Support NeoGAF

[TheRealTalker]

I am shocked

SHOCKED

actually not really that shocked

 

[Toxi]

Trump is an aberration and has also invigorated the liberal movement.

Beyond that, winning 3 Presidential terms in a row by one party is a rare occurrence. On the macro perspective, liberals ideals are winning.

What you're talking is about politics and how the game is played. But polling shows support for liberal causes at all time high. The GOP is just better at playing politics.

Have you taken a look at the world recently? The United States isn't the only nation that fucked itself with far-right bullshit.

Liberal ideals aren't "winning" when they aren't actually winning the political game.

 

[entremet]

Really? Have you taken a look at the world recently?

There is a populist surge. Yes. But ultimately I don't see a regression to the 1800s.

These surges are quite common. A lot has to do with the decline of institutions and nationalism filling a void.

To expect a perfect upward slope in human progress is naive. There will always be pushback.

 

[Dude Abides]

I accept that reality!

But I don't see it as a regression of positive liberal values, but a party that can play the political game better.

How about the fact that under both Dem and GOP presidents we're constantly involved in military action abroad? How about the fact that we're not anywhere close to a single-payer health care system and in fact further away from it than we were in the 20s and the 50s? How about the fact that even Obama was on board with slashing social security and medicare and the only thing that prevented it was he didn't go far enough for the right? How about the fact that we're further from getting money out of politics than we've ever been? The only area where progressive values have made any significant headway in the last 20 years is LGBT rights.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Who won a squeaker due to the EC.

Trump is an aberration and has also invigorated the liberal movement.

Beyond that, winning 3 Presidential terms in a row by one party is a rare occurrence. On the macro perspective, liberals ideals are winning.

What you're talking is about politics and how the game is played. But polling shows support for liberal causes at all time high. The GOP is just better at playing politics.

Look into the recent history of populism sweeping from eastern europe to America. Trump's victory was anything but an aberration

A book I recommend on the subject

 

[Lord Frieza]

The irony is, of all this, a lot of the people who shout 'debate, debate, deate!' are showing why it is debate isn't that effective. I doubt anyone in this conversation is the kind of people as Coulter or Milo, but look at what's happening with relatively reasonable people.

Bruce Springsteen just said some bullshit, and when called on it, just dug his heels into more bullshit, and if he doesn't bail out of the conversation completely, will just post more bullshit and stick his head in the ground.

entremet is just going in circles, avoiding the darker side of the people he's calling for debate over protest, and just goes to regurgitating old arguments about the grand notion of debate and free speech.

I know that singles those two out, but the whole thread has gone this way basically from the beginning.And, no one who steps up to bat for people like Milo in this thread even dares to address the fact that his 'free speech' included reading off the list of students to be harassed by his supporters, specifically a trans student who was harassed to the point that she dropped out of school, and the fact that he said he planned to read the names of undocumented students at that rally in Berkley that turned violent.

Yet, presented with all this, neither of them are close to changing their mind, and basically no one else on the side of the Neo-Nazis, eugenic peddlers, and hate mongers have changed their mind that we can just debate them away despite the fact that they have shown time and time again throughout the year that they don't care about being debated away and really just want to spread their hate, for either their political, ideological or money gains. We can't even debate fairly reasonable folks here, what the hell kind of debate are we going to do against these people?

And no one wants to take up the $10,000 question. When debate fails, when they keep coming, and they keep pushing with all their force despite all the debate in the world, What Next?

 

[Toxi]

There is a populist surge. Yes. But ultimately I don't see a regression to the 1800s.

These surges are quite common. A lot has to do with the decline of institutions and nationalism filling a void.

To expect a perfect upward slope in human progress is naive. There will always be pushback.

Sure. But the idea that ideas of people like Ann Coulter are "Losing" during a right-wing populist surge is ridiculous.

People like Coulter and Trump are winning, and no amount of debate stopped that from happening.

 

[entremet]

How about the fact that under both Dem and GOP presidents we're constantly involved in military action abroad? How about the fact that we're not anywhere close to a single-payer health care system and in fact further away from it than we were in the 20s and the 50s? How about the fact that even Obama was on board with slashing social security and medicare and the only thing that prevented it was he didn't go far enough for the right? How about the fact that we're further from getting money out of politics than we've ever been? The only area where progressive values have made any significant headway in the last 20 years is LGBT rights.

Fair points. Obama had great packaging, but I thought he was disappointment overall.

LGBT stuff is pretty significant, though. And Bernie's popularity was a good sign.

The irony is, of all this, a lot of the people who shout 'debate, debate, deate!' are showing why it is debate isn't that effective. I doubt anyone in this conversation is the kind of people as Coulter or Milo, but look at what's happening with relatively reasonable people.

Bruce Springsteen just said some bullshit, and when called on it, just dug his heels into more bullshit, and if he doesn't bail out of the conversation completely, will just post more bullshit and stick his head in the ground.

entremet is just going in circles, avoiding the darker side of the people he's calling for debate over protest, and just goes to regurgitating old arguments about the grand notion of debate and free speech.

I know that singles those two out, but the whole thread has gone this way basically from the beginning.And, no one who steps up to bat for people like Milo in this thread even dares to address the fact that his 'free speech' included reading off the list of students to be harassed by his supporters, specifically a trans student who was harassed to the point that she dropped out of school, and the fact that he said he planned to read the names of undocumented students at that rally in Berkley that turned violent.

Yet, presented with all this, neither of them are close to changing their mind, and basically no one else on the side of the Neo-Nazis, eugenic peddlers, and hate mongers have changed their mind that we can just debate them away despite the fact that they have shown time and time again throughout the year that they don't care about being debated away and really just want to spread their hate, for either their political, ideological or money gains. We can't even debate fairly reasonable folks here, what the hell kind of debate are we going to do against these people?

And no one wants to take up the $10,000 question. When debate fails, when they keep coming, and they keep pushing with all their force despite all the debate in the world, What Next?

Well, many of the European right wing groups did have their podiums limited, yet look at the inroads they made?

I don't know what's next.

 

[Stinkles]

Fair points. Obama had great packaging, but I thought he was disappointment overall.

LGBT stuff is pretty significant, though. And Bernie's popularity was a good sign.

Yes, but the party's Bernie can't be Bernie. He's unelectable, unpredictable and a poor strategist. The party needs a young Bernie who can blend pragmatism with populism and say:

We are going to fix this country, we're going to fix healthcare and the economy - the BIG future economy and ifnrastructure, with support at every level for the working people of this country, within a capitalist model.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

There is a populist surge. Yes. But ultimately I don't see a regression to the 1800s.

These surges are quite common. A lot has to do with the decline of institutions and nationalism filling a void.

To expect a perfect upward slope in human progress is naive. There will always be pushback.

saying there won't be a regression to the time of slavery isn't saying much

 

[Lord Frieza]

When these are the prevailing ideas of the age, then you will have a point. As far as Trump goes...that was the Dems election to lose and they did practically everything possible to fuck it up and it was still a fairly close election.

They shouldn't exist in this age, period, other then mentions in history books. Yet, here we are, and people are defending them.

Is that what they were doing in Berkeley? Because it looked like chucking bricks, damaging property, setting shit on fire, and beating up people....not peaceful protest. None of which are protected by the 1st.

Berkeley, like many violent protests, did go too far, I can concede. But I understand it. When you have a hate mongering man, editing a thinly veiled Neo-Nazi website, who reads the lists of students to be harassed, I can understand that anger.

Taking her platform away is forcing people to ignore her, how is that any different?

I agree with you that removing her platform is the ideal solution.

*High Five*

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

I'm sure this will be the time that Ann Coulter will be changed. This, surely, will be her Archer Bunker meets the KKK moment, and not the thousands upon thousands of moments before that she's been debated and embarrassed. This, surely, will be the time.

It's not about changing them. Only a fool would think there's any chance of changing the heart of old cruel people. The idea is to keep them deflated and unimportant. Allowing them to present themselves is just the price we have to pay to keep them looking stupid.

Blocking and attempting to silence them only builds them up as some genius that the opposition is afraid of. That's why so many people believe dumb conspiracy theory shit like on Alex Jones, because if it's not a widespread fact their flawed logic makes them believe it must be true if everyone is trying to cover it up. I'd like to see the overlap between nuts and those that get riled up every time a controversial speaker is cancelled on.

 

[entremet]

Yes, but the party's Bernie can't be Bernie. He's unelectable, unpredictable and a poor strategist. The party needs a young Bernie who can blend pragmatism with populism and say:

We are going to fix this country, we're going to fix healthcare and the economy - the BIG future economy and ifnrastructure, with support at every level for the working people of this country, within a capitalist model.

Oh, he is too old anyway. It just showed there was an appetite for those ideas.

 

[Spoo]

Catching up on this thread, but can someone explain to me where this rumor came from that somehow Bill Maher was responsible for undermining Milo's efforts? I paid very close attention to that entire debacle, and it was very clear that the real turning point there was Milo describing his enticement with pedophilia, not that Maher somehow turned the tables on him. Hell, there was even at least one new report stating that Milo and Maher were finding common ground.

 

[Alucrid]

Catching up on this thread, but can someone explain to me where this rumor came from that somehow Bill Maher was responsible for undermining Milo's efforts? I paid very close attention to that entire debacle, and it was very clear that the real turning point there was Milo describing his enticement with pedophilia, not that Maher somehow turned the tables on him. Hell, there was even at least one new report stating that Milo and Maher were finding common ground.

soon after he was on maher's show he got canned. i also ate a hoagie that night. personally i pin his fall from grace on my delicious italian hoagie, fuck maher.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Well, many of the European right wing groups did have their podiums limited, yet look at the inroads they made?

Limited, maybe, but not taken completely out of the mainstream. And news media has given the right in various countries plenty of attention, so I don't even know how limited a lot of has been.

I don't know what's next.

Apparently, no one on your side of the table does. At least you have the courage to admit that.

 

[entremet]

saying there won't be a regression to the time of slavery isn't saying much

That's fair. However, we have made a lot progress. Unfortunately, modern reporting looks for the wrinkles in progress.

I'm not naive to say there aren't threats and opposition.

Limited, maybe, but not taken completely out of the mainstream. And news media has given the right in various countries plenty of attention, so I don't even know how limited a lot of has been.



Apparently, no one on your side of the table does. At least you have the courage to admit that.

Eh. I think that's unfair.

We're taking about tons of things here. I specifically talked about Ann Coulter's 1st amendment rights in the context of a public university.

Beating racism, anti environmentalism, poverty, etc. Are completely different things and I'm pretty committed myself personally to help in those areas. Both financially, with my time, and supporting and voting for candidates that align with my values.

 

[Sweeney Tom]

Catching up on this thread, but can someone explain to me where this rumor came from that somehow Bill Maher was responsible for undermining Milo's efforts? I paid very close attention to that entire debacle, and it was very clear that the real turning point there was Milo describing his enticement with pedophilia, not that Maher somehow turned the tables on him. Hell, there was even at least one new report stating that Milo and Maher were finding common ground.

Maher essentially said "you're welcome" and that him giving Milo the platform allowed that stuff to not just come to light, but to have a stronger effect than it would have if he hadn't been on the show. Raising him up so the lightning could strike better, I guess

Totally full of shit of course

 

[Skinpop]

The vast majority? I have no idea what kind of numbers we're actually talking about

what? surely this is a typo?

 

[Lord Frieza]

It's not about changing them. Only a fool would think there's any chance of changing the heart of old cruel people. The idea is to keep them deflated and unimportant. Allowing them to present themselves is just the price we have to pay to keep them looking stupid.

Giving them big platforms does the exact opposite of defalting someone and making them unimportant.

Blocking and attempting to silence them only builds them up as some genius that the opposition is afraid of. That's why so many people believe dumb conspiracy theory shit like on Alex Jones, because if it's not a widespread fact their flawed logic makes them believe it must be true if everyone is trying to cover it up. I'd like to see the overlap between nuts and those that get riled up every time a controversial speaker is cancelled on.

Actually, you're proving my point. Alex Jones, in the grand scheme of things, is nothing. Yeah, he's got a following, but most people don't even know who Alex Jones is or what InfoWars is. He has no major platforms, like Fox or college rallies or what have you, because no one will give him that shit because he, and his views, are all just insanity personified.

 

[Lord Frieza]

what? surely this is a typo?

Oh, going back to that statement, I see what you mean. I misread it. I thought he asked how many Muslims weren't in ISIS.

 

[Spoo]

Maher essentially said "you're welcome" and that him giving Milo the platform allowed that stuff to not just come to light, but to have a stronger effect than it would have if he hadn't been on the show. Raising him up so the lightning could strike better, I guess

Totally full of shit of course

Yeah, I recall him trying to take credit for it (which was actually *predicted* by many posters in that old thread, myself included), but the sequence of events that led to Milo's downfall were pretty cut and dry: basically, the republican convention, once they got wind of the circulated video, realized it'd be a step too far to have him be a keynote speaker. His book deal was cancelled, and the publisher in question stated without any wiggle room that it was the video that the republicans dug up on him. And, finally, his departing Breitbart was decided upon based on the republican turn, *not*, surely, Bill Maher, who they would describe (true or not) as a hard left progressive.

And yet, there appear to be people who think that Maher did this because... he said so? For no other reason than he said it was him? I'd like to understand why, given all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Eh. I think that's unfair.

We're taking about tons of things here. I specifically talked about Ann Coulter's 1st amendment rights in the context of a public university.

Beating racism, anti environmentalism, poverty, etc. Are completely different things and I'm pretty committed myself personally to help in those areas. Both financially, with my time, and supporting and voting for candidates that align with my values.

Which part is unfair? I'm not sure what part you're talking about. If it's the last thing I said, I wasn't criticizing you or trying to deny you have the greater good at heart. I'm just glad that you admitted you really don't know the 'What's Next?' when debate fails and they are still coming as strong, if not stronger. No one has been able to address that question in this whole thread. I'm just glad you owned up to it, no one else has, they've just bailed lol

 

[Lord Frieza]

Yeah, I recall him trying to take credit for it (which was actually *predicted* by many posters in that old thread, myself included), but the sequence of events that led to Milo's downfall were pretty cut and dry: basically, the republican convention, once they got wind of the circulated video, realized it'd be a step too far to have him be a keynote speaker. His book deal was cancelled, and the publisher in question stated without any wiggle room that it was the video that the republicans dug up on him. And, finally, his departing Breitbart was decided upon based on the republican turn, *not*, surely, Bill Maher, who they would describe (true or not) as a hard left progressive.

And yet, there appear to be people who think that Maher did this because... he said so? For no other reason than he said it was him? I'd like to understand why, given all the evidence to the contrary.

Did Maher even really take credit for Milo's fall, though? The Real Time after PedoGate, Bill actually kind of started to defend Milo, but stopped. He may have at some other point, but I don't know about it. He seemed to like Milo honestly.

And just to put a nail in that coffin, here is the official letter of resignation Milo put in for Breitbart where he mentions the tape, and here is the news article about his publisher dropping his book because of the tape. No mention of his appearance on Real Time at all. There's a long thread on here, too, when it all broke that had various fans and supporters saying they were off the Milo train because of the tape. Not a single one I can recall said anything about his Real Time interview.

 

[Tarydax]

Catching up on this thread, but can someone explain to me where this rumor came from that somehow Bill Maher was responsible for undermining Milo's efforts? I paid very close attention to that entire debacle, and it was very clear that the real turning point there was Milo describing his enticement with pedophilia, not that Maher somehow turned the tables on him. Hell, there was even at least one new report stating that Milo and Maher were finding common ground.

Like you say, Maher didn't do anything. He just gave himself credit. The people claiming he actually did do something to cause Milo's downfall are just trying to convince themselves that their guy didn't get played like a fiddle. Pedophilia never came up in that interview, so unless Maher is a secret member of the Reagan Battalion twitter account (which, going by the name alone, it's safe to assume he isn't), he had less than nothing to do with Milo's downfall.

Did Maher even really take credit for Milo's fall, though? The Real Time after PedoGate, Bill actually kind of started to defend Milo, but stopped. He may have at some other point, but I don't know about it. He seemed to like Milo honestly.

He definitely tried.

Well, let's recap. About a week ago, I went on Van Jones's show, and somebody asked me about the booking. I hadn't really gotten into the details of Milo yet. He was just getting on my radar. I said, specifically, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Then we had Milo on, despite the fact that many people said, ”Oh, how dare you give a platform to this man." What I think people saw was an emotionally needy Ann Coulter wannabe, trying to make a buck off of the left's propensity for outrage. And by the end of the weekend, by dinnertime Monday, he's dropped as a speaker at CPAC. Then he's dropped by Breitbart, and his book deal falls through. As I say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. You're welcome.

He didn't mention he conservatives who did the actual legwork at all.

 

[Spoo]

Which part is unfair? I'm not sure what part you're talking about. If it's the last thing I said, I wasn't criticizing you or trying to deny you have the greater good at heart. I'm just glad that you admitted you really don't know the 'What's Next?' when debate fails and they are still coming as strong, if not stronger. No one has been able to address that question in this whole thread. I'm just glad you owned up to it, no one else has, they've just bailed lol

I really feel like some things are kind of beyond debate.

I mean, take for example how Republicans simply cannot -- will not -- budge, when it comes to women's rights as elucidated in Roe V. Wade. They strongly believe, gun to their head, that abortion is murder. They aren't willing to debate that point.

That those on the left are somehow not allowed to hold similar moral convictions is unreasonable. We're expected to debate, engage, rationalize, but the others can simply act completely on emotion and instinct and ignore any plea for discourse.

So, "What's next", when it comes to debate failing, is escalation, and that's what we are seeing with some levels of violence. We can talk all we want about the "goodness" or "badness" of that for society, but if you treat it like a chemical reaction of ideologies, then there's really no point.

Now, *some* issues, that should rightly belong in the realm of purely debatable, let the best idea win, categories, are *ignored* outright, because of this escalation. And that's not good, but it is kind of expected.

 

[entremet]

Look into the recent history of populism sweeping from eastern europe to America. Trump's victory was anything but an aberration

A book I recommend on the subject

Nice. Thanks. I'm aware of the current populist surge--Brexit, Trump, LePen.

I meant more an aberration in recent American Presidential politics. But you're right, it's not an abberation globally.

 

[Lord Frieza]

He didn't mention he conservatives who did the actual legwork at all.

Didn't know this. He even mentioned the Pedo-thing on Real Time the week that happened, so he knew about it, too. Wow, that makes me lose a lot of respect for Bill, like a lot.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Nice. Thanks. I'm aware of the current populist surge--Brexit, Trump, LePen.

I meant more an aberration in recent American Presidential politics. But you're right, it's not an abberation globally.

I see what you mean now, but I still feel Trump's rise was very much a product of years of buildup

 

[How About No]

soon after he was on maher's show he got canned. i also ate a hoagie that night. personally i pin his fall from grace on my delicious italian hoagie, fuck maher.

Hoagies solve all the worlds problems

Add a Pepsi and baby you got world peace

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I've had a lot of time to think about this without commenting on it directly, but seeing GAF's reaction to this in particular sticks in my craw a bit. Bill Maher is not an asshole because he is backing up Ann Coulter. He has never agreed with silencing the other side. He believes in letting them put their bullshit out there for all to see so they can be rightfully judged.

Coulter is a massive idiot, I mean fuck she wrote a book titled "In Trump, we Trust", and now she has fallen off his wagon as soon as she's sold a few hundred thousand copies. Here's the real problem though: Berkeley trying to shut her out, isn't going to make her any less popular. It didn't make Milo any less popular either, he did himself in when he accidentally put it out there that he's okay with kiddy fiddling. It is what it is and a group of whiny college students throwing their toys out of the cot isn't going to change that, in fact it does nothing but make the rest of us look bad.

I don't know about you, but turning Universities into echo chambers doesn't sound too smart to me. It sounds like Trump University. Seriously Socrates is rolling in his grave over this shit.

Universities shouldn't be echo chambers. But they also shouldn't provide a platform for a person who has no academic, ethical or spiritual credibility. She's a bald-faced liar who says provocative things for attention which she routinely contradicts.

If you want to stand up for a conservative voice, there are thousands of credible speakers to choose from.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yes, but the party's Bernie can't be Bernie. He's unelectable

He put up some pretty good numbers given his late start and less than favorable circumstances, in my opinion.

unpredictable

Really? His success was hard to predict, going by the pundit hindsight scorecard, but his actions aren't. One of the things he kept on getting criticized for was his predictability, and how his message was always the same every time e.g. his stump speech, "oh no he's saying the same shit again *eyeroll*"

poor strategist.

His campaign had poor strategy in some areas, good strategy in others. Much like most campaigns. I don't see Bernie's poor strategery quotient as an outlier.

The dude is currently one of the most popular politicians in America. He's above 50% among Democrats and the general population.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ins-one-of-americas-most-popular-politicians/

A fascinating new survey from Fox News asked Americans their opinions of a number of political leaders and politically relevant organizations. No elected official included in the survey had a larger net favorability — overall favorable views minus unfavorable ones — than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), continuing Sanders’s strong showing in such polls.

He has a 75% positive rating in his own state.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/328214-poll-sanders-most-popular-senator-in-the-us

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has the highest approval rating of any U.S. senator in a new poll.

The Morning Consult poll showed a 75 percent approval rating for the Vermont senator.

The party needs a young Bernie who can blend pragmatism with populism and say:

We are going to fix this country, we're going to fix healthcare and the economy - the BIG future economy and ifnrastructure, with support at every level for the working people of this country, within a capitalist model.

Is that statement an ideal blend of populism and pragmatism, in your view?

We are going to fix this country, we're going to fix healthcare and the economy - the BIG future economy and ifnrastructure, with support at every level for the working people of this country, within a capitalist model.

What element or elements of this statement did Bernie NOT say on the campaign trail, exactly? Because when I look back on it, he said all those things.

 

[ponpo]

Posted?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html

Ann Coulter Says She Will Pull Out of Speech at Berkeley

Ann Coulter said Wednesday that she is canceling her planned speech at the University of California, Berkeley, because she had lost the backing of conservative groups that had initially sponsored her appearance.

Ms. Coulter, in a message to The New York Times, said, “It’s a sad day for free speech.”

Despite insisting that she would go to Berkeley regardless — even after the university said it could not accommodate her on the date and time it had initially scheduled her because of threats of violence — Ms. Coulter said she did not see how she could go forward. The school said she could speak only at a later date and an earlier time of day, when there were likely to be fewer students on campus and less of a likelihood for violent outbreaks.

Late on Tuesday, the conservative group that was helping Ms. Coulter in her legal efforts to force Berkeley to host her, Young America’s Foundation, said it could no longer participate. “Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students,” the group said.

E: Oop sorry V

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

Posted?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html

Ann Coulter Says She Will Pull Out of Speech at Berkeley

There's a seperate thread for it