• Trump to cops: 'Don't be too nice'
    90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]he thinks the left is far more institutional in nature and often aligns with interests of the wealthy. [/QUOTE] I find it really weird how the each side associates the other side with "aligning with interests of the wealthy," because being wealthy = bad, therefore anyone who associates with them is bad. I'm just stating this as an observation, not a rebuttal. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]Nobody on the left respects a peacefully elected president[/QUOTE] Nobody respects Trump because he has nothing worth to respect. Respect is earned, not deserved. The title of president doesn't automatically earn him respect point, acting presidential does; which he never does.
[QUOTE=Anteep;52519953]I think the issue is that the vast majority of LGBT people only have a voice in Western countries by nature of our more civilised societies, so they only criticise the West as that is all they know and they simply don't give a shit about places like the Middle East or care about the people there as they don't live there themselves. They are not internationalists, ultimately all they really care about is change in their own environment. It's true with many people, not just LGBTQAI+.[/QUOTE] Or maybe having rights is not the same thing as having the ability to exercise their rights. And perhaps the groups that are promising to give them the ability to practice their rights, that are going to allow everyone to exercise their rights... are on the left? Wow, it's almost as if [B][I]LGBT PEOPLE AREN'T SINGLE ISSUE PEOPLE.[/I][/B] And maybe in many Western countries today LGBT people are still abused and used. There wasn't gay marriage in my country until two years ago. It's still not a majority thing in Europe. And saying that gay rights activists don't criticise the Middle East... that's just, wow. Yeah, I'm absolutely sure there are no important activists from there... >_> Are you both really, really blind to the continued problems of LGBT people in Western countries? Just because things are legalised does not mean that LGBT people can actually practice their rights, or feel secure, or feel accepted. If you believe that, how do you explain, oh I don't know... Trump's attempt to ban transgender people in the military? Or the fact that they're attempting to argue that civil rights don't apply to sexual orientation? Or not celebrating pride? You're not getting the point. [B][U][I]REPUBLICANS IN AMERICA DON'T CARE ABOUT LGBT RIGHTS.[/I][/U][/B] Right wing nationalist groups in Western countries don't give a shit about LGBT rights. So naturally that's gonna push the LGBT community leftwards. As well as the fact that I don't think it's exactly sane to want to deprive millions of people from healthcare, hmmm? You'er ignoring my points. You're bringing up things that have NO relation to my points. Conscript is actively making up nonsense with no sources. I'm done with this. If you can't see why people like me in America are afraid of people like Trump - you're blind. End of. EDIT: [QUOTE]I find it really odd actually that a LGBT person wouldn't be rabidly pro-Western, being that it's one of the few places you're protected in the world because of our liberalism, and find that mass migration without liberalization of their culture and reformation of their religion is a direct threat to people like you.[/QUOTE] You're claiming I'm not pro-Western? The person who has many times declared themselves to be an Irish patriot? Who is immensely proud of their country's recent liberation on LGBT rights? The person that's consistently pro-EU, a Western organisation? Who's worried about the dangers of Russia who - guess the fuck what, boy - is lead by a right wing national government that HATES LGBT PEOPLE? You're claiming this... because I hate right-wing nationalist groups who use racism and discrimination to promote their terrible agendas? Which are not just rapidly anti-immigration and refusing to do anything to help liberalise or reform conservative countries? Who treat those people as if they're all the same thing? Who will make those countries even more hateful instead of doing things that will help, you know, like god damn education and investment? Groups that oh I don't know, fund Saudi Arabia, such as Trump has done? You claim that these groups will protect liberalism when they've been shown to do the complete [B]opposite?[/B] I'm gonna be honest about Ireland's history here - we were massively conservative for a very long time and I have no doubt a large amount of Irish people who immigrated had pretty shitty ides. But were they rejected despite being of a "different cultrue?" Of in many cases having a different religion? Do you think denying Irish people of the ability to go to other countries would have liberalised them? Would have liberalised the island? Hahahaha. You know nothing of Irish history. I abide and love three fuckin' flags boy. The Irish flag, the EU flag, and the LGBT pride flag. And I know who's fuckin' made my country great [B][I]AND IT AIN'T RIGHT WING NATIONALISTS.[/I][/B] EDIT: I'm done with this, at this point I'm ranting to someone who is fundamentally ignoring the facts and making me out to be something I'm not. These people you're enabling Conscript - they're gonna screw you. EDIT: I'm sorry. I've completely derailed this thread. I think I'm done for a while. I can't handle people blatantly lying to me anymore about what's happening in the world.
[QUOTE=Conscript;52519690] Strawman.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Increased scrutiny on the police because of sensitivity over an old and very american racialized class issue, which has come in recent years because the left is winning the culture war, is not welcomed by many people and is documented to reduce the effectiveness of police. Further, the military has been polled on the direction it's taking, and after only a quarter approved of it, the #2 issue cited (after budget cuts) was the politicization of their jobs, political correctness, and becoming 'soft' to avoid mass media scrutiny, which is driven by fear of supplying a recently popularized trend of injustice stories, a fear which signals the changing balance of power of cultural - political battles.[/QUOTE] A interpretation of something that you posted is not a strawman
[QUOTE=Anteep;52519953]I think the issue is that the vast majority of LGBT people only have a voice in Western countries by nature of our [b]more civilised societies[/b], so they only criticise the West as that is all they know and they simply don't give a shit about places like the Middle East or care about the people there as they don't live there themselves. They are not internationalists, ultimately all they really care about is change in their own environment. It's true with many people, not just LGBTQAI+.[/QUOTE] So why aren't you a nationalist again? You're already half-way there with the western chauvinism. To me, nationalism means defense of our cultural and therefore liberal values, an economy with a more social character, and opposition to a certain brand of foreign policy and its endless war. It also means using identity as a means of stimulating feelings for the downtrodden, becoming more social and having a society of individuals not afraid to walk the street at night or leave a door unlocked, stimulating the birthrate and solving the demographic crisis regarding the welfare state, having a national coordination in reforming the workforce to become more skilled/socially mobile/able to deal with automation, and dealing with corruption/reigning in the excesses of moneyed interests. I see nothing wrong with this, and the only barrier to it being popular is the left-wing weaponization of subcultures in a post-colonial context, the myth of nazis coming for the gays, blacks, and feminists, and the influence of money which finds nationalism to be fostering of inflexible or uncompetitive economies.
[QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]Akkad is awesome. Half of 18-29 year olds hate capitalism. I think people need to stop pretending this is the 2000s, the political landscape has a changed a lot. Also, I think Sargon is very well reasoned as to why he fears the left more than the right. Ultimately his reason is the same as mine, [B]he thinks the left is far more institutional in nature and often aligns with interests of the wealthy[/B]. This is why he's always calling Remainers bourgeois lefties that hate the working class. He also realizes the left does not carry the same social taboo as the right does for historical reasons, because the West did experience the horrors of right wing nationalism, it did not experience communism. It only had boomer liberals of the 60s. [/QUOTE] good lord are you joking. The EU wouldn't deserve support in principle anyway, it's the fact that it exists whether you like it or not and it mitigated a lot of problems associated with the ideology of the EU. I was writing up my own scathing piece about sargon to expand on what I said earlier, until my googling led me to this brilliant reddit post that breaks it down far better than I could. Please check it out as the video links are all in the actual post. If you'd rather not, I've pasted it here for convenience. Just ignore the references to videos: [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/badpolitics/comments/6hyx9m/in_where_sargon_of_akkad_exists/[/URL] I will break my biggest issues into categories. [B]Sargon is seemingly unable to correctly label, well, himself.[/B] “Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself” - Friedrich Nietzsche As I stated before, Sargon regularly identifies himself as a ‘Classic Liberal’ and ‘Left of Centre’. Now while we could argue that ‘Classic Liberalism’ doesn’t align with ‘Center-left’ politics, but that would be semantics, what we can do however, is point out contradictions or anomalies in his identification. While Sargon is hesitant to give full statements on his direct beliefs, he has done two tests which reveal information about his beliefs. The tests he use are the Political Compass Test and the 8 Values Test, and if we ignore the fact that he treats both hilariously incompetent tests with respect, they do provide us with some statements to work with. The image painted from these tests seems to be someone with moderately liberal social views, (Legalised Gay Marriage, Pro Choice, Pro Decriminalisation), but is somewhat more tricky on economic and domestic issues. While saying he disagrees with nationalism, he seems perfectly fine with supporting a Hard Brexit as it interferes with a country’s National Identity. This doesn’t necessarily sound like a contradiction, but when he also states in the video that his nation’s values are universal and should be spread, it seems quite like he does endorse nationalistic traits, at least in a way similar to neo-conservatism. On economic issues, Sargon is a bit of a mess. On one hand, he seems much like a neoliberal, with support for some public institutions and regulation, but with not too much meddling in the economy or workers ownership. Yet when asked about these issues, Sargon seems to move much further Left, advocating for workers’ rights (and yes, I did watch most of that 3 hour fucking clip), and then suddenly moves to the Right for private rights which it seems that it would look better for him. Now, the issues is that his views of economics seem to contradict themselves, and he seems to take the approach that ‘To the left of me is Venezuela and to the right is killing workers, so I am perfect’, but the views in some of his videos seem to contradict within only 3 minutes of discussion. Also, for someone who identifies as a liberal, he seems all to content to admit that civil liberties and privacy from the government should be suspended for protection, which is awfully questionable considering one of the main tenants of Classical Liberalism is the protection of civil liberties. Considering that he is also supportive of some government intervention in the economy and holds these views, I would hesitate to fit him under liberalism at all, it doesn’t help that he stated he would have supported the social democrat Bernie Sanders against both Trump and Hilary and has now seemingly embraced Donald Trump. I understand and respect that people can hold views which change over time, but when they repeatedly contradict and wildly vary based on the scenario, I have to be ‘sceptical’ about your perspective. [B]Sargon is unusually quick to accept Right-wing Populism, even when it goes against his ‘values’.[/B] “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world” – Albert Camus It should be noted that for this section, when I refer to ‘Right-Wing Populism’, I mostly am referring to highly nationalistic candidates who wish to limit immigration, bolster national identity and tend to be protectionist. While I have already explained that Sargon is quite contradictory and seemingly incoherent, he does seem to give of the appearance of ‘Liberal’, or at least he seems to call himself as such, what makes this so strange however is that even while maintaining this view, he seems all too comfortable to support candidates who exemplify this ideology. The Earliest start was in the U.S. election of 2016, in where he supported Trump over Hilary, while her campaign was closest to his personal views, he seemed to imply that her personal issues surrounding her and the Clinton family were worrisome and that Donald Trump would be, in his own words ‘The Lessor of Two Evils’. While I can support and understand people voting based on surrounding issues and possible corruption rather than policy, he seems to ignore the potential issues surrounding Trump and other candidates which likely had more of an impact (cough cough Russia cough cough). The issue grows even worse if we examine his video covering the Dutch election in which he offers cautious support to Geert Wilders[1] and says that he often talked about issues which are relevant and should be focused on. The same applies to the French election in where he covered how Le Pen was focusing on issues which would allow her to win[2]. This is quite evident, as in all of these elections, candidates representing progressive and somewhat classic liberal ideas were present. In the US, while more neoliberal in her business approach, Clinton was a relatively progressive liberal, in the Dutch, D66 was quite liberal, alongside the conservative-liberal VVD and in France, Macron was a liberal is his purest form. The only issue with all of these candidates was the potential issue of the EU in the two latter, but they still represented liberalism, albeit in slightly different ways. Sargon however, seemed to support the antithesis of what he claims to support in his support for Trump, Wilders and Le Pen. His support for Trump seemed to focus on not being corrupt as Hillary, but when faced with Wilders receiving money from foreign investors, and Le Pen’s Dubious ties to Russia, he still seems to support these candidates based on them ‘Focusing on the Right Issues’. This clearly illustrates a man with no consistency in whom he supports, and someone who wishes either to ignore potential corruption or misaligning politics to an almost laughable level. Frankly I think that Sargon agrees with both Wilders and Le Pen, but was caught out in his support for corruption and illiberalism, but I will leave that for you to decide. [B]‘Why Don't I Criticise the Right’[/B] “Politics have no relation to morals” - Niccolo Machiavelli For much of Sargon’s online presents, he has received support from some groups not usually accolated with liberalism, including those of Conservatism and those of the Far Right. This of course led to many asking why he only criticizes the left and never the right. This ultimately led to one of his most infamous videos, ‘Why Don't I Criticise the Right’. This video is ultimately full of amazing quotes and quips which would fill an entire post, which I might do one day later, but first I would just like to break down some points here which prove his contradictory nature (Seriously, watching Sargon is painful, but this is the second most embarrassing video he has ever released and I implore you to watch it). The video states with him stating that ‘I rarely criticize the right, because I don’t really care about the right, as far as I am concerned, they are usually wrong’ and leads to him inferring that individualist liberals are left wing, as well as stating that the right ‘is not good to poor people, but I don’t think they are trying to undermine western civilization…pumping out an ideology which is going to advocate for, like, open boarders, advocate for communism and socialism and all this sort of crap’. Even if we ignore the fact that liberalism is not really a left wing ideology (Sargon should know, with his understanding of European politics), even if we ignore how overly simple it is to completely write of a political side because you don’t care for it, even if we ignore that his belief of ‘left wing’ (mostly what he calls SJWs and neoliberals) leading to Communism and Socialism is irrational and comedic, that this leaves the fact that he boils entire political sides into simple inaccurate statements and places himself as an all knowing political mastermind, who in reality, knows practically nothing. He also argues that the right would only be [I]‘mildly oppressive for poor people’[/I], and argues that he doesn’t want to improve the right, while still wanting to improve the left. Not only is this confusing, considering his support for public services which have been threatened by the ‘right’ (As in healthcare and some other public services of the like), but he also has at several points suggested against surveillance and any form of oppression, and despite his claims that he would “Advocate against it, whatever form of oppression they are imposing”, he seems very hesitant to criticise leaders on the right who impost those laws (See points 2 and 4). Alongside this, he repeatedly mentions ‘Cultural Marxism’, and ignoring the very chequer history of the term, he fails to fully explain himself in most of his videos beyond saying that it will destroy “Western Values”. He then goes on to mention how caring about Cultural Marxism is more important than protecting abortion rights, by saying (and I quote directly here) “Every other right is more important than your right to get an abortion”. While a debate about abortion is always going to be tricky, for someone who repeatedly claims to protect western liberal values and labels themselves as ‘centre-left’ is quickly turned around when topics surrounding actual civil liberties. Much of the rest of the video derails into a tangent about social justice courses on college campuses, but ignoring the fact that he is seemingly unaware of how college campuses work, as illustrated in Hbomberguy’s excellent response video, he seems to believe that the left “Command’s social capital”. As illustrated in several of the laws targeting Transgendered Individuals and laws appealing to Christin Traditionalists have been present in ‘western society’ with only minor criticism, this is clearly not the case. Finally, he seems to claim that his general views are somewhat accurate because despite the occasion hit piece on him, he is still more persuasive because of his subscriber count continuing to rise. I don’t even think I have to target this point other than saying that as long as content is being produced, the subscriber count will likely rise as well. The rest of the video seems to derail into arguments about ‘The Left’ and how they are quick to label people with ‘Right-Wing’ and ‘Fascist’, yet he fails to notice the notable hypocrisy in criticising the left as only leading to ‘socialism and communism’[3]. Ultimately this is a revealing video which shows how his labelling the left as “A Cancer” and his other criticism of the left would put him on the right. But he only seems to disagree with the religious right and fails likely fails to criticize the right as it seems to be a solid support of his Income. [B]Coming all together for his view of the UK election of 2017[/B] “What. A. Shitshow” -Carl Benjamin. Earlier on in his YouTube career, Sargon seemed to loath the Conservative Party and the right, issuing two Seriously Condemning videos on the Conservative Party. I mean Seriously Condemning videos which illustrated his view of the party the party as being a party for the rich, which is corrupt and failing to even cut down on the debt. These videos are quite surprising, considering his later support for the conservative party in 2017. What’s funny however is the fact that much of his issues with the conservative party in 2015 are still consistent in 2017 in the cases of Privatisation, and Corruption. The only issue which seems to have changed however is Brexit, but before we analyse, let’s look that election video. The clip opens with a coverage of Venezuela and comparing it to a society under Corbyn’s Labour, with rich investors leaving the country and focusing on the economic effects of his policies. While there is certainly some criticism of his economic plans to be had, the comparison to Venezuela is simply questionable, as Venezuela’s economy issues were mostly down to over-nationalization of businesses creating an unstable economy, rather than higher taxes and public services. For Corbyn’s labour, the services nationalised were mostly water and rail, rather than the comparison to Chavez’s nationalization of even small businesses. He also repeatedly brings up ‘Capital Flight’ , A term referring to investors and sources of income leaving a nation, however when presented with the same issue for Brexit, Sargon seems all too comfortable to ignore it in favour of supporting Brexit and states that a strong government could manoeuvre these issues, whilst laughing off the ideas of the Liberal Democrats and Labour for being to revolutionary. Sargon also argues that Corbyn’s policies which are from trade unions are representing the few, as trade union membership is low. What Sargon fails to ignore is that these laws which are pushed through will allow people to receive these policies even if they don’t join a union, leading to them representing what they see as ‘The many, not the few”. He also argues that if you are middle class and have an education in any field other than economics or political science, you are not able to understand this issue. Not only has Sargon not revealed his level of education, but some people with education have admitted admiration[4] to Corbyn’s promises, shooting a hole in Sargon’s theory that people versed in economics are opposed to Corbyn. On the topic of the Tories however, Sargon is more realistic and admits for cuts to public services. At least I will give Sargon some recognition in acknowledging that his previous support for public services is likely being hit by the Conservative manifesto, but it is about to get even weirder. On the topic of security, he seems to return to biting into the Conservatives, with criticism of the Conservatives terrorism tackling plans. This seems to align with his ‘Classic Liberal’ views, which only makes his later statements even more confusing. This leads to his final point, and that of Brexit. He claims that the EU wishes to appear strong and consistent, with member state maintaining to as many of the regulations as possible and that leaving the Union, and that a successful Brexit of the hands of the Conservative party could destroy the EU, or lead to mass exportation from the EU, which could be caused by a strong and stable government. This is quite a fallacy, as only a small group of Eurosceptic parties and individuals have gained ground in election and in representation, and most at the time of this videos release had failed, With Le Pen flopping in France, Wilders underperforming in the Netherlands and Hofer failed candidacy in Austria leaving only the ‘5 Star Movement in Italy’ with a strong enough voice representing real Euroscepticism. Sargon later argues that the UK would be best to try and hold off against the EU, and follow May’s belief of getting a good deal or “No deal”. His point of view is that this will either lead to a better deal with more compromise from the EU, or a European recession, both of which he seems to be either happy or at least content with. While his argument for a better deal is unlikely, considering Donald Tusk’s comments Regarding Brexit, that only leaves the latter, which would be an economic disaster on par of something akin to 2008-9. He then argues that Corbyn is giving in to the leverage set by EU chair people which would be used against the UK. The only issue with this is that Corbyn has stated that he would accept the deal likely because he wishes to avoid the ‘No Deal’ scenario. This leads to his ending statement, in where he endorses the Conservative Party, purely for their Brexit approach. As I have stated before, not only is this contrary to his beliefs of civil liberties and public services, but could potentially lead to economic instability of such severity, it could lead to an EU wide recession, which is awfully questionable for Sargon to support, as it would undeniably lead to undeniable death and disarray, in exchange of Sargon’s goal of dismantling the European Union. The funny side of this however, was the video he produced following the results, which is undeniably the most embarrassing video he has ever produced. The video opens with him condemning Teresa May and the Tories manifesto, and may I remind you, a manifesto is not a piece of political advertising, it is a piece which illustrates what a party wishes to do, so he wholeheartedly supported a party, knowing that it had a bad manifesto. So Sargon essentially acts angry at this result and seems to act as though he never supported the Tory policies, but in supporting the Conservatives for 2017, he is. It is clear though the salty drag that was this video, Sargon wants to have his cake and eat it to, act as tough he supported the Conservatives if they won and act as tough he was hesitant if they lost, but his call for support backfired. Hard. He paints Corbyn’s mild celebration after a successful campaign is acting as tough he won the election, and fails to criticize him by calling him anything other than a “socialist”. This video is a cherry on top which shows a simply confirmation of his poor analysis. Conclusion Sargon wields a large influence and has a large group of people whom follow and admire him. As illustrated above, I believe that in the best case scenario, Sargon is someone who makes up arguments to gain support from alienated crowds, similar to someone like Glen Beck, or at worse, actually believe all of his points and continues to contradict himself. Sargon is, if anything, living proof that an English accent can get you a successful career, even if you have no clue about what you are talking about. [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/badpolitics/comments/6hyx9m/in_where_sargon_of_akkad_exists/[/URL]
We really need to take this to PM, it's horribly off topic. That said, r/badpolitics has something of a hate boner for sargon. I do think he can be contradictory, but I don't think this is out of being disingenuous. I think he started down a public path of speaking about things and, as he became successful, needed to tailor it. That means throwing in some token interracial porn tweets at alt right accounts, red-baiting some idpol lefties that are getting a bit too pink and anti-western, and grounding it all in a defense of liberalism-as-nationalism and relating the path of current democracies to his knowledge of ancient history and modern, linking postmodernism to the decline of the former. I think his true feelings can be evaluated on the basis of the latter. He very clearly is some kind of disillusioned left-libertarian gamer, very typical of white men in the 2000s (4chan was pretty much that way in the bush era, I feel old knowing this). But with the culture war and top-down political auditing reaching the gaming subculture and the internet, through gamergate and social media respectively, influence from friendships with people like milo, and and frustration with the postmodern left as too focused on identity politics rather than economic issues, he's become some kind of new age centrist. Someone who combines civic nationalism (liberal nationalism) and social democracy (so he's excited about the justice dems), while also, as a gamer, participating in meme culture and refusing to virtue signal and distance himself from it. Meaning, he ironically ends a video on Tay with the nazi national anthem and viciously defends PewDiePie when he came under pressure for ironically, but with some genuine dissent, participating in anti-PC, anti-establishment meme culture. He's no professional, no, but he is a gateway drug. As an older successful tech-savvy gamer type with a family, a disillusioned left-libertarian, an e-celebrity and key part to the youtube skeptic community, he holds a special place in the youthful dissent on the track of the West and the culture war that he immediately became involved in when it reached the shores of his community in 2013. He has done a lot to give publicity to left-liberal/libertarian dissent with 'SJWs', globalization/neoliberalism, and the nazis of the alt right at the same time. He deserves credit for this, as too many millenials are abandoning centrism altogether rather than rebranding it as he does. Also, even if you don't like him, he uses his name to occasionally bring together a good panel on his livestreams to discuss things.
[QUOTE=Conscript;52520091]We really need to take this to PM, it's horribly off topic. That said, r/badpolitics has something of a hate boner for sargon. I do think he can be contradictory, but I don't think this is out of being disingenuous. I think he started down a public path of speaking about things and, as he became successful, needed to tailor it. That means throwing in some token interracial porn tweets at alt right accounts, red-baiting some idpol lefties that are getting a bit too pink and anti-western, and grounding it all in a defense of liberalism-as-nationalism and relating the path of current democracies to his knowledge of ancient history and modern, linking postmodernism to the decline of the former. I think his true feelings can be evaluated on the basis of the latter. He very clearly is some kind of disillusioned left-libertarian gamer, very typical of white men in the 2000s (4chan was pretty much that way in the bush era, I feel old knowing this). But with the culture war and top-down political auditing reaching the gaming subculture and the internet, through gamergate and social media respectively, influence from friendships with people like milo, and and frustration with the postmodern left as too focused on identity politics rather than economic issues, he's become some kind of new age centrist. Someone who combines civic nationalism (liberal nationalism) and social democracy (so he's excited about the justice dems), while also, as a gamer, participating in meme culture and refusing to virtue signal and distance himself from it. Meaning, he ironically ends a video on Tay with the nazi national anthem and viciously defends PewDiePie when he came under pressure for ironically, but with some genuine dissent, participating in anti-PC, anti-establishment meme culture. He's no professional, no, but he is a gateway drug. As an older successful tech-savvy gamer type with a family, a disillusioned left-libertarian, an e-celebrity and key part to the youtube skeptic community, he holds a special place in the youthful dissent on the track of the West and the culture war that he immediately became involved in when it reached the shores of his community in 2013. He has done a lot to give publicity to left-liberal/libertarian dissent with 'SJWs', globalization/neoliberalism, and the nazis of the alt right at the same time. He deserves credit for this, as too many millenials are abandoning centrism altogether rather than rebranding it as he does. Also, even if you don't like him, he uses his name to occasionally bring together a good panel on his livestreams to discuss things.[/QUOTE] Sorry, couldn't contain myself. I feel Sargon wields far too much influence to go unchecked, I don't think I've ever seen a big breakdown of the things he says, and he was clearly used in justifying your argument. Back on topic, you said that "Increased scrutiny on the police because of sensitivity over an old and very american racialized class issue, which has come in recent years because the left is winning the culture war, is not welcomed by many people [B]and is documented to reduce the effectiveness of police.[/B]" Do you have any sources on this?
Conscript your complaints about millenials are fucking ridiculous as your own views have been getting more and more extreme over the past several years. Call yourself whatever inoffensive nonsense you want, policies aside you're showing approval for methods that are their own form of extremism.
Reading all this shit makes me wonder why my dad's so freaking depressed after the election. Literally NONE of the two candidates were/are capable to running this country. It was either what poison was gonna kill you faster. We really do need to act out about this. We can't let Trump keep getting away with the garbage he spews, the hateful actions he encourages, and the laws he TRIED to pass. He can try and fail one day, but what's gonna happen when the next awful law is put up for action?
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52520177]Reading all this shit makes me wonder why my dad's so freaking depressed after the election. Literally NONE of the two candidates were/are capable to running this country. It was either what poison was gonna kill you faster. We really do need to act out about this. We can't let Trump keep getting away with the garbage he spews, the hateful actions he encourages, and the laws he TRIED to pass. He can try and fail one day, but what's gonna happen when the next awful law is put up for action?[/QUOTE] For all of Hillary Clinton's problems I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have plunged the country into constitutional crisis. I don't buy the argument that she wasn't capable of running the country, she has 30 years of experience.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;52520145]Conscript your complaints about millenials are fucking ridiculous as your own views have been getting more and more extreme over the past several years. Call yourself whatever inoffensive nonsense you want, policies aside you're showing approval for methods that are their own form of extremism.[/QUOTE] Those are some serious accusations you're making. Like what? I said nothing of policy, and neither did Trump actually. I only spoke of reversing the trend towards an institutional atmosphere that makes police afraid to do their jobs essentially out of fear of media hype, associated rioting, and otherwise looking like you're on the wrong side of history, tankman-style. I also spoke very little of millenials except to bring up their political views as evidence of current polarization and whether it will stay or not. [quote]Do you have any sources on this?[/quote] It's debated in scale and consistency, and if the de-policing is actually a correction and not policing less actual criminals, but some things are indisputable: [img]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/01/06141906/PSDT_01.11.17.police-00-13.png[/img] [url]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/behind-the-badge/[/url] [quote]The Freddie Gray Effect After Mr. Brown’s death and the resulting protests in Ferguson, there was clear evidence of a police pullback in two cities, Baltimore and Chicago. But in both cities, the reasons are hard to isolate. In Baltimore, arrests for low-level crimes like disorderly conduct, in which officers have significant discretion, declined by a third after Ferguson, but crime did not increase, according to research by Stephen L. Morgan, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University. “If there was a Ferguson effect, it was a brief win-win in Baltimore,” he said. Then outrage over police practices hit home with the death of Freddie Gray in April 2015, which was followed by protests and riots. Mr. Gray died of injuries sustained in police custody. Arrests in Baltimore dropped precipitously, even for serious crimes, and crime shot up. But other factors were also involved. For months, tensions had been escalating between the police commissioner, Anthony W. Batts, considered a reformer, and rank-and-file officers. Arrest numbers began to recover after Mr. Batts was fired and a successor was brought in. In Chicago, police activity plummeted from October 2015, when there were close to 60,000 street stops, to January 2016, when there were 10,000, according to a University of Chicago Crime Lab report. That period included the release of video of the fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald, which cast serious doubt on officers’ accounts of the episode; a Justice Department investigation; and the implementation of an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union that required the police to fill out a detailed form for every street stop. [img]https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/03/27/street-stops/04e0e1bf6c3b5fad6b2930d2e4d9abbb69bdc8c1/chicago-street-stops-Artboard_1.png[/img] [...] The number of traffic stops, car searches and arrests declined from 2014, the year Mr. Brown was killed, to 2015, especially in communities with a larger share of African-Americans. When the police did conduct a search, they were more likely to find contraband, suggesting that they were using better judgment. The changes were unrelated to fluctuations in crime. Scholars like to call such pullbacks “de-policing,” which sounds like something no community would want. But Professor Pyrooz argues, “Some places are overpoliced, and de-policing is actually a good thing.”[/quote] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/us/politics/ferguson-effect.html[/url] [quote]The so-called Ferguson effect also received renewed attention in June when a National Institute of Justice researcher — who had initially been skeptical of the theory — reexamined the thesis and said it could a plausible explanation for a large and nearly unprecedented increase in violent crime in some cities. But he also suggested that more data would be needed, particularly on arrests, traffic stops and other self-initiated police activity. A recent study by Johns Hopkins University researchers — which was the subject, along with another study, in an op-ed in The New York Times this week examining pro and con arguments for the Ferguson effect — found that arrests in Baltimore fell by 19 percent from August 2014 through April 2015 and suggested a possible link between the Missouri police shooting and arrest patterns for less-serious crimes. Particularly noteworthy was a 33 percent drop in arrests for driving violations, the study found. What’s more, arrests for minor offenses fell even more following the death of Freddie Gray, a Baltimore man who was critically injured while in police custody — and crime rates rose, according to the March 2016 study. Adkins and others who believe a Ferguson effect has had an impact on traffic safety caution, however, that their views rely on anecdotal evidence and traffic data from a few states, including Missouri. They also say other possible reasons for a pullback on traffic enforcement and a rise in fatalities include a wave of retirements among baby boomers and even differences in attitudes toward work among the younger officers replacing them.[/quote] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2016/10/05/is-ferguson-effect-making-nations-highways-unsafe-some-safety-officials-think-so/?utm_term=.49a88b4aa528[/url] The important thing of note is the polling of police officers on the issue, the marked drop in policing, and the spike in crime in some cities that, on a decades-long graph, is an unusual one after a slow decline in violent crime since the 90s.
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52520177]Reading all this shit makes me wonder why my dad's so freaking depressed after the election. Literally NONE of the two candidates were/are capable to running this country. It was either what poison was gonna kill you faster. We really do need to act out about this. We can't let Trump keep getting away with the garbage he spews, the hateful actions he encourages, and the laws he TRIED to pass. He can try and fail one day, but what's gonna happen when the next awful law is put up for action?[/QUOTE] Do you actually have any proof Hilary would be a bad president other than "crooked shillary memes I read on 4chan"
[QUOTE=Conscript;52519996]So why aren't you a nationalist again? You're already half-way there with the western chauvinism. To me, nationalism means [B]defense of our cultural and therefore liberal values[/B], [B]an economy with a more social character[/B], and opposition to a certain brand of foreign policy and its endless war. It also means [B]using identity as a means of stimulating feelings for the downtrodden[/B], [B]becoming more social and having a society of individuals not afraid to walk the street at night or leave a door unlocked[/B], stimulating the birthrate and solving the demographic crisis regarding the welfare state, [B]having a national coordination in reforming the workforce to become more skilled/socially mobile/able to deal with automation[/B], [B]and dealing with corruption/reigning in the excesses of moneyed interests.[/B] I see nothing wrong with this, and the only barrier to it being popular is the left-wing weaponization of subcultures in a post-colonial context, the myth of nazis coming for the gays, blacks, and feminists, and the influence of money which finds nationalism to be fostering of inflexible or uncompetitive economies.[/QUOTE] Bolded are things the left in America supports, or atleast supports more than the right. Given the current factionalization of the Democrats, you could make the argument that at least a plurality of the left-wing opposes "a certain brand of foreign policy and endless war". Bernie Sanders and Progressives in general come to mind. It's genuinely astonishing to me that on the last two points in particular (workforce reform and dealing with corruption) you see Trump and his following somehow, in any way solving these.
Can someone please explain the whole "Trump is good for workers and fighting corruption" thing for me? Because it feels like I'm back playing fucking 'opposite day' in middle school whenever anyone comes out with it.
[QUOTE=Conscript;52520091] He has done a lot to give publicity to left-liberal/libertarian dissent with 'SJWs', globalization/neoliberalism, and the nazis of the alt right at the same time. He deserves credit for this, as too many millenials are abandoning centrism altogether rather than rebranding it as he does.[/QUOTE] I'm just sayin, if you constantly criticize the left and throw peanuts at the right and only when put on the spot you probably aren't a centrist. Like I unsubscribed to him over the American election because I never got the impression that he ever genuinely described any of Trumps negative aspects, and assuming that everything Trump said was true and everything Clinton said was a lie. [QUOTE=Conscript;52520091]Also, even if you don't like him, he uses his name to occasionally bring together a good panel on his livestreams to discuss things.[/QUOTE] I've never seen a panel of his that wasn't a circlejerk. [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392] This has fueled a gap not only between progressive cultural and political elites and the average person, but also between institutions, companies, etc. and the people who work within them. Polls show [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2017/06/05/polls-on-political-correctness/"]50-70% [/URL] consider political correctness a serious issue depending on wording. Many also take serious issue with globalization. [/QUOTE] Political correctness is a buzzword and I wonder how many people who take issue with globalization have absolutely no problem reaping the rewards of it. I'm going to guess 98%. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]Yet, a more liberal part of the elite and big insitutions they fight cultural battles in and perform political auditing on continue on their own way regardless of popular opinions, they exist together in a sort of class based bubble as inequality worsens, polarization drives society apart, the internet permits homogeneity of opinions, and globalization is 'unrelatable'. Dr Jordan Peterson explains why nationalism is rising and more 'relatable':[/QUOTE] Aside from a sudden global catastrophe or another world war, globalism is going no where. Countries are now rely on each other economically and in some cases militarily to such an extent that the populist dream of each country becoming it's own island will never naturally come about. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]So the issue isn't your opponents are irrationally following a strongman and the next hitler, this is more of the arrogance I was talking about (and mirrors something like the attitude towards the populist Caesar and the roman plebs). The issue is the left is victorian in its arrogance. It holds cultural and political sway over the heights of society and has a sense of right side of history derived from globalization and where the money is going (open, consumerist societies and free flow of goods and labor). It's almost as if the bicoastal, urban liberal upper classes speak a different language than the average working class person. [/QUOTE] I like how on the one hand you suggest that arrogance, or at least arrogance of a certain kind, is a unique trait of the left and in the very next sentence imply that bicoastal, urban liberals "just don't get it". Who's being arrogant now? [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]In that light, people stubbornly hold on to figures like trump as a man they propelled to the top to reign in the unpopular excesses. [B]This is because despite being egalitarians that apologize for western history, the class character of the left is such that it is an expression of a very American kind of inequality[/B]. [/QUOTE] Yeah I forgot it was the left that has spent the past 7 years trying to take back healthcare from the working class, becoming so desperate as to push a bill that they knew would cause premiums to spike, hurting the middle class as well. Anything the left in America does from an institutional sense to express inequality pales in comparison to the sheer maliciousness of the right. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]There is an alignment between the left and money that is intensely resented because one is part of a culture war and the other part of a class war as global market corrections (of the gap between first and third world) mean the middle class shrinks, economic prospects for the young darken, and the native working class feels marginalized by the concept of globalization (which even Trudeau admitted to, once the right wing populists seized upon this demographic in the form of brexit and trump). This is why f.e. the Russia thing won't change anything for a significant plurality of the country, they don't care. They see treason, as you do, but not in a poor speaker of a president, but a far more powerful wealthy, socially trendy elite. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/nationalists-are-losing-ground-in-the-white-house-thank-wealthy-elites/"]The balance of power between to the two is recognized by WaPo in this piece.[/URL][/QUOTE] The left and the right in America is both dominated by pro-globalism elites because globalism is generally enriching. Trump himself, while seen as some kind of crusader against globalism (somehow??), built his fortune in the global marketplace, importing cheap labor from other countries and exporting his real estate experience to other countries. The idea that the left has some sort of monopoly on globalism is absurd. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519690]That anecdote is sad, but I don't know how it's an argument. The state should regulate, but still be behind its police so its officers can have the confidence knowing they can deal with a rather crime ridden first world country without being thrown under the bus, just to save the career of some bureaucrat from the post-colonial victim narrative and anti-American/anti-Western sentiment. That is cultural warfare. [/QUOTE] I don't think people are investigated for police brutality to save the career of government workers dude I think they are investigated because they might have hurt someone while being in a position that requires you to not do that. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392] You can, but then, most trump supporters don't like neocons and other conservatives who just want to hold onto their money. In other countries, nationalists can be pretty socialistic when it comes to economics.[/QUOTE] Not in America. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]Trump's value has fallen 200 million and he is not making money off this. Like a lot of rich people, trump got into politics as a philanthropist. However, he's doing it quite differently than others. That is, instead of being something like, say, a former politician going around giving paid speeches about the virtues of green energy to industrial giants and how its in their interests, he's actively threatening those interests. He's a nationalist with some strong sympathies for the American worker, and is essentially a renegade member of his class. [/QUOTE] Yeah, sympathies for the American worker. [URL="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/"]I'm sure[/URL]. "Renegade member of his class", by suggesting tax and welfare reform that dramatically scales back the taxes the rich have to pay. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]He's not much of a friend, but he says things that the working class is thinking, and it's scaring those in power into thinking a Hitler and the brownshirts are coming for them. The hysteria is actually pretty amusing, but more importantly also shifting the overton window. By bringing up nazism of all things when confronted with the most basic versions of civic nationalism and pandering to the economic woes of the middle and working classes, you get people to think you really don't want them talking about the latter. So they do it out of spite. [/QUOTE] It's not scaring "those in power" dude it's scaring a lot of the working and middle class people. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]He's my governor. I go to the beach his fat ass closed for himself. [/QUOTE] And yet you will never have an unkind word to say about the right in America. Incredible. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]The LGBT thing was stupid, I don't know why people believed that about him. But let's be serious, there are no trump supporters here. FP was always on the liberal side, but american polarization has turned it into an echo chamber. [/QUOTE] The "I stand with the American worker" thing was stupid, I don't know why people believed that about him. As for Trump supporters on FP, not only is it incorrect to say there are none here, and it's bigly incorrect to say it's an echo chamber, especially when a prominent pro-Trump poster gets special treatment from the mod team. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]American culture wars are older than today's LGBT rights movement. Today, it's also much bigger than that, it's about a kind of identity politics tribalism that undermines Western liberalism and turns democratic representation into a zero-sum game of in groups. It's the post-colonial, anti-Western left wing narratives that completely sabotages the middle class dream (you can never achieve it because of the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy), the American civic identity (it's a false consciousness that makes you submit to the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy), and liberal individualism (we can analyze society on the basis of class, race, and sex and arrive at the conclusion we live in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy and not a democracy of free individuals). Thus Sargon of Akkad. [/QUOTE] What I really like about the "identity politics" thing is that the right is completely immune to it. No one says the right is obsessed with identity politics when they try to fly over the military and make sure there are no transgender military personnel. Nobody complains about identity politics when it's dividing people into groups like working class, middle class, and upper class. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]The changing face and demographic of american society will significantly harm the health of liberal-democracy if we don't convince the new lot that though there are classes they are free and there is social mobility, though there are 'races' and 'genders' they are individuals, and together this means people have responsibility and choice for their lot in life. Then we can tell them they don't need to, in tribal fashion, bind together against the ubiquitous property-owning white male and then have them take that logic to its conclusion and start hating the Republic.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "changing face and demographics"? What do you mean by "the new lot"? Why do you have such a problem with tribalism when huge sections of your posts hinge entirely on tribal breakups of people, left or right, lower or upper class, geographical location etc? [QUOTE=Conscript;52519392]Strawman.[/QUOTE] Hardly. You made it a point to say that police officers think oversight hinders their ability to do their job. If you don't believe that's true, why bring it up? [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]Akkad is awesome.[/QUOTE] He is good at confirming biases without necessarily being factual. The fact that he makes a better living off of it than I do actually working for a living is certainly awesome. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]What are you talking about? The entire problem is that someone calling for increased police presence in specified areas to reign in a criminal underclass is immediately interpreted as a kind of top-down racial conflict. It's once again an us vs them attitude, a zero sum game it's not supposed to be.[/QUOTE] I can't off the top of my head remember increased police presence being interpreted as a top-down racial conflict. Is this another thing that you try to portray as endemic to the left when in reality is an opinion held by a handful of radicals that hold either no or localized power? [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]How often is the GOP baited as a party of old rich white men, for example, instead of a party of a more classic kind of liberal?[/QUOTE] Often, because they are the party of old rich white men that dog liberalism until it comes within the Venn diagram of business and private interest. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]Are you actually telling me a lot of people don't judge everything political in America in a racial and/or class lens? That this doesn't completely undermine democracy?[/QUOTE] You are portraying this as a bad thing but you yourself spend a shitload of time judging everything through a class lens so I'm just confused. No I don't think it undermines democracy. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]If the issue is the social conservatives, then explain to me why LGBT rights is conflated with leftism and concern with wider concepts of 'social justice' and the progressive stack, rather than just holding America's political system to be consistently liberal and individualist when it comes to LGBT individuals. I already know the answer. [/QUOTE] It's conflated with leftism because the right in America has only ever opposed LGBT rights. This shit ain't hard. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]This is how a basic legal rights movements completely compatible with liberalism transforms into a form of cultural jamming weaponized by the left in times of rising inequality, loss of faith in democracy, and any unresolved social issues after legal equality. That can be dangerous.[/QUOTE] You're tellin me. We got the president saying that the press is the enemy of the people and 45% of Trump voters wouldn't mind if he shot someone in public. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]Half of 18-29 year olds hate capitalism. I think people need to stop pretending this is the 2000s, the political landscape has a changed a lot. Also, I think Sargon is very well reasoned as to why he fears the left more than the right. Ultimately his reason is the same as mine, he thinks the left is far more institutional in nature and often aligns with interests of the wealthy. This is why he's always calling Remainers bourgeois lefties that hate the working class. He also realizes the left does not carry the same social taboo as the right does for historical reasons, because the West did experience the horrors of right wing nationalism, it did not experience communism. It only had boomer liberals of the 60s. [/QUOTE] Whether the left or right is more institutional in nature varies drastically depending on where you live. In the United States the left is no more or less institutional than the right, and currently, with the right controlling all three branches of the US government, I'd say they are the ones with institutional power here. Turning your argument around though, it's why I fear the right more than the left. I'm not going to pretend like the idea of communists and anarchists beating people in the streets and lighting storefronts on fire but they are a localized threat for now, where as the Republicans in the legislature and in the White House wield immense power over literally hundreds of millions of people. They make decisions that could upturn the lives of tens of millions of Americans every time they vote on a major piece of legislation. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939] Nationalism is a reaction to the growth of multinational unions like the EU and the sheer power of international capitalism these days, [b]which [I]are[/I] the threat to democracy[b]. Are you serious? Nobody on the left respects a peacefully elected president and they call for 'resistance', way too many people were calling for a second referendum on brexit/ignoring the old vote/completely disregarding brexit, and the EU essentially wants to bypass popular will in poland by holding the state to some agreements made in a different time under different circumstances. Nationalism is only even rising because of all the money in politics steering a country in a direction the people who are in the countryside and/or of a lower class don't want. It's basically seen as a weapon to be used against wealthy urban cosmopolitans and their political machines and NGOs. That's why we have populists now.[/QUOTE] I like how you have to say peacefully elected because you can't rightly say democratically. As for not respecting him, yeah the right disrespected Obama just as hard, and the left disrespected Bush just as hard. It's partisan politics, just turned up a notch because Trump ran the most divisive campaign in recent history. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]It's pretty fucking ironic that the nationalists these days are the anti-war types, the ones defending liberal values like free speech, and coming out against neoliberal cuts on social services (like Poland's Law and Justice does). Who is a threat to who here?[/QUOTE] I don't think nationalists in America are anti-war types. I think if Trump sold the American people on a war you would see huge swathes of his supporters stick with him. Liberal values like free speech? Nationalists in America clearly despise free speech, and Trump himself has floated the idea (as ludicrous as it is) of looking into libel laws. Any outlet that criticizes Trump, whether the criticisms are factual or not (they are most of the time in any case) face boycotts targeting their advertisers. They defend free speech when it's bigotry or vile hatred aimed at leftists, but they can't stand free speech when its aimed at their God Emperor. Regarding cuts on social services, I honestly have to ask, do you follow American politics? This is exclusively the venue of the nationalists. Trump campaigned heavily on this. It's one of the biggest draws for his supporters. [QUOTE=Conscript;52519939]I find it really odd actually that a LGBT person wouldn't be rabidly pro-Western, being that it's one of the few places you're protected in the world because of our liberalism, and find that mass migration without liberalization of their culture and reformation of their religion is a direct threat to people like you. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#/media/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg[/URL][/QUOTE] I like this argument and the argument you will see about Trump that he is the one that really cares about LGBT people because he will keep all the Muslims out. Not only is the subtext that mass migration means that LGBT individuals would inevitably become persecuted in their own country, but it also lets the person arguing for it come across as LGBT friendly even when they aren't, [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/us/politics/white-house-lgbt-rights-military-civil-rights-act.html"]or even outright against their rights[/URL].
rather lovely to see the police groups all doing face saving manuver on this one when they've been so aggressive about police scrutiny and lots of them threw endorsements behind trump. you get exactly what you paid for, some republicans in the house didn't like trans funding so they lobbied the WH and got a full bore ban on transgenders in the services, immigration hawks wanted better border security and are stuck with a fucking useless wall project that is derailing any border security improvements, and the police threw themselves behind trump so he would stop the "war on the police" and now have a president on record approving of police brutality.
I'm convinced our president doesn't have a heart
Another thing people seem to forget when they ask "Shouldn't LGBT people support Trump because he opposes Muslims!?" is that Islam isn't the only Religion with origins outside of the west and a holy book with elements that are hostile to people with particular sexual orientations. Yeah that's right, Christianity has those parts too! And when we look at American politics, Which party is it that's constantly in histrionic fits over how certain demographics having rights will upset their god and threaten their way of life?- better yet which President affiliated with that party made an attack on the rights of a particular demographic [i] this week[/i]? That's right, Trump and the Republicans fucking hate LGBT people too!. Where on the political spectrum would you stick them? because somehow I'm guessing it's not ~the left~ So. Even if this whole reductive view of [ ~the Left~ = more Muslims = Islam has negative views on homosexuality= the left means more hatred of gays ] wasn't just a jumble of completely dumb mental gymnastics- Exactly how are Trump and the Religious right the better choice? (Spoiler, they aren't)
[QUOTE=GucciSace;52521349]I'm convinced our president doesn't have a heart[/QUOTE] Yes, its Donald Trump, you know. The guy who personified the evil businessman stereotype for decades. Do 5 minutes of reading on the guy and you'd know he's a piece of shit and always has been. I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks different.
Do you know how to make people hate the police? By getting police to hate suspects
All in all it's just a populist statement that easily appeals to a large group of people, the main reason he poses a hypothetical case of a murder convict is because it's so easy and so damn relatable; losing a loved one to a murderer is maybe one of the worst possible scenario's we can imagine. Of course he's met with applause, everyone hates injustice, but in the grand scheme of things this has many serious consequences, consequences which are often unforeseen at present. I don't think you can find a clearer example of how rhetoric trumps dialectic than Trump (pun not intended). [QUOTE=343N;52521772]Do you know how to make people hate the police? By getting police to hate suspects[/QUOTE] This pretty much sums it up, it's as trying to extinguish a fire with more fire.
[QUOTE=Bftony;52522098]All in all it's just a populist statement that easily appeals to a large group of people, the main reason he poses a hypothetical case of a murder convict is because it's so easy and so damn relatable; losing a loved one to a murderer is maybe one of the worst possible scenario's we can imagine. Of course he's met with applause, everyone hates injustice, but in the grand scheme of things this has many serious consequences, consequences which are often unforeseen at present. I don't think you can find a clearer example of how rhetoric trumps dialectic than Trump (pun not intended). This pretty much sums it up, it's as trying to extinguish a fire with more fire.[/QUOTE] But Trump's not even a good speaker. I'm amazed there's anyone at all who'd find him charismatic. That stream-of-consciousness rambling he's so well known for communicates nothing so well as that he suffers some neurodegenerative disease.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52522291]But Trump's not even a good speaker. I'm amazed there's anyone at all who'd find him charismatic. That stream-of-consciousness rambling he's so well known for communicates nothing so well as that he suffers some neurodegenerative disease.[/QUOTE] Yeah but he's incredibly rich and isn't afraid to bully people under him so he's earned the undying respect of most Republicans.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52522331]Yeah but he's incredibly rich and isn't afraid to bully people under him so he's earned the undying respect of most Republicans.[/QUOTE] Seems less that they respect him, and more that they want to be like him.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52522291]But Trump's not even a good speaker. I'm amazed there's anyone at all who'd find him charismatic. That stream-of-consciousness rambling he's so well known for communicates nothing so well as that he suffers some neurodegenerative disease.[/QUOTE] I can't fathom it either, yet it is the reality we live in. That demagogue didn't become the president because of a lack of support.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52521691]Yes, its Donald Trump, you know. The guy who personified the evil businessman stereotype for decades. Do 5 minutes of reading on the guy and you'd know he's a piece of shit and always has been. I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks different.[/QUOTE] I wonder if there are people that somehow think that if someone is "successful" (read "rich") then they must be doing [I]something[/I] right. Hell, I know that there are people that honestly think that if you're rich, then you must be doing something God likes. Because that's the God we've all read about in the Bible: If he loves you, he gives you a shit-load of money. Never mind that "camel through the eye of a needle" bullshit, if you're rich that means he [I]loves[/I] you!
So you're saying im broke because i dont appreciate god enough? Sweet justification! I'll just donate some money to the church lol edit: wow this off topic
Let's face it: the democrats, and more importantly Hillary fucked up big time by ignoring working- and middle class concerns in the campaign. Trump may be a piece of shit, and he may not actually help the working classes at all - but he did address their concerns, and talk up a storm about bringing industry jobs back to the US. And he may be going at actually bringing those jobs back horribly, but he does seem to make the token effort that makes people hopeful still. Let's not forget also, that people are petty and selfish en masse. When the classic working class sees no future and no jobs, and feels that a political party ignores their plight and their existential fears in favour or other social issues, in this case racial tensions and LGBT rights, they'll flock to anyone who promises a solution, no matter how outlandish or short-sighted those solutions may be - same way that LGBT folk and disenfranchised minorities flock to those that address THEIR problems. Whether those problems are actually solved is kind of secondary compared to communicating them in the first place in the political landscape. Another important mistake left-leaning political movements made in various countries is ignoring or ridiculing the growing fears caused by Islamism. Realistically, we have little to fear of Islamists, or Muslim immigrants - but the media is filled with reports of the horrors ISIS perpetrates, the injustices committed on a daily basis in Islamic countries, and anytime a terror attack happens, the world is abuzz with attention - thus, people being afraid and nervous is a completely natural reaction, even if not very rational. Fear is not rational. Naturally, certain people ride this fear all the way to political success, ever escalating it for their own gains - and dismissing those fears, and looking down on those that have them does [I]nothing[/I] to actually alleviate them and take power away from fearmongerers, only action does - even just token action, as Trump clearly demonstrated. If people feel that no action is taken against the object of their fears, they feel betrayed and abandoned, and that quickly can turn into irrational spite. One who has the insight to see how irrational and unfounded those fears are (or is simply told to believe so - let's not pretend that many left-leaning people are any more informed that their right-wing counterparts, they are just drawn towards a more rational political message out of the same mostly emotional motives) may feel inclined to ridicule them - but winning hearts and minds can't be done by what is essentially bullying, and [B]realistically, the truth of a message is far less relevant compared to its presentation.[/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.