• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
"Political correctness is out of control."

Literally two sentences later.

"Letting BLM protest without consequences."

This guy does better drugs than Ben Carson does.

I know Trump supporters are pretty stupid, but not seeing how "People are criticizing me for what I say and that's wrong!" and "Black people should not be allowed to say things!" are directly contradictory unless you're an actual white nationalist is exceptionally stupid.
 
A

ampere

Member
itschris said:
I hope he actually does deliver - it could lead to a huge electoral college blowout!
Click to expand...

Hm. I guess this mystery candidate would be piggybacking on an already existing third party? Texas' deadline was May 9th so they'd already have to be registered unless they were ignoring Texas lol

Kristoffer said:
crab like a wrecking ball in this thread

image.php
Click to expand...

Tag quoting yourself should be an auto-ban smh
 
P

Paskil

Member
Man God said:
I can see that point of view. Conservative pride (for lack of a better word) was on the up and up in the 80's and from 2000-2008.
Click to expand...

I would personally argue against the supposed overbearing pc culture fear argument by saying that if you feel ashamed when you state your views out loud, maybe it's you and not the people that are questioning your views. I mean, fuck. Businesses care how they are perceived. Having a President Trump is not going to prevent Fortune 500 company #246 from firing your ass when you make racist/misogynistic/bigoted/xenophobic statements in Twitter or Facebook. They will still can your ass because you are potentially hurting their bottom line,but also, because you're being a cunt.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Crab said:
And I think that's a woefully simplistic reduction of what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
I'll await your elaboration but you seem to be strongly implying that racist sentiment is largely (?) driven by a lack of personal (economic) security that reduces self-worth such that they need to reduce an other group.

Which I'd largely disagree is the major basis.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Remember when criticizing the Iraq War meant you hated America?

That was political correctness that was actually out of control.

You know how America is a ridiculously segregated place that refuses to build low income housing or let black people get loans?

That's American having safe spaces for white and rich people.
 
U

User1608

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Remember when criticizing the Iraq War meant you hated America?

That was political correctness that was actually out of control.

You know how America is a ridiculously segregated place that refuses to build low income housing or let black people get loans?

That's American having safe spaces for white and rich people.
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is truly astounding.
 
M

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Paskil said:
I would personally argue against the supposed overbearing pc culture fear argument by saying that if you feel ashamed when you state your views out loud, maybe it's you and not the people that are questioning your views. I mean, fuck. Businesses care how they are perceived. Having a President Trump is not going to prevent Fortune 500 company #246 from firing your ass when you make racist/misogynistic/bigoted/xenophobic statements in Twitter or Facebook. They will still can your ass because you are potentially hurting their bottom line,but also, because you're being a cunt.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. He's a 22 year old conservative kid though who thinks things might be better for him personally if Trump was elected because he won't have to hide his abhorrent views as much...and I don't think he's entirely wrong to think that way. It won't help in all circumstances but I saw it with my own eyes 2001-2008 and can't say he's entirely wrong.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
People get so offended when you bring up the fact that >70% of their success in life can be attributed to coming out of United States balls instead of Indian or Africa balls, go back to your safe spaces people.

For god's sake, Trump's entire thing is building an ACTUAL wall around the United States to pretend that the brown people can't get us and we can have a safe space, protected by this useless wall.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Paskil said:
I would personally argue against the supposed overbearing pc culture fear argument by saying that if you feel ashamed when you state your views out loud, maybe it's you and not the people that are questioning your views. I mean, fuck. Businesses care how they are perceived. Having a President Trump is not going to prevent Fortune 500 company #246 from firing your ass when you make racist/misogynistic/bigoted/xenophobic statements in Twitter or Facebook. They will still can your ass because you are potentially hurting their bottom line,but also, because you're being a cunt.
Click to expand...

Until Trump passes the Freedom of Bigotry act, which makes being racist/misogynistic/bigoted/xenophobic a protected class..... *shudder*

Edit: Goddamnit, I'm so used to this thread being hyper active, sorry for the triple post ><
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
ampere said:
I'd call that nationalism getting out of control
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's the same behavior that they're criticizing. "I'm offended, you should not be allowed to talk!"

Except instead of marginalized groups, they were defending the fucking U.S. government from attacks. And they actually wanted extreme censorship unlike marginalized groups today.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
I'm watching Lady Dynamite right now and I would just like to note that slavery was indeed our nation's ultimate shenanigan.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Suikoguy said:
I mentioned that this week, and apparently CA sends out sample ballots and gives you the option to change ballots at that time? I forget who posted that.
Click to expand...
I think that was me, but it was about the [multiple] mailers that give non-affiliated voters the opportunity to request ballots with the "Democratric, American Independent or Libertarian" races. I'm non-affiliated, I received one of these applications nearly two months ago, and received yet another after I received my ballot.

People who somehow managed to register for the American Independent Party won't get those applications. However, I fully maintain that it's not some bureaucratic confusion that leads people to select that at registration instead of no affiliation. People who selected American Independent Party believing it somehow meant not selecting a party... that's stupid. I don't have that much sympathy for people who can't figure that out and then whine about being so-called disenfranchisement.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
Crab said:
I agree, but this is now a slightly different issue. I have no idea how the government actually tackles entrenched racism within society itself. I think it can make sterling progress on institutional racism, given that it actually runs the institutions, and there's absolutely no reason for America's justice system to be as horrifically racist as it is. But how do you tackle, for example, subconscious bias, where people attribute negative qualities towards particular races despite saying that they favour racial equality? This isn't just people lying, incidentally, even minorities have less favourable opinions towards minorities, a damning indictment of how entrenched racist norms can become. What does the government do to undercut these?

From what I've studied of this topic, racism tends to be positively correlated with low self-esteem, as people use the in-group/out-group discrimination to buttress their sense of self-worth, lack of security, because people subconsciously try and reduce the complexity of the world by tying everything to simple characteristics, and low income, because at low incomes people feel threatened by the relative gains of others - much of society is predicated on status symbols and when you're poor much of what you have is status symbols (for more discussion, see: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/matthewclair/files/sociology_of_racism_clairandenis_2015.pdf).

Well, it turns out that economic inequality is actually the best way of addressing almost all of these issues. People have higher self-esteems when they feel like they have productive and meaningful work, their economic security is increased, and they obviously have higher income. So these things aren't separable. One of the most effective ways of reducing racism in society rather than just racism in institutions is to focus on economic inequality.
Click to expand...

A) There's no easy answer to tackling institutionalized racism but I think the best way to go about it (and this will be a decades long affair) is to continuously push back against assumed stereotypes and expose them for the falsities they are and reduce as many racial motivated barriers as possible to minorities moving up through society. Criminal justice is obviously a big one (since it breaks up families and knocks the kneecaps out of kids before they even have a slid path moving forward); the Voting Rights Act needs to get back to full power; we need stronger legislation against housing, loan and hiring discrimination; etc. Making the country as a whole less segregated will do wonders - its likely why LGBT issues have seen such a swift turn around since so many people know or are related to someone in the LGBT community (even if they don't know it at first) whereas we have stats that show most White people don't have any friends of color. I think there a lot of big and small things that can be done that cumulatively will have a lasting effect moving forward. Pretty much no matter what we do though its going to be slow :(

B) I don't necessarily disagree that some people scapegoat minorities for their woes - the immigration issue plays into this a bit. However, I think there have been enough instances in history to show either how tenuous that relationship is or how it works in ways you wouldn't expect. I mean the whole deal with the "Southern Strategy" is that the GOP is able to get some lower/middle income class voters to vote for policies that favor the rich by using implicit or explicit racist language. More White people receive welfare than Black people but by painting welfare recipients as "Black Welfare Queens", its way easier to get some White voters who might need the help or know someone who does to vote against it.

There's also the simple fact that despite America still being SUPER racist, its probably the least racist its ever been. If economic inequality is among the worst its ever been and racism is among the least awful its ever been (though still incredibly bad), I'm not sure how well "less economic inequality = less racism" holds. As much as economic inequality and racism are linked, they are still fundamentally different issues that require different avenues of attack and equal amounts of consideration. If racial inequality is the primary concern of a voter, no amount of putting economic inequality first is going to be a compelling message. We all agree that economic inequality is important but, again, different sets of voters have different priorities and find different language and approaches appealing.
 
A

ampere

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Yeah, but it's the same behavior that they're criticizing. "I'm offended, you should not be allowed to talk!"

Except instead of marginalized groups, they were defending the fucking U.S. government from attacks. And they actually wanted extreme censorship unlike marginalized groups today.
Click to expand...

From a stifling free speech angle I can see what you mean.

That makes me wonder, what is the most misunderstood part of law in the US?

Free speech? Marginal Tax Rates? I'm curious
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Dan said:
I think that was me, but it was about the [multiple] mailers that give non-affiliated voters the opportunity to request ballots with the "Democratric, American Independent or Libertarian" races. I'm non-affiliated, I received one of these applications nearly two months ago, and received yet another after I received my ballot.

People who somehow managed to register for the American Independent Party won't get those applications. However, I fully maintain that it's not some bureaucratic confusion that leads people to select that at registration instead of no affiliation. People who selected American Independent Party believing it somehow meant not selecting a party... that's stupid. I don't have that much sympathy for people who can't figure that out and then whine about being so-called disenfranchisement.
Click to expand...

Oh, I misunderstood your original post.
That pretty much confirms that the American Independent Party fiasco is going to be all we will hear about Nov 7th from the Sanders Campaign and Supporters.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Holy shit, the guy Bernie endorsed is super right wing on a lot of stuff.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/who-runs-federal-reserve-2008-crash

On why he hates the Federal Reserve for doing loose money after 2008???

I.... This seems just insane.

It would also be worthwhile to break the monopoly of central banks in the issuance of currency by funding some government operations with money created and issued by treasuries and finance ministries&#8212;money that would not add a penny to public debt. This is what President Abraham Lincoln did by issuing more than $400 million in U.S. notes, the so-called Greenback, to pay the huge costs of the American Civil War and national economic development programs. A century earlier, colonial Pennsylvania enjoyed fifty-two years of non-inflationary growth by issuing and lending its own currency into circulation, thereby financing major development of infrastructure without incurring debt or high tax burdens. Adam Smith, in his classic work Wealth of Nations (1776), praised Pennsylvania&#8217;s success with government-issued money. Such proposals have been introduced in Congress over the years, but Wall Street lobbying has prevented such legislation from passing.
Click to expand...
 
K

kess

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Holy shit, the guy Bernie endorsed is super right wing on a lot of stuff.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/who-runs-federal-reserve-2008-crash

On why he hates the Federal Reserve for doing loose money after 2008???

I.... This seems just insane.
Click to expand...

Such proposals have been introduced in Congress over the years, but Wall Street lobbying has prevented such legislation from passing.
Click to expand...

Something something contract clause

Fie upon you Robert Morris!
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Holy shit, the guy Bernie endorsed is super right wing on a lot of stuff.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/who-runs-federal-reserve-2008-crash

On why he hates the Federal Reserve for doing loose money after 2008???

I.... This seems just insane.
Click to expand...

Am I reading this right? Is he proposing that the government issue... like, a secondary currency as a means of rules lawyering their way out of increasing the debt? "Our debt didn't increase because our debt is measured in DOLLARS, these new US Pesos don't add a dime!"

Or... like, is he saying the states should be able to issue currency? Because that's even crazier.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
So, shockingly, picking your friends purely on the basis of who their enemies are doesn't really work out that well.

It's weird how left wing movements keep falling into that trap. Like Putin's status in the EU.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Poor whites aren't racists because of economics.

Poor white women are the least racists group I believe (it was at least that way in racists without racists) racism is highly correlated with middle class folk who have racialized status anxiety.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Suikoguy said:
Yeah, I marked it on my calender I was so shocked.
Click to expand...

All the people that he's helping get primaried, though, are going to be happy to endorse him as superdelegates......right?!

Also, my PS4 magically healed itself. Seriously. It just...started working. And I'm not sure if I should pray to it or sprinkle holy water on it.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Plumbob said:
For a libertarian, she sure doesn't seem to mind stealing Google's logo
Click to expand...
Treating IP like property.

mY5jDOp.gif


She's not a libertarian. She identifies as a conservative and is running for the Republican nomination. In a district the Democratic incumbent won with 75% of the vote in 2014.
 
P

perfectchaos007

Member
Once the general election debates get going, I hope the networks get more progressive by allowing 3rd party candidates a podium. No kids table debate either. Let them go against the republican and democrat candidate
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
perfectchaos007 said:
Once the general election debates get going, I hope the networks get more progressive by allowing 3rd party candidates a podium. No kids table debate either. Let them go against the republican and democrat candidate
Click to expand...
The networks don't want nobodies at the debate between the two most known candidates in history.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
benjipwns said:
Treating IP like property.

mY5jDOp.gif
Click to expand...
My man.

It's also worth noting that Ayn Rand supported intellectual property.
I'm not saying that to imply that she represents mainstream liberterian view on the subject (as far as I know, insofar as one exists, it's generally pretty cold to the concept) but to once again point out that Ayn Rand was fucking wrong about everything.
Except trains.
Trains are awesome.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
perfectchaos007 said:
Once the general election debates get going, I hope the networks get more progressive by allowing 3rd party candidates a podium. No kids table debate either. Let them go against the republican and democrat candidate
Click to expand...
The Commission on Presidential Debates is literally owned by the Republican and Democratic parties.

There's probably a standing rule against Presidential candidates debating third party and independent candidates.


Chichikov said:
My man.

It's also worth noting that Ayn Rand supported intellectual property.
I'm not saying that to imply that she represents mainstream liberterian view on the subject (as far as I know, insofar as one exists, it's generally pretty cold to the concept) but to once again point out that Ayn Rand was fucking wrong about everything.
Click to expand...

Q
What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR
All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

Q
What do you think of the Libertarian Party?

AR
I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]
Click to expand...
Q
Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively?

AR
I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—that is, the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable. I’ll take Jane Fonda over them. [Earlier during this same Q&A period, AR had been asked about Jane Fonda. For the question and her answer, see below, p. 80.] [OC 80]

Q
Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR
Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]

Q
Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?

AR
Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism. [FHF 81]
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom