Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Marik2:

Lil devils x:

Marik2:
lol, this just came out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7hdIIneypE

She is wearing my dress! I have that exact same dress! I was having difficulty following what she was saying while looking at her in my dress. so had to listen to it rather than watch. LOL

[quote="ObsidianJones" post="528.1056373.24280666"]Literally, I thought it was preposterous that there would be a dress tiny enough to fit a cat.

Then I had to also remember that Devil is not, in fact, a cat who can type.

It's odd when you converse with people for so long and the only mental picture of them you have are weird avatars. I can't read about this Fallout 76 thing without thinking about Evilthecat on occasion...

Of course it does!
image

XD

runic knight:
Because you want to pretend that anyone who voted politically opposed to you is the same as that person and will demonize them and excuse social, financial and even physical violence against them just to justify your hatred of their entire group.

When you give your vote to another person to represent you, you are giving up your own voice and power to them to speak and act for you. Yes, you are responsible for what they then do and say with that power you gave them as they would not have the power to wield without the people who gave that power to them. If every person understood the power of their vote and took responsibility for it, we would not have the atrocities committed as we do by those who have been given such power. If you give another your power, it is also your responsibility to prevent them from abusing it, failing to do so it is no different than if you carried out the atrocities yourself, because you caused it to happen by empowering them in the first place.

One cannot simply wash their hands of responsibility once one gives their power to another to wield, and claim they are not accountable for those actions that were only allowed to take place due to that power being given. They are indeed accountable so should take more care in who they give that power to knowing it is their responsibility to do something about it when it is abused.

"representation" is indeed the same as doing it yourself because you empowered them to speak and act for you so yes, they are one in the same at that point.

runic knight:

Asita:

Mmm...I'm pretty sure I understand what runic is getting at there, so perhaps I can shed some light on it. In trying to convince people of a point, restating facts is not the whole of the game. Another component is personal brand[1]. But in this context the most relevant is positioning strategy. The short version of which is that there are Six "R"s, which can be divided into Positive points (strengthening your position) and Negative ones (weakening your opponent's position).

"Positive"
Reinforce: strengthen positive attributes
Refocus: Add links between attributes or introduce new attributes
Redefine: Express potential weakness so that it is perceived as a strength

"Negative"
Reframe: Express potential strength so that it is perceived as a weakness
Redirect: Divert attention from strength to weakness
Remove: Undermine perceived strength by showing that it doesn't exist

In this conversation we're seeing two major arguments about this guy being racist. The first - and the one Saelune herself is championing - is that him identifying as a white nationalist is the proverbial smoking gun, and all the proof that anyone should need that Myers is racist. To quote her directly: "This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist." The other variation is that when you look at his history, his causes and stated rationales show a pattern of racism.

The former argument actually does the Redirecting for Myers. By focusing on that comment instead of the pattern, the argument that he is racist is undermined by presenting weak evidence as if it was the best evidence we had. It also makes it stupidly easy for Myers to Remove that point, as the comment in question was affirming a divergent usage where white nationalist was being used to mean a nationalist who was white. That is a bad definition, to be sure, but the simple fact that the comment was made in that context makes it ridiculously easy for him to argue that any claims of racism based on that statement are themselves based on miscommunication. Under this strategy, by the time we actually get to his damning political history, the idea has already been planted in the audience that we're throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. Conversely, focusing on his political history from the get-go is an argument he'd have difficulty defending against. While he might be able to spin each one, it's a much more daunting proposition and the underlying trend has already been laid bare and pointed out to the audience, weakening the potential spin.

Focusing on the tweet makes defending against it literally as simple as him saying "well if you look at the context, I obviously didn't mean it the way they're claiming". As an analogy, you could liken it to Casey giving the pitcher free strikes. It's a senseless handicap that is easily avoided by focusing on the stronger evidence, which we have to cite anyways to dispute the claim that we mischaracterized him.

I wish more people were like you here. That is exactly the point I was going for related to Sealune's argument about what the guy said. Thank you for that.

Khellendrosiic:
Yes, I am indeed implying that you need to be punched and that you're a Nazi. The fact that you routinely write dissertation quantity posts in defense of their values implies you believe strongly in what you're saying. And since there isn't much point to arguing with such deeply held beliefs, it would be much easier to punch you.

You are more than welcome to try to find where I have written posts in defense of nazi values, but I know for a fact they don't exist. All you will find is protest or dissection of posts by people who claim they fight nazi, and as I have said a few times, being critical of someone's terrible arguments, horrible behavior, or worthless justifications is not the same thing as believing in the ideology of the people they claim they oppose.

But thank you for highlighting a point about the utter worthlessness of calling people you dislike "nazi" when they criticize you solely for the sake of demonizing them. It solves nothing, convinces no one, and makes you look like a McCarthist who found a new "communism" to throw around.

ObsidianJones:
Perception does indeed have a function in this conversation. But it's not as you say.

I can easily bombard you with facts, studies, and proofs.

And when the dispute is with the pattern you see from them and the conclusions you make, all that you bombard me with comes off more as just a flood of links dug up to support your conclusion after the fact, rather than a compelling argument formed leading to it.

And that was the same problem as I mentioned last time.

Even you list of links has problems again, as you openly discard the intention of one study to try to make it support your conclusion. From the study black criminals receiving longer sentences

Because multivariate regression analysis cannot control for all of
the factors that judges may consider, the results of the analyses presented
in this report should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken
to suggest discrimination on the part of judges. Multivariate analysis
cannot explain why the observed differences in sentencing outcomes
exist, but only that they do exist.

And that is not even going into the flaw with their attempt to control for prior criminal behavior was limited to the existence of violent crime, rather than all crime or the previous frequency of it, and that according to the study itself, women across all race receive roughly 30% shorter sentences for the same crime, thereby making that difference even more important than the one you latched onto, but which would entirely run counter to your position that race is the heaviest factor.

The wrongful convictions doesn't control for income inequalities.

The topic of poorer income openly supports that income is the driving factor of the problem.

Do you see the point I am getting at here about how your argument really looks like it was reverse-engineers to support your conclusion rather than leading to it by examining the data first?

And I point all this out to highlight the "Fake News" power that seems to exist in the majority's arsenal. All these facts can be diminished by simple words and phrases. Say these sources come from "SJWs", and a segment of the population will handwave it as feel good propaganda. Say that these reports come from the "Politically Correct" section of the Government, and some people will consider these to be made up lies.

Yes, many may try that. But that doesn't mean the criticisms and flaws of those facts, and their lack of leading to the conclusion you want exclusively, are to be ignored. That some jackass dislikes them as facts doesn't change that even as facts they are often used in ways either intentionally ignoring warnings of not to be used in that fashion, or devoid of the proper context required to support the conclusions they are used to support.

All these things being put together is the pattern that is shown to me. I take exception to the idea of 'wishing to see', but no matter. The idea of someone looking at the government reporting on unequal education, abysmal medical care due to myths, harsher sentences, higher rate of false incarceration, the government removing white extremist terrorists from their crosshairs and placing it on "BIE" even though there aren't any way near the same reported incidents of BIE violence compared to white extremist terrorist events.... and then that person saying "This all doesn't seem to be related" boggles my mind.

It isn't that I do not see it related, it is that I do not see it caused by the factor you do. The correlation is there and I do no dispute that. More blacks receive longer sentences than whites, and that is a fact. But while you see that as because of their skin color, I question your conclusion for failing to properly control for that in gathering the data. There is a correlation between blacks and higher rates of financial problems, and a known correlation between poverty and lack of ability to mount proper legal defenses because of it.

I am not even going to make the claim it is because income here, as that will start a debate on that topic itself and I know I don't have enough support to claim that absolutely. But the fact that such things are not properly controlled for before making sweeping claims relating to the correlation is why I say it looks like you are working from a conclusion you want first. Because from all you have shown, you don't even have the data to say it isn't one of a myriad of other reasons yet.

To reference a controversial study with the same flaw, the IQ of people based on race would make disheartening generalizations about races themselves because of the correlation of data. Controlling for other factors though offers better explanation and more strongly suggests that race isn't the cause determining IQ.

You presented a case that I'm coming from a conclusion and working my way backwards to try to substantiate what I want to believe. I invite you to question yourself in this moment. Because if you can look at all these incidents that seems to happen to minorities with such frequency and you can just shrug your shoulders and go "Unconnected Happenstance" instead of "A Pattern of Behavior", I do not know what can be gained by further conversation.

Again, my position is not some handwaving casual dismissal of your position as completely unconnected, I rather openly admit the correlations there could be causation, merely that there is more than just your assumption that still works in explaining the data you have, and your lack of controlling for it before making your conclusion looks like you picked one possible one you preferred and are working backwards from there.

I pointed to financial because it also correlates, and remains consistent when controlled for across all other demographics in how it impacts things. And it reflects a racial bias consistent with the data you see without being dependent upon the racial aspect as causation. But it is just a top of the head thing to demonstrate that your data supports multiple conclusions and that to make your claim solidly, you need to control for and disprove the influence of all other possible factors first.

I'm really not trying to be rude. You've been nothing but a gentleman as you explained your side and I truly thank you for that. But that shows Perceptional Blindness that I don't know if mere words can penetrate. Again. I mean you no disrespect. The fact that you're speaking to me as an equal proves that you're coming from this as one person talking to another. I think that's essential. But just as equally essential is the ability to remove one's beliefs from the situation and piece together the facts.

You aren't calling me a nazi, so no worries about coming off as rude. As I said before earlier, civil discussion can be passionate, even heated, and still be seen as civil in my eyes. You've argued your point well and supported it and that is all I could ask, so no worries.

I had to do that with my Christian Upbringing. I had to do that with racial bias (both placed towards me and my views on others). As I had to do that with countless other things in the world. What I'm saying and what has fueled my perception, I can (and have) linked the studies by the very government who has had a hand in all these dealings. I literally don't know what else to do to show the world from this side.

If you choose to continue to believe what you do, go ahead and do so. But don't look at what minorities have to deal with and discount it because you choose to see it another way. We don't get the choice if we are truly concerned about our individual survival.

You do well to show the data that helped convince you. Honestly, I do mean that. But as I said before, while your supports do support your conclusion, it is not only that conclusion that it supports, so the next step would be to control for other factors and to really prove the causation itself can only come from what you claim. I'd start with first proving that it could not be, as you put it, unconnected happenstance, and then building from there to tackle other possible causes such as income, location, or whatever else that data could also support.

Even if it is just the fact that we equate peaceful gathering to 'opposition' does show the fundamental disconnect between 'Action' and 'Perception of Said Action'.

People are unifying to make their voices heard. The Gathering isn't opposition. The Gathering is to make it known that we are not ok with how White Criminals who are armed, who've shot and killed untold amount of people, and/or who might have shot at the police are brought in but Black Suspects are shot within seconds and are treated like they can obey orders while grievously wounded. We're not saying every Black person a cop runs down is innocent. We're not even saying don't give the criminal more time if he does run from you.

We're saying running isn't a capital offense. We're saying running isn't bringing harm to the police officer. When I went for my firearm license, I've learned that I would go to court for shooting a person in the back because he doesn't present danger. When I went to study for the NYPD, it was stressed in that book the same thing. And yet I see police officers do it with disturbing regularity and citizenry saying "Well, that's what he gets for running".

It patiently isn't. And it's disturbing that simply trying to get that message out to both Police and average citizens is usually met with such a mindset.

Let it be known. I want every person to make it back home to their families. I don't want a situation where a cop doesn't drawn to protect his life if it's seriously in danger because he's afraid of what the write up is going to look like. But bare in mind, I do not begrudge any black person who runs from the cops for whatever reason when we have to hold John Crawford III (Officer Not Charged even though his actions killed a bystander by giving her a heart attack), Eric Garner (Officer found [url=]Not Guilty[/url] even though Choke Holds have been banned from NYPD use),Freddie Gray (No Federal Charges placed on them, allowed to walk free), Tamir Rice (Officer rehired somewhere else)...

I don't have a problem with a black person running. He's taking just as much risk (if not more) than an officer. It's something we as citizens need to work out, but that comes from accurate and equal standing. And as I've seen my entire life, that's something the police do not want. Like you said, if I say anything that they can interpret as 'opposition', they won't like me. But I must take their actions as 'a few bad apples' or 'bad training'? Where is the fairness in that?

That lack of fairness is standard procedure for the type of power structure. As I said, throughout history and even around the globe currently, that sort of unfairness is common. I'd say the only uncommon aspect of it currently is that because of the nature of the nation itself, they currently have to attempt to justify their actions after the fact, as opposed to just ignoring the complaints, or cracking down and punishing dissenters. But with the current militarization of police thanks to the effects of the war on drugs and the escalation of stupidity that entailed, you have the current situation.

Calling out their behavior and demanding a change is opposition, as all protest is. It is a rejection of the current and opposing what has occurred. How it is portrayed and interpreted can vary, but it is inevitably an opposition to.

I fully agree with your positions here, both regarding police use of force needing better oversight (I personally think there should be no such thing as an internal investigation and it should be an agency separate from them in all regards that's sole job is to go in and do the investigations the second they happen and before the watchmen have to try to watch themselves) and in being clearer about what does or does not justify specific police responses.

The framing of it as a race issue I would say is horribly counter-productive. For one, it led to it being framed as "black people versus police", which really should have been avoided instead of embraced by those protesting the police. Slogans like "black lives matter" serving only to press it as a race issue (as opposed to one affecting all citizens), and opened itself to being twisted into saying the other lives don't (with people complaining about "all live matter" only adding to that), or to being claimed to imply that police lives do not (with the counter-slogan of "blue lives matter" cementing the "blacks versus cops" perception).

It is a problem for all citizens though. Even the data shows that more whites are killed by police per year than blacks overall.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

But if not pushed as an issue that affects everyone, and instead by concentrating on the racial aspect, it first breeds apathy for those who don't understand why it should affect them, and later breeds exclussionarism as the lack of support from other groups is blamed on racism against their cause, further isolating them.

After all the things we've talked about, this is where I disagree with you the strongest. I won't go over all my points. They are up there for you to see. But I have to stress two things. One is a defintion. And the Other highlights a concept that shows how people like me can not define their own experience.

First part, as I'm sure you know, there is a racial and economic definition of the Majority and the Minority. It is the very reason why in my original statement I said this phrase.

The problem is that the Majority (which in this case are White Americans) get to have a flexible reality that they can define and interpret as they wish. They get to define behavior, norms, and it seems now even familiar phrases.

I get that this is a class struggle. I've said that in many post before. But in the case of this society, the Class struggle and the Racial Struggle happen to overlap in nigh perfect 1 on 1 synchronization. As much as people want to, it's almost impossible to separate the two. Hell, some of the richest people in this nation are athletes, and we still know how people treat them if they actually have an opinion on things.

But to the second part. The very concept that highlights and shows people like me can not do anything without the Majority's written approval.

Fear.

the Majority of people fear Blacks. Crime, Media, being the other... everyone has a reason. They get why Cops have to shoot in defense. We attack what we fear to survive. That's as human as human gets. And since the Majority fears Blacks, they have an understanding of that.

Minorities fear cops. Unanswered murders, media, being the other... These are all reasons. They get why people might run from cops even if they didn't do something wrong. Cops are more powerful than minorities, so they fear them. That's also as human as human gets. But the majority doesn't fear Cops. The majority does not have the same type of scenarios as minorities do. The majority sees the restraint that police have in bringing in the Dylann Roofs and the Robert Bowers of the world, so they apply it to everything.

But minorities do not see the same restraint for people that look like them. To them, Fear is a valid excuse, but it isn't to Cops and to the Majority.

The same human concept. Redefined by how you sit in life. Now, I can't redefine fear as a reason to run from cops if approached in a way that doesn't get me jail time... if not a bullet. But they can define fear that my actions will deserve that bullet because I might be doing something that will endanger their lives. That's the inability to define one's personal situation and how it strips a person of their own agency compared to the power of how others can do just that.

The racial struggle is not a 1 to 1 overlap. The financial minority is the powerful one, and the majority are the less powerful, made up of people of all races. A white drug dealer on the corner holds just as much fear of a police officer shooting him as he runs as any other race, and the sharing of skin color with the officer (not a guarantee of occurring itself) does not make that less so. A poor white is not protected by their skin color, they are just another of the poor majority. Their struggles mirror that of the black poor or the hispanic poor in the same neighborhoods, and the only fear of the other groups comes from the conflicts caused by competing for limited resources and the discontent breed between the groups based on race to keep them divided among themselves.

Rich athletes, or other celebrities, routinely avoid prison, avoid criminal charges, or get far lighter punishments. This is true across all races. When they speak out, as I assume you refer to instances like kaepernick specifically here, in ways that harm the coming of money, they get backlash. But the idea that even that backlash hurts them in any real fashion in the end seems untrue.

The majority (the financial majority) hold a spectrum from hating and fearing cops, to trusting and respecting them. I do not dispute that fear explains reactions to them, nor that fear is used as justification for those exercising power to excuse their actions away.

Saelune:

Remind me why -I- am the uncivil extremist here.

Because you want to pretend that anyone who voted politically opposed to you is the same as that person and will demonize them and excuse social, financial and even physical violence against them just to justify your hatred of their entire group.

Someone else being horrible does not make your behavior not horrible.

I've clarified this before. Being critical of your failings is not an endorsement of those you oppose. You can both commit horrible behavior in your own, unique ways.

Stop defending White Nationalism.

[1] For instance, people will react very differently to the revelation that a Disney starlet does drugs than they will to the revelation that a Death Metal singer does drugs. This is due in large part to the fact that Disney and its stars try very hard to create a "Sincere" brand, which is enabled by wholesome presentation and hurt by 'bad' behavior, and the fact that Death Metal tends to play off of an "Exciting" brand image, which is often helped by 'bad' behavior rather than hindered by it

Lil devils x:

Marik2:

Lil devils x:

She is wearing my dress! I have that exact same dress! I was having difficulty following what she was saying while looking at her in my dress. so had to listen to it rather than watch. LOL

[quote="ObsidianJones" post="528.1056373.24280666"]Literally, I thought it was preposterous that there would be a dress tiny enough to fit a cat.

Then I had to also remember that Devil is not, in fact, a cat who can type.

It's odd when you converse with people for so long and the only mental picture of them you have are weird avatars. I can't read about this Fallout 76 thing without thinking about Evilthecat on occasion...

Of course it does!
image

XD

Very cute. Did you do that yourself?

runic knight:
And when the dispute is with the pattern you see from them and the conclusions you make, all that you bombard me with comes off more as just a flood of links dug up to support your conclusion after the fact, rather than a compelling argument formed leading to it.

And that was the same problem as I mentioned last time.

Even you list of links has problems again, as you openly discard the intention of one study to try to make it support your conclusion. From the study black criminals receiving longer sentences

Because multivariate regression analysis cannot control for all of
the factors that judges may consider, the results of the analyses presented
in this report should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken
to suggest discrimination on the part of judges. Multivariate analysis
cannot explain why the observed differences in sentencing outcomes
exist, but only that they do exist.

And that is not even going into the flaw with their attempt to control for prior criminal behavior was limited to the existence of violent crime, rather than all crime or the previous frequency of it, and that according to the study itself, women across all race receive roughly 30% shorter sentences for the same crime, thereby making that difference even more important than the one you latched onto, but which would entirely run counter to your position that race is the heaviest factor.

The wrongful convictions doesn't control for income inequalities.

The topic of poorer income openly supports that income is the driving factor of the problem.

Do you see the point I am getting at here about how your argument really looks like it was reverse-engineers to support your conclusion rather than leading to it by examining the data first?

I see what you're saying. But let me go to the part of the study that was specifically addressing the open-and-out racists and/or subconsciously biased towards minorities, and how they admit that influences their ruling.

...

Right. There is no section like that. There will never be a section like that because even with this racial divided America, no one can out right say that and still have their job. There is a segment of data that will never be reported, nor will we ever know how much of the population of judges sentenced due to absolute fairness and the letter of the law. Hell, the FBI can't even get straight numbers about Police Shootings each year, but we expect documents to show that minorities suffer specifically due to judges wanting to punish minorities more?

You say my data is incomplete and I'm using it as supporting my conclusion first before getting the facts. Again, I see it differently. As no one checks off "Bigoted" "Racist" "Misogynistic/Misandristic" "Classist" when they apply for Juidgeship, all we do have is their actions.

I mean, it would be one thing if they did. Then we could just cross reference the admittedly Biased Judges with the Normal judges and compare the numbers. But we can't do that. So all we have is a disproportionate slant and 'questions' as to why.

The problem is with this scenario, all we'll ever have is the Scientific Method. We observe the Situation (Black males getting longer time even doing the same crime). We Research the Problem, or gathering Data. You come up with a Hypothesis. And at this point, we're supposed to come up with the other steps, but we can not. Because the Data in this sample will always be corrupted because these Biased Judges won't admit the truth in this climate, nor can we conduct any experiments.

So, this is where we sit. With incomplete data (we see the numbers, but we'll never get the true 'why' of these numbers). The thing is, I get that it's unproven until people start telling the truth. And I know it's in their best interest never to do so. Do you understand that fact? Or are you given to just accepting your perception of how it plays out because it's the one that makes the most sense to you?

Yes, many may try that. But that doesn't mean the criticisms and flaws of those facts, and their lack of leading to the conclusion you want exclusively, are to be ignored. That some jackass dislikes them as facts doesn't change that even as facts they are often used in ways either intentionally ignoring warnings of not to be used in that fashion, or devoid of the proper context required to support the conclusions they are used to support.

Seriously, the last two days have been a deluge of how this planet is freaking dying and how we still have leaders (Trump) and people denying the severe weather, the rising water levels, and the disappearing ice caps. It has been a sad state of affairs for years now, but it's ramping up.

And because people still dismiss it at fake news, Trump feels empowered to continue to gut and ignore any efforts to turn the course. The Fake News power has a very real chance to destroy our way of life. Ignoring it, ironically, doesn't rob it of its power.

It isn't that I do not see it related, it is that I do not see it caused by the factor you do. The correlation is there and I do no dispute that. More blacks receive longer sentences than whites, and that is a fact. But while you see that as because of their skin color, I question your conclusion for failing to properly control for that in gathering the data. There is a correlation between blacks and higher rates of financial problems, and a known correlation between poverty and lack of ability to mount proper legal defenses because of it.

I am not even going to make the claim it is because income here, as that will start a debate on that topic itself and I know I don't have enough support to claim that absolutely. But the fact that such things are not properly controlled for before making sweeping claims relating to the correlation is why I say it looks like you are working from a conclusion you want first. Because from all you have shown, you don't even have the data to say it isn't one of a myriad of other reasons yet.

To reference a controversial study with the same flaw, the IQ of people based on race would make disheartening generalizations about races themselves because of the correlation of data. Controlling for other factors though offers better explanation and more strongly suggests that race isn't the cause determining IQ.

Again, this goes to my original point. I'm not messing up the Data. The Data is corrupted at the source. Most Data is. The bits and pieces of Data that we get come from not being able to hide the obvious.

Like you, I would rather have clear, undeniable facts than anything else. But where we separate is that a lot of Minorities are on both sides of the ethnic/economic spectrum not due to their choices, but their luck in life. Most minorities were born in ghettos and were only concerned about keeping their family safe and eating.

Like in several posts back where I pointed out that Minorities still get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to educational and job opportunities, a financial boon will not come out of thin air. Some will make it out. My Granddad did. My Father did. I'm doing well for myself. But I do not hold up the entire race. Nor can the thousands of us for the millions who didn't make it due to outside forces and limited mobility out.

Why am I saying this? The only way to control for all factors is to feasibly have the same opportunities and see if they lead to similar outcomes. And that isn't the case in most situations.

I'd love to be able to control for data. That means we would have the ability to stamp out poverty and just let people be. Until we have that solution, though, we have to take the numbers we get.

Again, my position is not some handwaving casual dismissal of your position as completely unconnected, I rather openly admit the correlations there could be causation, merely that there is more than just your assumption that still works in explaining the data you have, and your lack of controlling for it before making your conclusion looks like you picked one possible one you preferred and are working backwards from there.

I pointed to financial because it also correlates, and remains consistent when controlled for across all other demographics in how it impacts things. And it reflects a racial bias consistent with the data you see without being dependent upon the racial aspect as causation. But it is just a top of the head thing to demonstrate that your data supports multiple conclusions and that to make your claim solidly, you need to control for and disprove the influence of all other possible factors first.

I freely state that I'm using Minority and namely blacks because they fit almost perfectly in both sides of the spectrum, ethnic and economic status. But you have to again go to the fact that we'll never get controlled data because it will harm too many people and institutions to ever get that. This is something you have to understand.

The "wait and see for more concise data" idea is only well and good if you're afforded the ability to wait and see. Some of us are not. Some of us see people who look like them shot without any care or justice, people who look like them jailed as a felon for 'crimes' that are a 125 dollar ticket for others who do not look like them. Some of us see a rise of people with a cancerous ideology almost decriminalized have less of a focus of police oversight placed on them, but more when people who look like us get targeted by the FBI because we don't like being shot down like dogs. Data is wonderful. But it's not getting here soon enough. Nor will it ever get here because to get true numbers, we're asking people to potentially damage nor only their careers, but cast the entire justice system and its rulings under true suspicion for God Knows How many years.

That lack of fairness is standard procedure for the type of power structure. As I said, throughout history and even around the globe currently, that sort of unfairness is common. I'd say the only uncommon aspect of it currently is that because of the nature of the nation itself, they currently have to attempt to justify their actions after the fact, as opposed to just ignoring the complaints, or cracking down and punishing dissenters. But with the current militarization of police thanks to the effects of the war on drugs and the escalation of stupidity that entailed, you have the current situation.

Calling out their behavior and demanding a change is opposition, as all protest is. It is a rejection of the current and opposing what has occurred. How it is portrayed and interpreted can vary, but it is inevitably an opposition to.

I fully agree with your positions here, both regarding police use of force needing better oversight (I personally think there should be no such thing as an internal investigation and it should be an agency separate from them in all regards that's sole job is to go in and do the investigations the second they happen and before the watchmen have to try to watch themselves) and in being clearer about what does or does not justify specific police responses.

The framing of it as a race issue I would say is horribly counter-productive. For one, it led to it being framed as "black people versus police", which really should have been avoided instead of embraced by those protesting the police. Slogans like "black lives matter" serving only to press it as a race issue (as opposed to one affecting all citizens), and opened itself to being twisted into saying the other lives don't (with people complaining about "all live matter" only adding to that), or to being claimed to imply that police lives do not (with the counter-slogan of "blue lives matter" cementing the "blacks versus cops" perception).

It is a problem for all citizens though. Even the data shows that more whites are killed by police per year than blacks overall.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

But if not pushed as an issue that affects everyone, and instead by concentrating on the racial aspect, it first breeds apathy for those who don't understand why it should affect them, and later breeds exclussionarism as the lack of support from other groups is blamed on racism against their cause, further isolating them.

Do you know what happened when Blacks told other people that we were being arrested for nothing, shot and killed for nothing? Disbelief. We were called liars. We were told that we just didn't want to go to jail for the crimes we did.

Now the internet is here. People are seeing videos. Hearing recordings that disprove police testimony. Do you know what Black people are still seeing?

"Well, what happened before the video?"

"That doesn't show the whole story"

"Shouldn't have run" (as if running is a death sentence)

We live in a world where a situation like Justine Damond is vilified vs Philando Castile is Justified. We live in a world where an officer's absolute fear supersedes the reality of the situation. Where a group of citizens who are supposed to be Philando's and Officer Yanez's "peers" look at his split second reaction and ignoring Philando stating that he wasn't reaching for his gun, then think to themselves "Yeah, that was reasonable"... we all have a problem.

More importantly, the problem is that Blacks feel the need to bring focus on this, to say that this is a big deal. Do you ever stop to think how much of a blow it has to the Black Community that we have to say in one voice that our continued existence matters? The fact that American Citizens aren't gathering as one that their fellow citizens are being gunned down with very little resistance or backlash?

A lot of people will stop framing it as a Black Thing when it seems like people won't get away with it when it happens to Black People. As it is, a lot of officers do get away with it when it happens to Blacks. There are a few convictions. Never will deny that. But when we still live in a world where people can look at what happened to Castile and somehow justify Yanez's fear for 'some unknown reason', there is still a division that Blacks do not place, but are forced to live with.

Oh and by the way, Black Activists marched for Justine.

The racial struggle is not a 1 to 1 overlap. The financial minority is the powerful one, and the majority are the less powerful, made up of people of all races. A white drug dealer on the corner holds just as much fear of a police officer shooting him as he runs as any other race, and the sharing of skin color with the officer (not a guarantee of occurring itself) does not make that less so. A poor white is not protected by their skin color, they are just another of the poor majority. Their struggles mirror that of the black poor or the hispanic poor in the same neighborhoods, and the only fear of the other groups comes from the conflicts caused by competing for limited resources and the discontent breed between the groups based on race to keep them divided among themselves.

Rich athletes, or other celebrities, routinely avoid prison, avoid criminal charges, or get far lighter punishments. This is true across all races. When they speak out, as I assume you refer to instances like kaepernick specifically here, in ways that harm the coming of money, they get backlash. But the idea that even that backlash hurts them in any real fashion in the end seems untrue.

The majority (the financial majority) hold a spectrum from hating and fearing cops, to trusting and respecting them. I do not dispute that fear explains reactions to them, nor that fear is used as justification for those exercising power to excuse their actions away.

I can't comment on the Athletes or the celebrity thing. I don't pay attention to sports or things other than Netflix, Video Games, or the news. And I don't remember reading about any Athletes or Celebrities skating on any charges. I know Cosby's sitting in Jail.

But the idea that these things don't hurt them for protesting seems untrue to you because you're defining the perimeters that offense or harm can be taken. Do we ignore the racial outbursts, stemming from being called "Baboons" to the "N-Word" over kneeling in protest? LeBron having a racial slur sprayed on his home? Adam Jones called racial slurs and having peanuts hurled at him. It's ok because they have money?

They are the ones who decide if they harmed or not. Not us.

Lil devils x:
Of course it does!
image

XD

... I will now be disappointed if you're not a hyper-intelligent Kitten that uses a series of blinks and ear twitches to type on the internet.

image

'Free speech doesn't entitle you to be a cuck' says Trump supporter. I really hope I do not need to explain why I am posting this.

(And for the record, no this wasn't me being banned)

Saelune:
image

'Free speech doesn't entitle you to be a cuck' says Trump supporter. I really hope I do not need to explain why I am posting this.

(And for the record, no this wasn't me being banned)

You can't be impinging on someone else Free Sppeech if your a Free Speech advocate. Also something, something this being a private platform.

But seriously, it's getting to the stage where we just need to have a deplatforming contest to see the extent of damage. Including variables like when someone is shouted off a platform. And something about violent threats leading to banning. I can't imagine places like Gab being better than this

The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys". If you start to use the same tactics, you become what you hate.

I want the democrats to rise above it and attack Republican policy, rather than republican people.

Abomination:
The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys". If you start to use the same tactics, you become what you hate.

I want the democrats to rise above it and attack Republican policy, rather than republican people.

If you hadn't noticed, every time they focus on policy alone, they bomb worse than ever. The worst part of it is they actually have done this repeatedly and people are so oblivious to it they do not even remember it happening. For some strange reason people think when they talk about policy they appear weak and boring. It is like when a teacher gives a long boring lecture and the class falls asleep before they finish. Clinton attempted to talk policy and told people to go look at her plans and still no one even knows they existed. Since that was completely ignored she shifted to attacking Trump after that and people started to pay attention and of course whine that she didn't have any policies, which of course was bullshit since she still repeatedly told them to go look at her plans and they still seemed to ignore that part regardless of how many time she told them to do so. It wasn't just Clinton though, there were numerous candidates through the years that focused on policy alone that fared even worse.

Abomination:
The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys". If you start to use the same tactics, you become what you hate.

I want the democrats to rise above it and attack Republican policy, rather than republican people.

What do you mean by tactics? If it is lying and bigotry, then I agree with you.

But you dont like calling them out, but calling them out is 100% what we need to do. NOT calling them out and sticking to our calling of them out is the problem. Hillary should have used worse words than 'deplorable'.

Abomination:
I want the democrats to rise above it and attack Republican policy, rather than republican people.

Eh, you can't separate the two that easily. If someone is supporting Republican policy, and that policy is overtly bigoted, they are supporting something overtly bigoted.

OTOH, I do wish people would stop talking about Trump's spelling on Twitter or GOP leaders having unusual ways of speaking.

Lil devils x:
Clinton attempted to talk policy and told people to go look at her plans and still no one even knows they existed.

Because you don't tell people to go look at your plans, you detail them or give examples as to what they are.

"Read a book" is not a way that convinces people.

Saelune:
But you dont like calling them out, but calling them out is 100% what we need to do. NOT calling them out and sticking to our calling of them out is the problem. Hillary should have used worse words than 'deplorable'.

Call out the policy, investigate campaign donors and the motives thereof, highlight case study and examples of failure or provide independent projections on proposed Republican policy.

The problem is that the investigation of campaign donors reveals skeletons in both parties closets. If the democrats were able to distance themselves from such backroom dealings, then there's a genuine chance they may actually be able to convince non-voters to get to the booth.

Thaluikhain:
Eh, you can't separate the two that easily. If someone is supporting Republican policy, and that policy is overtly bigoted, they are supporting something overtly bigoted.

Bigots are going to remain being bigots and calling them bigots is not going to convince them to change how they vote. Focus on what matters to them - how your policy is going to improve their lives.

You do not attract opposition voters to your side by insulting them. You convince them by appealing to things that matter to them. Like it or not, but that's what ends up in their wallet at the end of every week.

Abomination:
Bigots are going to remain being bigots and calling them bigots is not going to convince them to change how they vote. Focus on what matters to them - how your policy is going to improve their lives.

People who've chosen to support Trump (et al), have, overwhelmingly, decided that voting for bigotry is more important than improving their lives. The GOP is going to hurt them, this was obvious for many years, but they get votes anyway. It flat out, obviously, objectively, would have been better for them to vote for the Democrats, but this was less important than hurting other people.

Exceptions for certain wealthy types who might well expect to be ripping people off rather than being ripped off (on balance).

Abomination:

Lil devils x:
Clinton attempted to talk policy and told people to go look at her plans and still no one even knows they existed.

Because you don't tell people to go look at your plans, you detail them or give examples as to what they are.

"Read a book" is not a way that convinces people.

Saelune:
But you dont like calling them out, but calling them out is 100% what we need to do. NOT calling them out and sticking to our calling of them out is the problem. Hillary should have used worse words than 'deplorable'.

Call out the policy, investigate campaign donors and the motives thereof, highlight case study and examples of failure or provide independent projections on proposed Republican policy.

The problem is that the investigation of campaign donors reveals skeletons in both parties closets. If the democrats were able to distance themselves from such backroom dealings, then there's a genuine chance they may actually be able to convince non-voters to get to the booth.

Thaluikhain:
Eh, you can't separate the two that easily. If someone is supporting Republican policy, and that policy is overtly bigoted, they are supporting something overtly bigoted.

Bigots are going to remain being bigots and calling them bigots is not going to convince them to change how they vote. Focus on what matters to them - how your policy is going to improve their lives.

You do not attract opposition voters to your side by insulting them. You convince them by appealing to things that matter to them. Like it or not, but that's what ends up in their wallet at the end of every week.

No, people actively ignored every policy Clinton explained.

We did call out the policy. And yet people still consider Clinton more 'pro-wallstreet swamp lord' than professional swamplord Trump.

WHEN PEOPLE PARODY EVIL BIG BUSISSNESS MEN THEY PARODY TRUMP!
Fucking seriously...

Calling bigots bigots is about making everyone else aware that just because they claim they dont hate black people or women, that by supporting the things they support or oppose the things they oppose, that they are bigots. People like Milo Yiannopolis, Bruce Jenner, or JORDAN PETERSON are bigots despite making claims otherwise.

But people want to pretend that voting for Trump isnt a bigoted thing to do, even though his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN was 'I hate non-whites and I hate women, vote for me!'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMswKahYug&t=83s

Thaluikhain:
People who've chosen to support Trump (et al), have, overwhelmingly, decided that voting for bigotry is more important than improving their lives. The GOP is going to hurt them, this was obvious for many years, but they get votes anyway. It flat out, obviously, objectively, would have been better for them to vote for the Democrats, but this was less important than hurting other people.

Exceptions for certain wealthy types who might well expect to be ripping people off rather than being ripped off (on balance).

If that is the case then you might as well accept that the dems will never live, because in your opinion half the country is essentially evil.

I assure you that is not the case. Continuing to grasp onto this mindset is detrimental to the democrats methods. One would think a party named after the concept of democracy would understand that it's about convincing individuals to change their vote, rather than perceiving those who voted opposing as nothing but horrible human beings.

Saelune:
Calling bigots bigots is about making everyone else aware that just because they claim they dont hate black people or women, that by supporting the things they support or oppose the things they oppose, that they are bigots. People like Milo Yiannopolis, Bruce Jenner, or JORDAN PETERSON are bigots despite making claims otherwise.

But people want to pretend that voting for Trump isnt a bigoted thing to do, even though his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN was 'I hate non-whites and I hate women, vote for me!'

Do you want the catharsis of saying people are bad for voting a certain way, or do you want your political party to win its elections?

Even if you are 100% right and everyone who votes for Trump is an evil bad bigot, calling them that isn't going to change things. They will remain so. You need them to change their minds, and those who vote republican are historically very defensive people. Saying the decision they are making is a poor reflection of their character will just make them dig their heels in further.

Do you want to feel good about your perception of others or do you want political change? In this scenario, you can not have both.

Abomination:
If that is the case then you might as well accept that the dems will never live, because in your opinion half the country is essentially evil.

Half? No. Less than 20% of people in the US voted for Trump, IIRC.

Also, essentially evil? Depends. Now, I stand by my statement that they voted for the GOP (overwhelmingly) out of bigotry, but whether or not that makes them essentially evil is another matter.

Abomination:
Even if you are 100% right and everyone who votes for Trump is an evil bad bigot, calling them that isn't going to change things. They will remain so. You need them to change their minds

You don't. The amount of extra votes needed for the Democrats to have won was much less than the number of people who were eligible to have voted but did not.

Calling bigots on their bigotry isn't going to stop hardcore bigots, true, but neither is much else you are able to do. If they've chosen Trump, there's a reason for that, and that's not going to magically go away. Pointing out their bigotry might help convince people it's not a good idea to have them run a country.

Abomination:

Thaluikhain:
People who've chosen to support Trump (et al), have, overwhelmingly, decided that voting for bigotry is more important than improving their lives. The GOP is going to hurt them, this was obvious for many years, but they get votes anyway. It flat out, obviously, objectively, would have been better for them to vote for the Democrats, but this was less important than hurting other people.

Exceptions for certain wealthy types who might well expect to be ripping people off rather than being ripped off (on balance).

If that is the case then you might as well accept that the dems will never live, because in your opinion half the country is essentially evil.

I assure you that is not the case. Continuing to grasp onto this mindset is detrimental to the democrats methods. One would think a party named after the concept of democracy would understand that it's about convincing individuals to change their vote, rather than perceiving those who voted opposing as nothing but horrible human beings.

Saelune:
Calling bigots bigots is about making everyone else aware that just because they claim they dont hate black people or women, that by supporting the things they support or oppose the things they oppose, that they are bigots. People like Milo Yiannopolis, Bruce Jenner, or JORDAN PETERSON are bigots despite making claims otherwise.

But people want to pretend that voting for Trump isnt a bigoted thing to do, even though his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN was 'I hate non-whites and I hate women, vote for me!'

Do you want the catharsis of saying people are bad for voting a certain way, or do you want your political party to win its elections?

Even if you are 100% right and everyone who votes for Trump is an evil bad bigot, calling them that isn't going to change things. They will remain so. You need them to change their minds, and those who vote republican are historically very defensive people. Saying the decision they are making is a poor reflection of their character will just make them dig their heels in further.

Do you want to feel good about your perception of others or do you want political change? In this scenario, you can not have both.

I want to stop having to go 'I told you so' but uh, I told you so. I was saying all this shit in 2016 and was met with 'Lets wait and see' Well we waited and we saw Trump do everything I said and worse.

And that was back when I was much more polite.

Now in these 2 years I have been vindicated time and time again and continue to be vindicated. Now I am telling everyone so, and I am not being polite about it, well, actually I am, I am still being way more polite than I really should, but that is more because I don't want to be banned from The Escapist.

My party IS winning elections. Because I told you so. The thing is, my party is winning elections cause people are desperate to keep what Trump and Republicans tore to pieces barely together.

But we could have avoided all of this. I said as much in 2016. And those children that Trump murdered in his INTERNMENT CAMPS would probably still be alive today.

Abomination:

Do you want to feel good about your perception of others or do you want political change? In this scenario, you can not have both.

You are the one who wants to eat your cake and have it too. You just do not like that perhaps I am more perceptive than you want to admit.

Abomination:
The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys".

Wrong. What makes the bad guys is that the consequences of their actions end up hurting and killing people.

Thaluikhain:
You don't. The amount of extra votes needed for the Democrats to have won was much less than the number of people who were eligible to have voted but did not.

If someone does not vote for your party it is your party's fault, and no one else's. If the dems continue to fail to engage non-voters then they need to convince Republican voters to switch sides. You do not do that by saying mean things to them.

Calling bigots on their bigotry isn't going to stop hardcore bigots, true, but neither is much else you are able to do. If they've chosen Trump, there's a reason for that, and that's not going to magically go away. Pointing out their bigotry might help convince people it's not a good idea to have them run a country.

Having policies that address the genuine issues with the country at the source would probably encourage far more people to actually vote. Bernie based his platform on such policies. But the typical sabotaging yourself mindset of the Dems to placate corporate sponsors murdered that infant in the crib.

Saelune:
My party IS winning elections. Because I told you so. The thing is, my party is winning elections cause people are desperate to keep what Trump and Republicans tore to pieces barely together.

The Dems are making ground because of the train crash that is the Trump administration, not due to any particular attitude or policy adjustment.

Would have been great if Trump never made it to the Whitehouse, but the identity politics platform run by Hillary sure made it easy to get him there. The entire campaign was based on calling the other side a bunch of bigots, or by presenting pearl-clutching emotional outrage to whatever Trump was peddling.

The entire 2016 elections was an example of how you don't win elections by driving people into the opposing side's camp.

CaitSeith:

Abomination:
The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys".

Wrong. What makes the bad guys is that the consequences of their actions end up hurting and killing people.

Gerrymandering, filibustering, massive lobbyist backing, news network propaganda, and all the backwards political tools that the Republicans have introduced and managed to legalize are far more harmful to the United States in the long term than any possible social policy they could adopt.

Other functional democracies have specific laws in their version of the constitution to make such practices outright illegal. Adopting any of those tactics spits in the face of the idea of a representative democracy. In my opinion, any politician who engages in such practices needs to be taken behind a courthouse and shot. Of course, then the entire Senate would probably be empty - but that's not a bad thing.

Abomination:

CaitSeith:

Abomination:
The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys".

Wrong. What makes the bad guys is that the consequences of their actions end up hurting and killing people.

Gerrymandering, filibustering, massive lobbyist backing, news network propaganda, and all the backwards political tools that the Republicans have introduced and managed to legalize are far more harmful to the United States in the long term than any possible social policy they could adopt.

Care to tell that in the face of the people who got their medical treatment taken away and has just mere days left to live without it? Convince the guard who got shot by the police first. The people who cause this has shown no remorse. That's what make them the bad guys. Republicans introduced shit; the tools already were there, and they chose to use them to harm the vulnerable for their own benefit. How does that doesn't make then the bad guys?

CaitSeith:
Care to tell that in the face of the people who got their medical treatment taken away and has just mere days left to live without it? Convince the guard who got shot by the police first. The people who cause this has shown no remorse. That's what make them the bad guys. Republicans introduced shit; the tools already were there, and they chose to use them to harm the vulnerable for their own benefit. How does that doesn't make then the bad guys?

You're ignoring cause for effect. If you corrupt the system, you will have nothing but corruption further down the line.

Gerrymandering is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in a political system. That the incumbent can set the rules by which the next individual will be elected in which he will also be competing? No wonder the political situation in the United States is fucked.

But it's always the symptoms that people focus on, and not the cause. An outsider looking in is just baffled that the people of the United States focus on how much should be spent on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
Care to tell that in the face of the people who got their medical treatment taken away and has just mere days left to live without it? Convince the guard who got shot by the police first. The people who cause this has shown no remorse. That's what make them the bad guys. Republicans introduced shit; the tools already were there, and they chose to use them to harm the vulnerable for their own benefit. How does that doesn't make then the bad guys?

You're ignoring cause for effect. If you corrupt the system, you will have nothing but corruption further down the line.

Gerrymandering is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in a political system. That the incumbent can set the rules by which the next individual will be elected in which he will also be competing? No wonder the political situation in the United States is fucked.

Care to point how exactly it's the cause? Because if you are stating that Gerrymandering causes people to die, then you're admitting the GOP at power is inherently dangerous, because its primary effect was to give the power to the GOP.

CaitSeith:

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
Care to tell that in the face of the people who got their medical treatment taken away and has just mere days left to live without it? Convince the guard who got shot by the police first. The people who cause this has shown no remorse. That's what make them the bad guys. Republicans introduced shit; the tools already were there, and they chose to use them to harm the vulnerable for their own benefit. How does that doesn't make then the bad guys?

You're ignoring cause for effect. If you corrupt the system, you will have nothing but corruption further down the line.

Gerrymandering is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in a political system. That the incumbent can set the rules by which the next individual will be elected in which he will also be competing? No wonder the political situation in the United States is fucked.

Care to point how exactly it's the cause? Because if you are stating that Gerrymandering causes people to die, then you're admitting the GOP at power is inherently dangerous, because its primary effect was to give the power to the GOP.

It is inherently dangerous, I don't know why people would think I am PRO-GOP. I despise the republican party and think any who vote for them are fools.

It is the cause because it allows for the Republicans to keep being voted into office against what the major proportion of a state wants. It also allows a perpetuation of the same disruption to continue.

The GOP is a symptom of the political system. It is a means in which those in power stay in power and also a magnet for those in power to secure said power.

This backing and forthing between Dems and Republicans is just swings and roundabouts. The same problems will continue to plague the United States until they can get their house in order, and correct the political processes that allow for such cycles to continue.

Democracy being allowed to take its course will solve the problems in the United States. The problem is that Democracy is not being allowed to take its course.

Abomination:

Thaluikhain:
You don't. The amount of extra votes needed for the Democrats to have won was much less than the number of people who were eligible to have voted but did not.

If someone does not vote for your party it is your party's fault, and no one else's. If the dems continue to fail to engage non-voters then they need to convince Republican voters to switch sides. You do not do that by saying mean things to them.

Calling bigots on their bigotry isn't going to stop hardcore bigots, true, but neither is much else you are able to do. If they've chosen Trump, there's a reason for that, and that's not going to magically go away. Pointing out their bigotry might help convince people it's not a good idea to have them run a country.

Having policies that address the genuine issues with the country at the source would probably encourage far more people to actually vote. Bernie based his platform on such policies. But the typical sabotaging yourself mindset of the Dems to placate corporate sponsors murdered that infant in the crib.

Saelune:
My party IS winning elections. Because I told you so. The thing is, my party is winning elections cause people are desperate to keep what Trump and Republicans tore to pieces barely together.

The Dems are making ground because of the train crash that is the Trump administration, not due to any particular attitude or policy adjustment.

Would have been great if Trump never made it to the Whitehouse, but the identity politics platform run by Hillary sure made it easy to get him there. The entire campaign was based on calling the other side a bunch of bigots, or by presenting pearl-clutching emotional outrage to whatever Trump was peddling.

The entire 2016 elections was an example of how you don't win elections by driving people into the opposing side's camp.

That you blame Dems for Identity politics says a lot.

Republicans are the party of identity politics. Republicans are the ones who want to take rights away from groups of people. Dems are fighting for equality, and equality is the solution to identity politics, not the creators of it.

It is Repubicans who want to say LGBT people are excluded from this protection or Muslims are excluded from that.

Do not blame Democrats for the faults of Republicans.

You blame Democrats for turning people towards Republicans, but not Republicans towards Democrats. I claim that it is Republicans who made me how I am, since you are saying that is an excuse. It is their fault I am hostile, it is their fault I am 'uncivil', so blame them!

Saelune:
That you blame Dems for Identity politics says a lot.

Republicans are the party of identity politics. Republicans are the ones who want to take rights away from groups of people. Dems are fighting for equality, and equality is the solution to identity politics, not the creators of it.

It is Repubicans who want to say LGBT people are excluded from this protection or Muslims are excluded from that.

Do not blame Democrats for the faults of Republicans.

You blame Democrats for turning people towards Republicans, but not Republicans towards Democrats. I claim that it is Republicans who made me how I am, since you are saying that is an excuse. It is their fault I am hostile, it is their fault I am 'uncivil', so blame them!

The Republicans played the Dems for the fools they are. For as much as I despise the Republicans I am impressed by their Machiavellian approach to to politics.

The Republicans won. The Democrats lost. Nobody can convince the Republicans to lose. I can only inform and highlight HOW the Democrats lost.

Yes, the Republicans used underhanded snake oil tactics to secure their power base and fought a battle on their terms. The Dems tried to do the same and tried to shore up power by attempting to unify minorities without establishing a catch-all term for them. The Republicans had one, "Make AMERICA Great Again". Sure, it was all lies, it was all propaganda, it was complete rubbish that a person of average intelligence could see through easily.

It's not your "fault" for winning, it can only be your fault for losing and making mistakes. The Dems made mistakes.

It's possible to hate the Republicans and still want the Dems to be better. I want them to be better so they will beat the Republicans. They won't become better if they sit back and blame the cause for their loss on the Republicans time and again. They need to smarten up, grow a spine, and start attacking the very establishment that has allowed the Republicans to be voted into office despite having less individual votes... but they need to sell it as better for the country as a whole, not because it puts them in charge, but because it fixes massive flaws with the American electoral system.

I mean, how can a major party possibly lose when one of their promises is to improve voter representation in government? That's one sure-fire way to get non-voters to the polls, offer them a solution to the thing that makes it so they don't vote.

Abomination:

Saelune:
That you blame Dems for Identity politics says a lot.

Republicans are the party of identity politics. Republicans are the ones who want to take rights away from groups of people. Dems are fighting for equality, and equality is the solution to identity politics, not the creators of it.

It is Repubicans who want to say LGBT people are excluded from this protection or Muslims are excluded from that.

Do not blame Democrats for the faults of Republicans.

You blame Democrats for turning people towards Republicans, but not Republicans towards Democrats. I claim that it is Republicans who made me how I am, since you are saying that is an excuse. It is their fault I am hostile, it is their fault I am 'uncivil', so blame them!

The Republicans played the Dems for the fools they are. For as much as I despise the Republicans I am impressed by their Machiavellian approach to to politics.

The Republicans won. The Democrats lost. Nobody can convince the Republicans to lose. I can only inform and highlight HOW the Democrats lost.

Yes, the Republicans used underhanded snake oil tactics to secure their power base and fought a battle on their terms. The Dems tried to do the same and tried to shore up power by attempting to unify minorities without establishing a catch-all term for them. The Republicans had one, "Make AMERICA Great Again". Sure, it was all lies, it was all propaganda, it was complete rubbish that a person of average intelligence could see through easily.

It's not your "fault" for winning, it can only be your fault for losing and making mistakes. The Dems made mistakes.

It's possible to hate the Republicans and still want the Dems to be better. I want them to be better so they will beat the Republicans. They won't become better if they sit back and blame the cause for their loss on the Republicans time and again. They need to smarten up, grow a spine, and start attacking the very establishment that has allowed the Republicans to be voted into office despite having less individual votes... but they need to sell it as better for the country as a whole, not because it puts them in charge, but because it fixes massive flaws with the American electoral system.

I mean, how can a major party possibly lose when one of their promises is to improve voter representation in government? That's one sure-fire way to get non-voters to the polls, offer them a solution to the thing that makes it so they don't vote.

No, Republicans didn't play Dems for fools. America is just full of way more bigots than I or many other left-wingers thought. No one was actually conned by Trump. They just hated blacks, women, LGBT people more than they cared for themselves.

If anything played left-wingers for fools, it was our faith that the world is actually a good place full of good people. It isnt.

Abomination:
It is inherently dangerous, I don't know why people would think I am PRO-GOP.

Stop. I'm not saying you're pro-gop.

Abomination:

Saelune:
That you blame Dems for Identity politics says a lot.

Republicans are the party of identity politics. Republicans are the ones who want to take rights away from groups of people. Dems are fighting for equality, and equality is the solution to identity politics, not the creators of it.

It is Repubicans who want to say LGBT people are excluded from this protection or Muslims are excluded from that.

Do not blame Democrats for the faults of Republicans.

You blame Democrats for turning people towards Republicans, but not Republicans towards Democrats. I claim that it is Republicans who made me how I am, since you are saying that is an excuse. It is their fault I am hostile, it is their fault I am 'uncivil', so blame them!

The Republicans played the Dems for the fools they are. For as much as I despise the Republicans I am impressed by their Machiavellian approach to to politics.

I think Italy just experienced some seismic activity.

Saelune:
image

'Free speech doesn't entitle you to be a cuck' says Trump supporter. I really hope I do not need to explain why I am posting this.

(And for the record, no this wasn't me being banned)

Nevermind the hypocritical ban. What the heck is up with that Trump banner!? George Orwell would be proud...

Saelune:
No, Republicans didn't play Dems for fools. America is just full of way more bigots than I or many other left-wingers thought. No one was actually conned by Trump. They just hated blacks, women, LGBT people more than they cared for themselves.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. There could not possibly be other reason why someone would vote Republican over Democrat other than them being sexist, racist, and anti-LGBT. That must be the only reason.

Gordon_4:
I think Italy just experienced some seismic activity.

I'm not saying it was a particularly elaborate take on The Prince, but someone at least read the Dummy's Guide to it.

It's all bread and circuses, get elected and rely on the population to forget all the promises you made with your next batch. Also, be sure to milk the government coffers and implement legislation that makes such things legal or difficult to monitor.

CaitSeith:
Nevermind the hypocritical ban. What the heck is up with that Trump banner!? George Orwell would be proud...

Are you familiar with the term "Cult of personality"?

Trump isn't like Hitler. He's more like Stalin.

Abomination:

Saelune:
No, Republicans didn't play Dems for fools. America is just full of way more bigots than I or many other left-wingers thought. No one was actually conned by Trump. They just hated blacks, women, LGBT people more than they cared for themselves.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. There could not possibly be other reason why someone would vote Republican over Democrat other than them being sexist, racist, and anti-LGBT. That must be the only reason.

The Republican party is actively bigoted. To support the Republican party is tp support their bigotry. There is no non-bigoted Republican platform that justifies the bigotry. Anyone who votes for Republicans 'for any other reason' is actively ok with the bigotry.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE FOR!

Abomination:
I don't know why people would think I am PRO-GOP.

Because all you do is defend them and criticize Democrats.

Abomination:

Saelune:
No, Republicans didn't play Dems for fools. America is just full of way more bigots than I or many other left-wingers thought. No one was actually conned by Trump. They just hated blacks, women, LGBT people more than they cared for themselves.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. There could not possibly be other reason why someone would vote Republican over Democrat other than them being sexist, racist, and anti-LGBT. That must be the only reason.

Gordon_4:
I think Italy just experienced some seismic activity.

I'm not saying it was a particularly elaborate take on The Prince, but someone at least read the Dummy's Guide to it.

It's all bread and circuses, get elected and rely on the population to forget all the promises you made with your next batch. Also, be sure to milk the government coffers and implement legislation that makes such things legal or difficult to monitor.

CaitSeith:
Nevermind the hypocritical ban. What the heck is up with that Trump banner!? George Orwell would be proud...

Are you familiar with the term "Cult of personality"?

Trump isn't like Hitler. He's more like Stalin.

I only know there is a report "On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences" which denounced in detail the by then defunct Joseph Stalin of having fostered a leadership cult of personality. One of the points was that Stalin introduced the notion of the "enemy of the people" as ammunition against opponents.

Hmm.. where else I have heard the phrase "enemy of the people"?

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not. A tactic that fascists love is to adapt concepts, lexicon and strategies from others into their own. A Stalin-like cult personality fits Trump's ego perfectly.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here