiltered constantly on the offence, always the target from malevolent outside forces, into their own world view.  I see a whole party distort their own talking points and principles falling into a siege mentality where they believe their survival is tied to this man and I fear they are casting a new mold, one distressingly Trump shaped in appearance.

In general, ya. 

I don't know if there is an equivalent term for open coordination that has the same slanderous punch.  Collusion also implies secrecy so can't even use that.  Sad!

It's interesting that at this point in history we have both an overwhelming conspiracy of the media to make a sitting president look bad, paired with the most unfiltered president ever.  What a coincidence! 

It's far more simple than that.  We have a national shared image of what is "Presidential".  Or we did until recently.  I don't know if his immediate predecessor being a black man broke that for many or not, but Trump is counter to the imaginary / hypothetical picture we (as a country) have in our head of what a president should be.  How they should speak, how they should be a calming influence when needed.  How they should voice the collective outrage of our nation when required.  How they should embody the very best of us.  They are more than one person, they embody the country they represent FOR us. 

They may fall short at times, but their job, is to represent the nation.   

We complain a lot, A LOT about career diplomats and politicians, but we do have this stereotypical vision in our heads of what that person is. 

Donald Trump does not fit that mold.  Not in any possible way.  Now maybe the desire to break that mold is powerful enough that many enjoy that fact.  For others that factor makes everything he says and does more than just a political / policy disagreement. 

He doesn't even WANT to fit that ideal.  Therefore he is unhinged, broken, maybe mentally ill.  He MUST be a narcissistic sociopath because he refuses to adapt to being "presidential".  Both sides have tolerated presidents who push partisan policy a lot more than the last two presidents, but it seems when something strains our internal template of what a president should look like and how they should act, something in us just... breaks.

General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 11, 2019, 04:11:04 PM »
Not gonna touch that one.  I'm more inclined to believe it was an actual source with a BS claim than a BS story with no source...  But that's what you get when you race for clicks instead of solid journalism. 

General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 11, 2019, 02:49:38 PM »
Also:  The process of going from one ordered society to another is rarely without chaos.  :)

Local law has little bearing upon lawful/chaotic alignment axis.  That's all about intent, or lack of it, of one's actions. 

D&D alignment is officially more interesting than attempting to defend anything Trump did per the OP.   :P

General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 11, 2019, 02:26:09 PM »
I mean honestly, would anyone even think they had a use for a "protection from good" spell?
Door mats?   ;D

The only extent that I care about that is the thoughtlessness it demonstrates.  While we do suffer from an excess of bureaucracy and over-classification, SOME of those rules exist for a reason.  A lower or mid level official making those mistakes is one thing but as you get higher up the chain of command, one would hope, the care one shows for those procedures would increase.  (But as we saw with H.C. on the other side, that obviously is not the case.)

It, appears (likely only bias), that because it wasn't important to him, the rules didn't apply. 

Beyond that, showing off how good our imagery imaging? is I think is fine or even a good thing.  We ARE watching.  Paranoia costs them more resources. 

General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 10, 2019, 06:35:53 PM »
But more importantly, I'm curious about your assertion that "we live in a world with moral ambiguity". It's not clear to me what your views are as to the existence of a moral reality in our world, and the extent to which you believe we can know that reality.  Your statement was clear insofar as it was a criticism of the D&D analogy, but it's not clear to me what your actual thoughts are on the topic and I'm curious.
I've never seen anyone smite evil with results that were unambiguous.  I've never seen a circle of protection actually hedge out someone. In D&D there IS a moral reality, and you CAN know it.  I think that's part of the point.

General Comments / Re: Employer required attendance at political rally?
« on: September 10, 2019, 09:53:53 AM »
Fair point.  I'd instead argue that the people complaining here probably would care, even if it was Obama.  If your pay is contingent upon this kinda thing it's wrong.  Plain and simple. 

Is anyone arguing that Trump was "training" them on anything of value, let alone critical to their job performance? 

General Comments / Re: NRA as domestic terrorists
« on: September 10, 2019, 09:38:16 AM »
It makes as much sense.

I detest it when lawmakers waste time for symbolic laws when there is so much going on that actually requires their attention.

General Comments / Re: Employer required attendance at political rally?
« on: September 10, 2019, 09:35:27 AM »
I don't know if the defense of this act makes one mentally ill, but it certainly makes one look silly.  Defending "your team" or "your guy" at all costs use to at least require plausible deniability.  Then again, maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe this IS a consistent position for you two.  For future reference, ANY excuse you use to inflict your politics or religion on your workers, unless their job IS politics/religion is wrong.  In case you were unaware.   ::)

Invite people all you want, but making it mandatory crosses a line.  Don't let this administration turn you into the party of, "well it's not technically illegal.

General Comments / Re: NRA as domestic terrorists
« on: September 10, 2019, 09:12:06 AM »
Also, no member of the NRA has been involved in any terrorist acts or mass shootings in the US or otherwise
While I find the official designation a ridiculous political stunt that makes fools of those grand standing...  It's not hard for those even the least bit sympathetic to this move to argue the above portion of your statement.  They would probably say the NRA has been involved in ALL of them.

General Comments / Re: Nice business you have there
« on: September 04, 2019, 08:55:41 PM »
Welcome to the information age. 

^  Primary reason the Area 51 raid sounds super lame.

I thought the reason it was super lame was getting shot and dying for no reason in the Nevada desert.
That's what I mean.  :)  The "no reason" part.

^  Primary reason the Area 51 raid sounds super lame.

The results have been amazing and if the media weren't so rabidly biased and dishonest Trump's approval rating would be through the roof.
He'd probably gain double digits if he did nothing but abstain from using twitter.


I think it's a safe bet to not refer to any group of people as insects, vermin, a plague or an infestation.

Calling any individual one of those things?  That should be fine.   ;D

Reporting I heard yesterday made it sound like Bush had not made sufficient appointments, Obama none, Trump 1, who was stalled.  It sure sounds like zero interest all around to have cops on this beat.  How odd...

Actually, advocating for pedophilia is not a crime. You can advocate for changing the law, like NAMBLA does. Anonymous overran their website. They are certainly ostracized.
This is a real group?  I thought it was just a bad joke from South Park...   :-[

Generation who fought Nazis.
Generation who's pop culture centered around fighting Nazis.
Generation who are fighting Nazis.

I have no idea how this latest generation got the (mistaken?) impression it was OK behavior!   ::)

Something has happened to the way we communicate that has made the idea of compromise repugnant.
What has changed is we both target the most objectionable fringe opinions of the opposition. 

The thing that baffles me is the defense of those being painted with the large brush of that fringe.  That and the, seemingly wider by the day, belief that the fringe correctly represents the whole. 

When someone (like myself) says that I am against THIS GROUP, it's always interesting how swiftly people condemn that binary view, while ignoring the fact that they are ALSO against that same group.

It is perfectly acceptable that one side should reject this dialogue

Acceptable in what way?  A side is perfectly capable of rejecting dialogue but once that is done there can be no change.
This simply is not true.  Despite the increase of outlier stories put forward by the media, things ARE changing.  Trying to appease or give a larger megaphone to those outliers is not seeking to solve a problem. 

Once you open up the possibility of punishment and retribution outside of law, there is no putting it back in.  The other side will resort to using the same weapons.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about someone becoming a social outcast, not illegal retribution.  So if they 'respond in kind' it comes down to two groups attempting to exclude the others from society. 

I think we've already established that the toxic openly racist people are a minority.  So the only way that the 'retaliation' has teeth is if huge swaths of people defended those racists, probably for no other reason than because 'the liberals' are demonstrating social pressure / power.  EVEN THEN, it seems an empty threat/danger.

You've created a cycle of destruction and division that can only be completed through purification through war and violence and exile.  Is that who we are?  An entire country filled with people who want to get rid of certain other people?  Is that who you are?  Can't we all just get along?
That cycle is closer to complete than the current media landscape would have us know.  It is who we've been for too long already, but it's getting better.  Most of us CAN get along.  Those who cannot are in full blown panic mode, and their reactions shockingly (to them) are having the opposite effect.

Sorry.  I categorically reject attempting to punish people for disagreeing with me on social convention or for being asshats.
What do you mean by punish?  Or what do you think I mean by it?  Is depriving them of my company and speaking out to contest their views I feel are repugnant "punishing"?  Is petitioning a private company to cut ties with an individual saying things their customers find offensive "punishing"?  Or do you envision I meant sending angry mobs to intimidate/vandalize targets of my ire?  Do you "categorically reject" all of that?  Or just the last part?  Last two parts? 

I'm not "thought Batman" either, or a left think vigilante.  But if someone is openly bigoted or racist, then guess what, the larger culture left that person behind.  They are going to suffer socially by expressing those views publicly.  I am interested in seeing that continue/accelerate and preventing any backsliding.

Is it a character flaw to reject dialogue? Maybe not.  But it's futile.  It's a waste of time.  You're hurting the cause.  You're not making things better. 
Sometimes engaging can only serve to embolden those who are already defeated.  To trick others into believing that what has been accomplished is "just as bad".  At least I'm not making things worse.

One more time in case you have a different picture in your head.  The consequences I'm referring to are not extra-legal ones. 

I personally find social ostracism or punishment to juvenile and to be a step backwards.  It's straight out of The Scarlet Letter.  Want to kick somebody out of your club?  Go ahead.  But don't pretend you're making things better.  You're simply creating another club.
When one club is a large group of people trying to get along together, and the other is a tiny group who hates part of the larger group?  I beg to differ.  Cutting them out DOES make things better.

I've never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in digitally.
That's my point.  When a bunch of bullies are picking on someone because they are different in person, there is probably one or more in that crowd who doesn't agree or doesn't care, but are going along with the mob.  That's different digitally.  Not only is it easier to not be co-opted into a mob you don't agree with, but you are far more likely to express your real views than you might be when all your peers are doing something you don't condone/agree with.  That was what I was trying to convey. 

Not only that, but some people are a lot more likely to speak out online than they ever would be to confront their peers or strangers in public.  This is a significant change in our society.  While it's obscured by a lot of garbage that social media is doing to us, this is a powerful force of change.  Those being swept up by it and condemned by voices that would have historically remained silent or even joined in on out of peer pressure, are terrified!

For the others, you didn't actually "shame them" all you did you was communicate to them that they were in "hostile territory" and their best option moving forward was to act more subtly going forward. All you did is move them underground where most people will then become oblivious to their being racists and unable to intervene should they start seeking further converts(that other guy who actually was shamed).
This is an interesting point.  Maybe you are correct?  My counter narrative is that, in moving them underground, you lesson examples to others in public that they can behave this way without repercussions. 

Which is more dangerous?  Those in "the underground" trying to connect with others on the fringe swaying them to their views?  Or those out in public, left unchecked, 'normalizing' this behavior?

I know which one is more dangerous and likely to end in violence, and that's worth considering.  But which is more dangerous to the larger society?

Or are you now opposed to racial preferences in getting employment or seats at a University?
Did I say that I was?  I mean, I've been on Ornery for a long time now, so maybe I have defended this in the past?  Smarter people than I have tried to figure out how to correct against systemic racisim.  I'm not opposed to it, nor infavor of it.  I would prefer race not be a consideration at all but I don't have the first idea how to pull that off.

Isn't it also true that the largest reduction in racism has come from education?  If it weren't we wouldn't be where we are today.

Are you just denying science on this point?

Or are you conflated racism and discrimination and difference?
At this point in our country's history, how isolated do you have to be for this to be true?  How much of that is mistaking causation for coralation?  Does this data hold true for k-12 range only as it does those who go out to higher education and typically are exposed to those outside of their own group?  (an honest question)  But we are talking about one example being a lawyer.  That's pretty highly educated.  So it obviously isn't as simple as that.  Seems to me, getting away from racist family/social groups would be the biggest factor in breaking from those views.  But maybe I'm wrong.  I haven't studied the science of it.

"C)  <something actually compelling>"

No idea what this means.

But I note, that you can't truly be on the high horse you claim to be and still give any credence to identity politics.
It means, "Please fill in the blank with a real option."  I've never claimed to be a proponent of "identity politics".  I normally see this used as a smear by those on "the opposite team", so you tell me.  Do I fit the definition of an identity politics proponent?  Were it up to me people could identify as whatever the heck they wanted.  I'm in the "politics" of making sure they aren't treated unfairly because of it.  I'm not personally leveraging anyone's identities to rally them for personal gain.

But the left is not practicing a rejection of "intolerance."  Certainly not to the tune of 60+ million people who voted for Trump being intolerant.
Most people dont' feel this way.  Some of us blame the choice they had.  I get voting against Hillary and gambling with Trump.  I get voting with your wallet and believing Trump would be better for you.  I do a little, "Wow you really lost that bet!"  or "wow do you still think it was worth all this to keep her out of the white house?".  If they STILl support him, I start to get a bit closer to intolerance.  It varies depending on how much is just them holding their nose and taking the bad medicine vs actually believing he is a net positive for this country.

Every single person I know with a "Reject Hate" sign in their yard has personally acted from hate on fairly arbitrary and petty basis (and I don't mean politics, I mean literally things like excluding a person and talking bad about them because they carried the wrong purse).
That is a fairly all-or-nothing view on "hate".  Be a paragon of virtue or keep your views to yourself? 

Nor does the left reject people who are actually intolerant.  They embrace multiple groups of people from countries and belief systems that endorse hate and intolerance.  That's not a rejection of intolerance it's specific adoption and endorsement of it.
You are trying to conflate the views of 'people on the left' with the politics of the Democratic party.  As one who loves to generalize himself, you do get this is a large generalization, right?

And true motte bailey style when the racist label is applied to 60 million people, you want to point to an inbred Klansman somewhere who is in fact most likely a registered Democrat as justification.
I DO point to the inpred klansman (though they often wear suits and come from nice families too), and explicitly do NOT point to 60 million people who happened to have voted contrary to what I believe is in the best interest of this country.  (Even if I do think Hillary would have *censored*ed things up, just to a lesser extent).

And that's not really a personal statement about you, just the literal message you are being uncritically fed.
It's easy to get confused about what someone is being fed when you are putting words into their mouth.  ;)

It's the truth, you can ignore it if you want. But you do so at your own peril.

They only accept "the disadvantaged" so long as those "disadvantaged persons" agree with their "Enlightened Liberal Views" otherwise, the long knives come out should that person disagree. In many respects, at that point, that CIS-gendered White Male who has been "outed as a racist" probably has an easier time of things, oddly enough.
This is a sterotype I've never observed in the wild.  Guess I'm fortunate to live in a "purple" state...

I can't help but feel that on this particular topic you've boxed yourself in and can't see outside of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's how some of these posts come across. I'm trying show that labeling anyone <not-us> as being intolerant/hateful/racists/etc is puritanism in its purist form. Thinking that one side has got the monopoly on righteousness is where the danger starts. But *of course* they don't ever think of it as "our side". That would imply there's another side worth considering. So instead it morphs into "we just believe in goodness and justice", which then transitions into "if you're not with us, you're against us", and finally "since we're on the side of good, if you disagree you are therefore on the side of bad." It's easy to see from there how there are all sorts of nasty things you can say about the 'bad guys.' And voila, dehumanization 101.
I understand.  I really do.  This argument strikes me as one I myself would make on many even most political issues.  But I do have red lines.  Those who cross it, do so by acting inhumanely.  It is a condemnation of their acts or words.  If you see that as ME having dehumanized them, then how could I possibly debate that?  So in at least this regard, we are “boxed in”. 

One side, as a politically labeled right/left or conservative/progressive team does not have a monopoly on righteousness.  But anyone speaking out against an obvious vocal racist/supremacist?  They do.  End of story.  No debate, no discussion, no middle ground.  How we react to those people IS worthy of debate.  At this point, I reject the “just ignore it or you’ll make it worse” approach.  Yet it comes across as something radical/puritanistic/dangerous.  I find that interesting.

None of us have to accept the mantle of everything “our side” claims to, or is said to encompass.  What we do have to accept is that others will judge us by what we say or do, and who we defend.
But you're also not the sort of person going around searching long and hard for "those who don't leave us alone", and worrying about who 'they' are. You may not see every encounter as being a possible altercation with "them", and whisper to your comrade about 'they may be nearer than we think'. If I had to guess, I don't think you point fingers at random people, saying "You! Are you one the ones who won't leave us alone? You'd better not be! Because we won't tolerate them." And then you chase after them while shaking your arm, saying "why won't you leave us alone??"
Bogymen indeed. 

What we're talking about is people who actively thrive on pointing out bad guys, and who absolutely rail against those who transgress, mobbing them online (or in person), not because swift action is needed in an emergency, but because they like it. I don't think that's you, but I think that sort may have fooled you, using terminology that sounds agreeable to you, into thinking they share your belief.
They DO share my beliefs.  What you are talking about is a differentiation of what motivates them.  It’s true we, as humans, excuse a lot of behavior we would not want to do ourselves, when it is being done towards an end we agree with.  But that’s why we have laws, and agreed upon socially acceptable behavior.  Those who cross those lines, face consequences.  As do those who encourage them. 

Am I possibly too silent on the bogymen of the left?  Yes.  But that probably stems from the fact I’ve never seen, spoken with or even know a person who knows a person who fits these bogymen.  I suppose maybe I would take the ‘threats from the far left’ more seriously if I did.  So far my “intolerance” has only resulted in a few less awkward days visiting with some of my extended family.

There's no question that the religious right has trained its share of intolerants.  But the current trend is massively towards leftist intolerants.
I just cannot leave this stand.  WHAT is it you feel the left is intolerant of?

Is rejection of intolerance JUST AS BAD as someone intolerant of other racists/religions/sexuality or other things?

The current trend is massively towards "Don't be *censored*ty to others and let us live our lives as we see fit and give us an equal opportunity to do so."

Yer god damned right I feel intolerant towards anyone attempting to oppose that trend.

You're framing this as "we're targetting the savages, and of course the savages don't like it." What I'm telling you is you are not targeting the savages, but are rather re-writing the dictionary to make anyone who disagrees into a savage
First:  I often speak in generalities or my own observations.  It’s a handy way to avoid making *censored* up that is “false”.  Everyone targets / qualifies “savages” differently.  Don’t make the mistake of assuming you can pluck out some (far-left?) criteria and attribute it to me.   That said, I’m sure everyone feels that THEY are accurately labeling “savages” and not causing much/any collateral damage.  So your point is a good one, even if falling into that which it seeks to criticize. 
They are the ones you're going to hate if you're looking to target people. And it's that "us or them" with an ever-growing "them" that cuts out dialogue.
I don’t hate these people.  I find them pathetic sure, and I want them to either reform or be shamed into silence.  The use of hate (while I’m sure there are those who do hate them) attempts to form an equivalency.  One I reject.
Being a racist doesn't even prevent dialogue; by its nature there is nothing antithetical to dialogue there. But being a hardcore puritan most certainly does prevent dialogue, and in fact is often predicated on the refusal to entertain another side to an issue.
  Pick one:
A)  We need open dialogue because SOME level of racism is acceptable and should be tolerated.
B)  We need open dialogue because some/most racists just don’t know better.
C)  <something actually compelling>
My general point is that chastising and hating "the enemy" presupposes you know who and what that is, can do something helpful about it, and aren't just creating boogeymen to lash out at because it's a feel-good thing to find enemies and smite them.
And my general point is that while this is excellent advice, there ARE “enemies” to the common good and society as a whole and it is foolish to pretend this is just a differing of opinion and consensus and middle ground can pave a path forward.

Seriati is correct about the trench and who profits by it.  I only take issue with those who believe they are more moderate and feel attacked by others, all while they seek to excuse or defend those trench diggers claiming to represent them.

There's no increased acceptance going on here.  There's no acceptance of individuals for who they are.  Find a black man that supports Trump and they aren't accepted.  It's a lie that the left is more accepting of people, even of people that have been historically disadvantaged.  They only accept those with identical views to their own, period.
And I thought MY views on the current state of affairs were bleak...

I agree with that statement.  I just believe you miss used the word in the quote above.  Unless using it to show the disconnect between the point of view of the person feeling maligned vs the reality of the situation.

My problem is here.  This is a false statement there is no trend for more acceptance.
More acceptance of those we are discussing?  Those being "deplatformed" or suffering professionally?  No, you are correct.  THAT would be a false statement.  I was referring to the more global acceptance in society today, that is triggering these people who we do NOT accept. 

And when the children of the racist grow up and rightly hate those who inflicted those injustices? 
They may grow up believing this, because of who their parents are, and the probable lamenting of that person.  But this is a person arguing that they shouldn't bear the responsibility of their own words and actions, rather that "society" (or "liberals" in this case) are to blame for their situation. 

But "rightly hate"?  "Injustice"?  Just because someone says a thing, doesn't make it true.  Your question still stands, but the framing of it is distressing.


What are you achieving?  Is the guy still probably a racist?  What about the majority of people who think that yelling at a racist, and snapping pictures of him on a cellphone is also poor behavior?  You've alienated them as well.  You havn't built bridges, alliances, or anything.  They're shooting themselves in the foot acting in that manner.  They're just like that guy who straps on an AR 15 and walks into Wal-Mart with it after a mass shooting to make some sort of point.  They're setting back the cause.  Nobody serious about the problem of racism in this country acts that way.
Now this is dangerous thinking.  We should accept some level of despicable behavior because if we don’t they may turn into the next mass murderer?  Tell me you’re joking?  To many people attempts to slowly chip away at racism is a failed strategy.  Time to excise the cancer.  Will it be painful?  Are people going to be hurt by this?  Yep, but it may be the only thing that saves the patient.  It should be stopped because every now and then surgery is gonna throw a blood clot and cause damage?  I guess we could just do nothing and wait for the problem to correct itself.  Maybe another 5+ generations would do the trick?

I tend to be agree with you on issues of moderation and not going to either extreme, however on this point I would be cautious because when the same people saying they will call out human garbage are also the ones to define what constitutes human garbage, basically all we can expect is a garbage fire.
Pretty sure you just defined society there.
Calling people human garbage is the last resort.  It's the end of dialogue.  Politics is built on dialogue.  When you call someone human garbage you've ended your ability to persuade.  So what is your point?
When someone in convinced that denying what they're saying proves that they're right and that you're part of the problem, it's difficult to even determine how to get through to that person. How do you convince someone you disagree - even that what they're doing is dangerous - when their worldview is that the only people who would disagree are the enemy?
Similar but different points.  One relates to people who have proven themselves unfit for the type of society another wants to belong to or strives to create.  The other is about denying that one’s actions have disqualified them for participation in that same striven for society. 

Dialogue can be focused on both people/groups agreeing that the societal goals should include both parts.  It is perfectly acceptable that one side should reject this dialogue.  Framing it as a character flaw of that group is ridiculous. 

Dialogue can be focused on the tolerance of one group towards another while they are being integrated towards a social goal.  Rejection of this type of dialogue is indeed dangerous, but it does require a shared goal.

There are positions and actions that are disqualifies for polite, or even functional & safe, society.  I'm all for people's ability to say whatever they want, but scoff at the idea that "protection of speech" means protection from the consequences of one's speech.  (other than illegal consequences at least).  As a rule I’m opposed to moderation/censorship.  I think people should be free to say whatever they want, and face the consequences. 

We may still be tribal creatures, but our tribes are far, far larger, and react more swiftly today than ever before.  That doesn't mean one cannot be rejected by the tribe.  If someone suffers social media exile/banishment, I think that shows we've come a long way in how we treat those who threaten tribal tranquility.  That goes for the "far-" anything fringes.

I think at issue is that, in today's media-centric world, those with power/money/influence can say anything they want and when they step over the line, for the most part, they can make an apology, maybe donate some money, go to some seminars (or rehab) and come out relatively unscathed.  One particular man of power can do so and remain entirely unrepentant and do just fine. 

Common citizens are waking up to two, sometimes shocking realizations.  First that these "new rules" don't apply to everyone.  The rest of us mere mortals suffer consequences for our words/actions.  Second, someone's always watching, and probably recording.  The things you say/do are far more likely to be noticed and shared and commented upon by far more people than ever before.  It's no longer just a few people who know your anti-social leanings/behavior.  One outlier incident could make you infamous in your city/state/country/world before you know it.

The influence of the tribe is immense but their protectiveness of the whole / agreed upon societal norms is still just as fierce as ever.  While we often lament about the internet / social media trend of bringing out the worst or most cruel in each other due to physical safety of distance or anonymity, we often forget the other side of the coin.  Rampant unchecked empathy.  People suddenly unafraid to stand up for (at least digitally...) the underrepresented and victimized.  While societal norms do seem to be far more fluid than before, the trends seem largely towards more acceptance punctuated by over reaction by those who fear losing power/influence... or even easy fodder for their brand of humor.

Granted those flare ups are sometimes met with further overreactions by those... being reacted against.  Then the (almost always hypocritical cries against that backlash.)  While it is ugly on both sides, looking at what each group is promoting / protecting tends to clear up moral ambiguity.  But that conflict equals add revenue, so it gets reported.  People lament the culture war and the divisiveness, but honestly, as bleak a picture as we see painted every day, things seem to be moving in a positive direction here.  Sure those against this movement are freaking out and acting more boldly than ever before, and people notice.  I think that will just hasten their trivialization within society.  And I’ll be cheering that downfall.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 50