Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#2452 Feb 16 2017 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,709 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.


You have a quote for this, right?
Took me about 12 seconds.

That's not the EO though.


Exactly. That was a statement he put on his campaign website back in 2015. Here's an interesting article about it. Yes. Brietbart. Deal with it. Of particular interest (to me anyway) was this bit:

Quote:
Most Americans don’t want to use Saudi Arabia as an immigration model, but let’s not pretend a very sizable portion of the U.S. electorate isn’t having doubts about indiscriminate open-door immigration policies. Again, not to be an interpreter of What Trump Really Meant, but what if he proposed a temporary moratorium on immigration from a few particularly troublesome Muslim countries, the proximate example being Pakistan?


In case you were having trouble following the guys point (or don't bother to read it at all), he was basically saying that an actual "ban on muslims" would be bad, for a number of reasons, but would not be unconstitutional. And then speculating that the election year rhetoric might actually shake down to something far less problematic. Basically "Yeah, he said he wanted to ban muslims, but what if he only just bans a small number of countries? That would be ok, right?" Um... Which is what he actually did. So it's like this guy was pretty decent at predicting "What Trump Really Meant". Or was just randomly lucky...


One of the things I've noticed about Trump (and may have commented on it before here, but I honestly can't remember), that he does that we're not used to politicians doing (at all!), is he treats everything as a negotiation. He starts his position like 8 steps past anything remotely reasonable. Then backs off to a more reasonable position. He knows that if he starts out in reasonable territory, it'll still be opposed and he'll end up giving even more ground on the issue. I know I've definitely seen this behavior, and it still surprises me that people howl and yell every time he says something "outrageous". Um... It's intentionally outrageous guys. So that when he changes to something that's not, he'll actually get what he wants.

I see this language as the same sort of thing. Yes, it's quite jarring because we think of politicians as having to set solid positions and then fight for them. And we have a difficult time with politicians who'll say they want one thing, knowing it'll make it easier to get what they really want. But this is his way of doing things. And once you kinda grok it, it actually starts to make a bit of sense. You have to judge him based on the resulting action, not on what he says along the way. He negotiates. Which means he's always going to present a starting position that is unworkable and unreasonable and will be soundly rejected, not even just by his opponents, but by folks in his own party as well. He seems more than willing to take the slings that come his way in the process of doing this, if the end result is what he wants.

Not sure I like that methodology at all, but I think it helps to understand that's what he's actually doing. And yeah, getting all alarmed about the things he says appears to be part of this methodology as well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2453 Feb 16 2017 at 10:57 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,135 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that argument that the Administration repeatedly referred to the EO as a Muslim ban.
You have a quote for this, right?
Took me about 12 seconds.
That's not the EO though.
That's a pretty fine hair to split.

? The comment was "referring to the EO as a muslim ban".

Fine hairs... or actual comment...
Continually saying his administration has a stated goal of banning Muslims then coming up with an EO that does that and then you whining that "the EO didn't specifically state that" IS hair-splitting.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2454 Feb 17 2017 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,736 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Continually saying his administration has a stated goal of banning Muslims then coming up with an EO that does that and then you whining that "the EO didn't specifically state that" IS hair-splitting.

It had already been stated previously in the conversation that it could be implied based on Trump's previous campaign rhetoric. The comment afterward was that they referred to the EO repeatedly as a Muslim ban. When they hadn't.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2455 Feb 17 2017 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Hm, I had seen two different videos from people within the Administration referring to it as a Muslim ban. Both are gone, now.

Back to lynching: yes, the use or threat of murder to control behavior (voting, advocating for civil rights, talking to white women, being generally uppity) is the very definition of terrorism, so I have no idea what your argument was, besides an inchoate mess.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2456 Feb 17 2017 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't think that's a great analogy to use though, for a few reasons. A better one would be equating it to greater policing efforts in high crime areas (or in this case, high terrorist organization activity).

This isn't "policing", it's a straight ban on entry. Comparing it to another hypothetical ban on entering is far more apt than "better policing".

If you want something closer your crime areas stat, it would be like saying "No black people from [six states] are allowed in my shopping mall" and justifying it by saying those states have too much crime so those black people are probably criminals. But not the white people from those states, they're okay. Or black people from other states. So it's not really based on race. Except that it only impacts black people.
Quote:
We don't all walk around through life trying to figure out ways to hurt people

Sometimes its through ineptitude, moral blind spots and "acceptable losses" but those people aren't hurt any less for it.

Edited, Feb 17th 2017 8:23am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2457 Feb 17 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
******
49,174 posts
gbaji wrote:
Killing black people in a church because you hate black people, is not.
Killing black people in a church because you want to start a race war is.
gbaji wrote:
Killing people who work at an abortion clinic because you consider them to be murderers, is not.
According to the Department of Justice it is.
gbaji wrote:
Then backs off to a more reasonable position.
Is that the new narrative? So far all he's done is signed papers placed in front of him, held it up like my daughter does when I ask her what she's drawing, and when it sputters out into nothing he blames other people and conspiracies over it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2458 Feb 17 2017 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I find it ironic that Trump starts "eight steps past reasonable", then backs up two and Gbaji says "He's more reasonable now!" and supports it. Then tells us that we're just missing Trump's tricks.

Hey dumbass, you're supporting a stance that's still six steps past your definition of reasonable. It wasn't us who got played for fools.

Edited, Feb 17th 2017 12:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2459 Feb 17 2017 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,174 posts
Just find it amusing that in less than a week he went from "It's a good first step in a better vetting system" to "It's eight steps unreasonable to make the plan JUST AS KEIKAKU."

Edited, Feb 17th 2017 12:30pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2460 Feb 17 2017 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,709 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Continually saying his administration has a stated goal of banning Muslims then coming up with an EO that does that and then you whining that "the EO didn't specifically state that" IS hair-splitting.

It had already been stated previously in the conversation that it could be implied based on Trump's previous campaign rhetoric. The comment afterward was that they referred to the EO repeatedly as a Muslim ban. When they hadn't.


Well, and "they" was specifically "his administration", suggesting members of Trumps Administration, post inauguration, referring directly to the executive order he wrote, as a "Muslim Ban". I have not heard anyone in the Trump administration use that phrase to describe it. I've heard literally hundreds of critics of his administration use it, however. Hence my request for an actual quote.

I'm not at all debating that there are many people who view it as a Muslim Ban. But that's not the statement that was made. Let's not forget that the argument being presented was that it's ok for critics of the Trump administration (and specifically the EO) to call it a Muslim Ban, because that's what they called it. If there is no quote of the Trump Administration calling it that though, then the argument completely falls apart.

Again, this does not mean that people can't call it a Muslim Ban if they want, but then they're just putting their own opinion out there, and kinda have to defend it on its own merits and not with a made up claim about the same label being used by the Administration.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2461 Feb 17 2017 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,709 posts
Samira wrote:
Hm, I had seen two different videos from people within the Administration referring to it as a Muslim ban. Both are gone, now.

Back to lynching: yes, the use or threat of murder to control behavior (voting, advocating for civil rights, talking to white women, being generally uppity) is the very definition of terrorism, so I have no idea what your argument was, besides an inchoate mess.


Eh. I don't agree. If the person or people targeted are those I want to affect, I'm affecting them directly and affecting their actions directly. There really does have to be a third party involved for something to be terrorism. Lynching people I don't like as a way of hurting them, or even to get them to not do something I don't like is a clear violation of that group's civil rights, but isn't really terrorism. Terrorism would be the racist targeting white people's children and threatening them if they support black civil rights. In this case, you want to harm groupA, but you do it by threatening groupB to get them to drop/change their support of groupA's rights.

Alternatively, you randomly target people and threaten to continue said attacks unless <some policy is changed>. One of the primary features of terrorism is that the direct targets of attacks are not necessarily those you want to affect. They're the people who you want to manipulate into changing a policy or action that will hurt the group you really want to hurt (or in some cases benefit a group you want to help).

lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Killing black people in a church because you hate black people, is not.
Killing black people in a church because you want to start a race war is.


No. That's just plain old hate crime going on there. Again, if the objective is to force a third party to change some behavior that affects the group you want to affect, then it's terrorism. If you kill black people because you want to scare them into not supporting some legislation that affects a different group, then it's terrorism. if you kill black people because you hate black people, that's just hate and violence. You may also want to inspire others to join your cause, but again that's not terrorism. The enemy you're fighting is the target of the attacks. That's just violence, not terrorism.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Killing people who work at an abortion clinic because you consider them to be murderers, is not.
According to the Department of Justice it is.


Then the DoJ is wrong, and it's another case of a government agency misusing the term. Again, the motivation matters. If my intent is to use my violent action to force a change of our law (ie: make abortion illegal, or more bombings will occur!!) then it's terrorism. If my entire intent is to stop people actively working in the abortion field from performing abortions (ie: I'm killing that person to stop that person from killing a fetus cause I consider that murder), then it's *not* terrorism. No more than shooting and killing someone engaged in a mugging is. I'm not trying to send a message to muggers, or change the social rules/laws regarding mugging. I'm just trying to stop a crime in progress.

We may disagree on what is a "crime" in this instance, but what makes something terrorism is the intent of those committing the act. And yeah, sometimes it's not clear, and there can actually be multiple motivations. But I'm trying to speak in pure terms here as a way of illustrating the concept of what makes an act terrorism, not to get bogged down in too many specific real world examples.


I guess another element of terrorism is the idea of demands. The lynchings will continue until <insert demands here>. The bombings will continue until <more demands>. We'll keep killing school children until <changes are made>. There really does need to be a third party involved for terrorism to be terrorism. Targeting attacks at the group you want to hurt is just harming that group. That's still wrong, of course, but isn't terrorism. Targeting that group, as a means of getting that group to pressure a third party to change something that affects that third party (or even a fourth party) is terrorism. Blowing up random people in a cafe, and demanding that the government change its policy on <whatever> or the bombings will continue is terrorism. If I just happen to hate people who eat at cafes and want to kill them, I'm just a regular old mass murderer. The fact that this may make people afraid to go eat at cafes might also be part of my goal (cause I'm getting what I want, fewer people eating at cafes), but the cause and effect is direct. I target people doing things I don't like and maybe they stop. That's not terrorism really. That's just being a violent bully. Still very wrong, but also very different.


IMO, it's important to make that distinction because the methods you use to fight one type of violence versus another is very different. Terrorism presents a specific problem because it's harder to get groupA to accept the threat of harm to itself on behalf of groupB than it is to accept it on their own behalf. If I'm a black man fighting for my right to vote, I'm more likely to respond to threats and violence against myself and other black men by redoubling my efforts. I'm fighting directly against an enemy. If I'm a white man supporting black voting rights, I'm going to have a harder time doing that, and be more likely to perhaps back off the position, if someone starts targeting my family, my children, my churches, etc.

It's why terrorism can be more effective as a means of manipulating outcomes because you're attacking the support for something, and not that thing itself. And it's also why it deserves special attention and special response. It really is a much harder sell to tell people "You need to accept the risk of harm or death to yourself on behalf of another group because it's the right thing to do" than to tell them to stand up merely for their own interests (and let's face it, that can be difficult all by itself). I'm not placing any specific moral weight on these differences, just pointing out that they are different methodologies, and we need to treat them as such. Failing to do so, or muddling the definition, will lead us to make mistakes in responding to these sorts of attacks.


And yeah. Many such mistakes have been made in the past. And many pundits and politicians have misused the term "terrorism" in their pursuit of increasing public "weight" on some action. That does not make them right though, and repeating those wrong usages because they've been misused in the past is just repeating the same mistake again, and again, and again.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2462 Feb 17 2017 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Terrorist" became a meaningless term once we started applying it to insurgent fighters trying to kill US soldiers in foreign lands. Seems odd that you're just getting worked up about it this week.

Edited, Feb 17th 2017 5:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2463 Feb 17 2017 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,135 posts
gbaji's much more comfortable sharing his hateful, racist side now that his president so clearly and loudly champions the same values.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2464 Feb 17 2017 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,709 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Terrorist" became a meaningless term once we started applying it to insurgent fighters trying to kill US soldiers in foreign lands. Seems odd that you're just getting worked up about it this week.


I'm not "getting worked up about it", I'm posting my definition. It's a definition I've used for years. I've used it in the past to argue that it was wrong to label insurgents fighting against US soldiers in Iraq "terrorists" as well. Yes, even when they plant IEDs. They're combatants, not terrorists. They may or may not be "unlawful combatants", but that definition *also* is not the same as "terrorist". As a general rule, if you are engaged in violence and the target of that violence is the enemy you are fighting against, then what you are doing is *not* terrorism. It may be illegal. It may be immoral. But it's not automatically terrorism.

Each of these terms has very specific meanings. I just think we should at least make some effort to keep them straight.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2465 Feb 17 2017 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I find it ironic that Trump starts "eight steps past reasonable", then backs up two and Gbaji says "He's more reasonable now!" and supports it. Then tells us that we're just missing Trump's tricks.

Hey dumbass, you're supporting a stance that's still six steps past your definition of reasonable. It wasn't us who got played for fools.

Edited, Feb 17th 2017 12:09pm by Jophiel


lolgaxe wrote:
Just find it amusing that in less than a week he went from "It's a good first step in a better vetting system" to "It's eight steps unreasonable to make the plan JUST AS KEIKAKU."

Edited, Feb 17th 2017 12:30pm by lolgaxe


Trump just drives a garbage truck through the Overton window and people start using the public square as a fucking trash dump.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2466 Feb 17 2017 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Also why haven't we just killed all the fake Jews like Steve bannon yet?

Who can you trust at Goldman these days...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2467 Feb 18 2017 at 12:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I've used it in the past to argue that it was wrong to label insurgents fighting against US soldiers in Iraq "terrorists" as well. Yes, even when they plant IEDs.

Here? Maybe you have. Care to refresh my memory?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2468 Feb 18 2017 at 1:28 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,135 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've used it in the past to argue that it was wrong to label insurgents fighting against US soldiers in Iraq "terrorists" as well. Yes, even when they plant IEDs.

Here? Maybe you have. Care to refresh my memory?
I checked forum search "gbaji/insurgent" and found zero threads containing anything even remotely close to this claim.


Maybe gbaji should get premium?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2469 Feb 20 2017 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of a sudden interest in clinical definitions, Breitbart columnist and Gamergate hero Milo Yiannopoulos is on tape defending the idea of adults having sex with 13 year olds. He and Gbaji can get together and chat about how it's not really pedophilia.

Edited, Feb 20th 2017 7:39am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2470 Feb 20 2017 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Hebephilia! Get it right, Joph.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2471 Feb 20 2017 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
******
49,174 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's just plain old hate crime going on there.
It's absolutely adorable you think there's no overlap.
gbaji wrote:
Then the DoJ is wrong,
Yeah, it must be the Department of Justice that's been wrong for more than thirty years, not you.
gbaji wrote:
We may disagree on what is a "crime" in this instance,
We who? You have the disagreement. I'm fine with the textbook definition.
gbaji wrote:
I'm posting my definition. It's a definition I've used for years. [...] Each of these terms has very specific meanings
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2472 Feb 20 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Here? Maybe you have. Care to refresh my memory?
I checked forum search "gbaji/insurgent" and found zero threads containing anything even remotely close to this claim.

Actually, to his credit, he has made that argument. He was arguing that crashing a plane into an IRS building to "wake up America" wasn't terrorism.

Don't know if I'd agree with him there but he did make the specific argument that planting an IED to blow up military vehicles wasn't an act of terrorism.

I'd be more impressed if Gbaji was ringing this bell back when Bush was calling every enemy combatant a terrorist (can't have a War on Terror without terrorists) but credit where due.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2473 Feb 20 2017 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,135 posts
Well, sometimes my google forum search -fu is weak.Smiley: frown
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2474 Feb 20 2017 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Poor Milo got dumped as the keynote speaker of CPAC.
Quote:
Well, sometimes my google forum search -fu is weak

I got lucky on a string of "terrorism isn't"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2475 Feb 20 2017 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
***
1,021 posts
You call that getting lucky? Damn.

This filter ******* kills me.

Edited, Feb 20th 2017 4:57pm by Kavekkk
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2476 Feb 21 2017 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
******
49,174 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Poor Milo got dumped as the keynote speaker of CPAC.
And his book deal, apparently. Which is absolutely shocking considering his position at Breitbart and our constant assurance of their yuge integrity and of their being the only source of real news anywhere in the world.

Speaking of 45, possibly his first smart move in naming Herbert Raymond McMaster to replace that idiot Flynn as National Security Advisor. He wrote a pretty good book about how it's bad to not question high-ranking officers and presidents on their war time strategies. He's also quite the intellectual who has shaped a lot of the military. This is the kind of guy you'd actually want on the job so he'll probably get himself gone'd before November, but at least he'll get sacked for integrity.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2477 Feb 21 2017 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Poor Milo got dumped as the keynote speaker of CPAC.
And his book deal, apparently. Which is absolutely shocking considering his position at Breitbart and our constant assurance of their yuge integrity and of their being the only source of real news anywhere in the world.

Speaking of 45, possibly his first smart move in naming Herbert Raymond McMaster to replace that idiot Flynn as National Security Advisor. He wrote a pretty good book about how it's bad to not question high-ranking officers and presidents on their war time strategies. He's also quite the intellectual who has shaped a lot of the military. This is the kind of guy you'd actually want on the job so he'll probably get himself gone'd before November, but at least he'll get sacked for integrity.


Eh, maybe he'll stage a coup.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2478 Feb 21 2017 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,546 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Poor Milo got dumped as the keynote speaker of CPAC.
And his book deal, apparently. Which is absolutely shocking considering his position at Breitbart and our constant assurance of their yuge integrity and of their being the only source of real news anywhere in the world.

And now he's out at Breitbart, that shining beacon of ethical reporting.

Quote:
Speaking of 45, possibly his first smart move in naming Herbert Raymond McMaster to replace that idiot Flynn as National Security Advisor. He wrote a pretty good book about how it's bad to not question high-ranking officers and presidents on their war time strategies. He's also quite the intellectual who has shaped a lot of the military. This is the kind of guy you'd actually want on the job so he'll probably get himself gone'd before November, but at least he'll get sacked for integrity.

I'm always skeptical of "I've known this guy for 20 years and he's a class act" type fluff pieces, but apparently McMaster is legit respected by both sides. Plus, he's a **** of a battlefield commander.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#2479 Feb 21 2017 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
And now he's out at Breitbart, that shining beacon of ethical reporting.

There's not enough irony in the world to handle him blaming his resignation on edited and out-of-context video.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2480 Feb 22 2017 at 6:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Well, looks like this is where the line is.

Alt-right/Conservatism loves racism, sexism, etc, but man, do they hate gay pedophilia more than they love those things.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2017 7:05am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2481 Feb 22 2017 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
******
49,174 posts
But they sure do like Russia all of a sudden.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2483 Feb 22 2017 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
But they sure do like Russia all of a sudden.


They don't love Russia. They love right wing authoritarianism. Russia is financing that right now, so...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2484 Feb 22 2017 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Well, looks like this is where the line is.

Alt-right/Conservatism loves racism, sexism, etc, but man, do they hate gay pedophilia more than they love those things.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2017 7:05am by Timelordwho



I think it's more the traditional Conservatives that freaked out over his hebephiliac ways, right? Because of course free speech only extends to things that don't repel me, personally.

I've seen a lot of chatter on the alt-Reich along the lines of "if there's grass on the field, play ball, hyuk-hyuk", which may be intended to shock and provoke but which certainly falls in line with this particular attention *****'s patois.

The old-guard Conservatives, both fiscal and social, are at a loss when it comes to this sort of behavior. The alt-Reich is out there advocating to tear down taboos, mores and systems, not to conserve them.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2485 Feb 22 2017 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Those comments are mostly An-Caps, not Alt-Reich. While they may occasionally look similar, they are about as close as lib dem and Stalinists.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2486 Feb 22 2017 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
***
1,021 posts
Well, alt-right is defined in opposition to the mainstream right, so it's not a coherent group. I guess whether ancaps are considered alt reich depends on whether you consider alt-reich a simple slur/play on words of alt right or a more specific term (facist alt right).

Personally, I think ancaps should all be made outlaws so I can hunt them for sport.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2487 Feb 22 2017 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
I've seen a lot of chatter on the alt-Reich along the lines of "if there's grass on the field, play ball, hyuk-hyuk", which may be intended to shock and provoke

Generally speaking, these are not people capable of finding age-appropriate female companionship via the traditional routes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2488 Feb 22 2017 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
I've seen a lot of chatter on the alt-Reich along the lines of "if there's grass on the field, play ball, hyuk-hyuk", which may be intended to shock and provoke

Generally speaking, these are not people capable of finding age-appropriate female companionship via the traditional routes.


Oh, I pretty much assume they keep the Real Doll business afloat.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2489 Feb 22 2017 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
I've seen a lot of chatter on the alt-Reich along the lines of "if there's grass on the field, play ball, hyuk-hyuk", which may be intended to shock and provoke

Generally speaking, these are not people capable of finding age-appropriate female companionship via the traditional routes.


Oh, I pretty much assume they keep the Real Doll business afloat.


The ones who don't have money, at least.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2490 Feb 22 2017 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
******
49,174 posts
Hookers cheaper.

Or ... so I'm told ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2491 Feb 22 2017 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,546 posts
Samira wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Well, looks like this is where the line is.

Alt-right/Conservatism loves racism, sexism, etc, but man, do they hate gay pedophilia more than they love those things.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2017 7:05am by Timelordwho



I think it's more the traditional Conservatives that freaked out over his hebephiliac ways, right? Because of course free speech only extends to things that don't repel me, personally.

I've seen a lot of chatter on the alt-Reich along the lines of "if there's grass on the field, play ball, hyuk-hyuk", which may be intended to shock and provoke but which certainly falls in line with this particular attention *****'s patois.

The old-guard Conservatives, both fiscal and social, are at a loss when it comes to this sort of behavior. The alt-Reich is out there advocating to tear down taboos, mores and systems, not to conserve them.

Ross Douthat's column today did a decent job trying to define the Milo appeal. I think it's overbroad, especially as it relates to the traditional Religious Right, but it pretty accurately captures his appeal to the Return of Kings and Gamergate types of deplorables.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#2492 Feb 22 2017 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Yes, but that's not what they are looking for. Although, most An-Caps generally believe prostitution being illegal is a travesty. One of the few places we agree, I guess.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2493 Feb 22 2017 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In simplest terms, the right just falls all over itself when it finds someone from a "liberal" demographic who espouses conservative views. A gay guy, a black guy, a young woman -- look, they're saying that bakers shouldn't have to make cakes for SSM cermonies, that reverse racism is real, that women should have to buy their own contraceptives! Where's your god now, liberals?! We must be right because out of umpity-million [demographic] people, we found one who agrees with us! Someday they'll find a pretty young photogenic black lesbian who is an avid Trump supporter and you'll think the Rapture is upon us.

Milo is something of a unique case in his championing of neckbeard causes (you can't get a date because of feminism, really!) but hardly a unique one.

I don't think the left is immune to this sort of thing but rather most major right-wing demographics already have enough representation on the left (working class, the wealthy, etc) that it's hard to make anyone a hero based on that criteria. Maybe the occasional religious type -- witness the leftward popularity of Pope Francis among people who ordinarily would dismiss his opinions as outdated religious babble. The Pontiff could probably get a book published, though. There's that one old liberal military guy who keeps finding his way into my Facebook feed. Without the military credentials I don't know that many people would care what he's saying.

Edit: Actually, an even more extreme example is the Left's tendency to get all jazzed up about any Republican politician who strays from conservative orthodoxy. "Hey, that guy said that maybe anthropogenic climate change is real! Boy, there's a Republican I could vote for!". Never mind that he voted to ban Planned Parenthood, visits a Whites Only golf course and wants people using food stamps to work 16 hours a week in the salt mines -- he said maybe we're partially responsible for something obvious so let's put that man on a stamp. That sort of nonsense tends to be fleeting though; they don't wind up in prominent positions in major partisan media outlets.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2017 11:18am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2494 Feb 22 2017 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,127 posts
So nobody opted to make a buoyancy joke about Real Dolls? Man, I just lob 'em up there and y'all just let 'em clunk you in the head.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2495 Feb 22 2017 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
***
1,021 posts
I always fill them up with cement before I dump them in the lake.

Oh, wait, we're not talking about ancaps anymore, nevermind.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2496 Feb 22 2017 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
***
1,021 posts
Wait a second, two posts on the same subject, capitalisation of Real Doll in line with corporate policy...

Samira, have you sold your account to Real Doll's advertising department? You have to tell me if you have, I don't want to be caught with my pants down here.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2497 Feb 22 2017 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,546 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In simplest terms, the right just falls all over itself when it finds someone from a "liberal" demographic who espouses conservative views. A gay guy, a black guy, a young woman -- look, they're saying that bakers shouldn't have to make cakes for SSM cermonies, that reverse racism is real, that women should have to buy their own contraceptives! Where's your god now, liberals?! We must be right because out of umpity-million [demographic] people, we found one who agrees with us! Someday they'll find a pretty young photogenic black lesbian who is an avid Trump supporter and you'll think the Rapture is upon us.

So essentially their looking for a figurehead to validate the rejection of rigid identity politics (i.e. "if you're female, brown, poor or ***, you MUST vote for Democrats"). Why do they always have to pick complete cretins like Milo and David Clarke? Just for the sake of novelty, or is it the shock value of the completely bonkers things they say and support?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#2498 Feb 22 2017 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Realdoll is one of Zam's few remaining advertising partners due to all the filter breaking,
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2499 Feb 22 2017 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,155 posts
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
In simplest terms, the right just falls all over itself when it finds someone from a "liberal" demographic who espouses conservative views. A gay guy, a black guy, a young woman -- look, they're saying that bakers shouldn't have to make cakes for SSM cermonies, that reverse racism is real, that women should have to buy their own contraceptives! Where's your god now, liberals?! We must be right because out of umpity-million [demographic] people, we found one who agrees with us! Someday they'll find a pretty young photogenic black lesbian who is an avid Trump supporter and you'll think the Rapture is upon us.

So essentially their looking for a figurehead to validate the rejection of rigid identity politics (i.e. "if you're female, brown, poor or ***, you MUST vote for Democrats"). Why do they always have to pick complete cretins like Milo and David Clarke? Just for the sake of novelty, or is it the shock value of the completely bonkers things they say and support?


The pickings are slim among those demo groups who can also do public speaking/self promotion.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2500 Feb 22 2017 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,174 posts
How buoyant are Real Dolls?

Be a newsworthy way to travel to Cuba. Call it a Poontoon.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2501 Feb 22 2017 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
So essentially their looking for a figurehead to validate the rejection of rigid identity politics (i.e. "if you're female, brown, poor or ***, you MUST vote for Democrats"). Why do they always have to pick complete cretins like Milo and David Clarke? Just for the sake of novelty, or is it the shock value of the completely bonkers things they say and support?

Beats me. I find it more amusing that the Clinton/Trump vote may be split 95/5 (or whatever, I'm too lazy to look) but that's still one guy in twenty out of a population of ~35 million. But people act like it's like finding a unicorn to say "This black guy says Trump is keen" and hang on to him throughout almost any nonsense. The importance they place on these people only amplifies the other stuff. Just go find a different black guy!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT
Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (41)