• 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 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Piecake

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
FFXIII spoilers below, but this is one of the five worst cutscenes I've seen in my life.

https://youtu.be/SeyHlcUP9Bg?t=3m30s

After Lightning gets turned a suicide bomber (essentially) for the Gods of their world, Lightning decides to murder every living person in the world and comes to this city to do it. When Hope makes a strange comparison, Lightning (who is essentially a slave 100% at this point) decides not kill every person for reasons she never explains. She never states why this new viewpoint on the relationship with her Gods has changed anything but immediately abandons her goal of killing every living person.
Click to expand...

I watched for about 30 seconds, got to that like pets line and just cringed so hard.

Afterwards I wondered whether the writers were just so stupid that they felt it was believable that any person would be totally happy being treated like a pet and define themselves as such or whether they felt that their audience was just a bunch of morons and would buy it.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
PoliGAF fam, has there ever been an analysis or discussion on why the alt-right (see: other word for not-okay views) is so prominent versus an alt-left?

There was some Bernie Bros stuff on the left, but there's not like "stars" of the movement really in the same way. Is there a true alt-left that does all this insane stuff and I'm just not aware? A Breitbart and Drudge of the left that is popular and at least profitable enough? An Alex Jones? A Rush? A Hannity?

In short, why is the alt-right so dominant versus an alt-left beyond the obvious hate aspects (if any)?
 
S

shem935

Banned
Slizeezyc said:
PoliGAF fam, has there ever been an analysis or discussion on why the alt-right (see: other word for not-okay views) is so prominent versus an alt-left?

There was some Bernie Bros stuff on the left, but there's not like "stars" of the movement really in the same way. Is there a true alt-left that does all this insane stuff and I'm just not aware? A Breitbart and Drudge of the left that is popular and at least profitable enough? An Alex Jones? A Rush? A Hannity?

In short, why is the alt-right so dominant versus an alt-left beyond the obvious hate aspects (if any)?
Click to expand...

Right tends to be motivated much more than left I think is the answer.
 
R

royalan

Member
Slizeezyc said:
PoliGAF fam, has there ever been an analysis or discussion on why the alt-right (see: other word for not-okay views) is so prominent versus an alt-left?

There was some Bernie Bros stuff on the left, but there's not like "stars" of the movement really in the same way. Is there a true alt-left that does all this insane stuff and I'm just not aware? A Breitbart and Drudge of the left that is popular and at least profitable enough? An Alex Jones? A Rush? A Hannity?

In short, why is the alt-right so dominant versus an alt-left beyond the obvious hate aspects (if any)?
Click to expand...

Because the last time Democrats went hard left we got our clocks cleaned (McGovern).

The right hasn't had a McGovern moment.
 
I

Iolo

Member
royalan said:
Because the last time Democrats went hard left we got our clocks cleaned (McGovern).

The right hasn't had a McGovern moment.
Click to expand...

uh... 1964?

difference is they got clobbered and decided to built a movement around it anyway, from the ground up
 
B

Boke1879

Member
Ok just saw the part of Trumps speech trying to appeal to AA voters with "what the hell do you have to lose?"

Honestly the shit sounds worse imo in context. I mean not that he can go any lower with AA voters but the only people this appeals to is his base. Literally. He said that shit in front of a mostly white crowd who then cheered.
 
M

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Joeytj said:
Saw the parts from Trump's speech about African Americans. His team really convinced him to go after that message, thinking that African Americans are somehow being bamboozled.

It might not really work, but I do think that Hillary's strategy of leaving Trump get all the headlines should stop a little. Maybe just wait how the weekend goes and get launch a new phase on Monday.
Click to expand...

Slayven said:
GOP says out one side that Dems don't do anything for blacks, then out the otherside of their mouth say blacks only vote D for free stuff.
Click to expand...

The GOP is honestly convinced that the only reason black people vote D is because they've been bamboozled themselves, not recognizing the base betrayal and how things always get worse when the Republicans are in control of congress.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
Revolver said:
Brianna Keilar had to explain to Trump advisor Jack Kingston that speaking to a group of white voters isn't the same as speaking to a group of black voters.

Jack Kingston: "maybe it would have been nice if he went and had a backdrop with a burning car"

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/...eaking-white-voters-not-black-outreach/212536
Click to expand...

Y'all gonna make me half-defend Kingston? In context, I think he was at least TRYING to just use that in reference to the rioting. But, I mean, it's still bad.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Slizeezyc said:
PoliGAF fam, has there ever been an analysis or discussion on why the alt-right (see: other word for not-okay views) is so prominent versus an alt-left?

There was some Bernie Bros stuff on the left, but there's not like "stars" of the movement really in the same way. Is there a true alt-left that does all this insane stuff and I'm just not aware? A Breitbart and Drudge of the left that is popular and at least profitable enough? An Alex Jones? A Rush? A Hannity?

In short, why is the alt-right so dominant versus an alt-left beyond the obvious hate aspects (if any)?
Click to expand...

The Alt-right is white nationalism which has been more nurtured in the US.

An alt-left would have to be a Communist movement and we stomped out that movement in the cold war.
 
S

shem935

Banned
Slizeezyc said:
Y'all gonna make me half-defend Kingston? In context, I think he was at least TRYING to just use that in reference to the rioting. But, I mean, it's still bad.
Click to expand...

....meaning that black people are savages that riot constantly and love doing that so it would appeal to them? That makes it.....worse....
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
shem935 said:
....meaning that black people are savages that riot constantly and love doing that so it would appeal to them? That makes it.....worse....
Click to expand...

Eeessh, is that what my defense sounds like? Then it's not even a half-defense. I just sort of breezed through the transcript, and I thought maybe(?) he was just trying to say the implication about the rioting was more about the city locale where Trump was than the people? I dunno, again, it's awful either way, I was just trying to put my best Katrina Pierson spin on it.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Slizeezyc said:
PoliGAF fam, has there ever been an analysis or discussion on why the alt-right (see: other word for not-okay views) is so prominent versus an alt-left?
Click to expand...
Michael%20Moore.jpg


eK9jeYeL.jpg

sanders%20teaser%202.jpg


One of them is a multi millionaire that has created several films beloved by the left. One of them is a multi-millionaire tv personality that harbors the most extreme positions on religion in modern political discourse. And one of them is a socialist that almost became president.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Slizeezyc said:
PoliGAF fam, has there ever been an analysis or discussion on why the alt-right (see: other word for not-okay views) is so prominent versus an alt-left?

There was some Bernie Bros stuff on the left, but there's not like "stars" of the movement really in the same way. Is there a true alt-left that does all this insane stuff and I'm just not aware? A Breitbart and Drudge of the left that is popular and at least profitable enough? An Alex Jones? A Rush? A Hannity?

In short, why is the alt-right so dominant versus an alt-left beyond the obvious hate aspects (if any)?
Click to expand...

I think the most charitable explanation would be that the people on the right felt like their values were not reflected in major newspapers and the news broadcasts of the major channels. This does have a ring of truth to it because the values that these newspapers and major networks are not the values of social conservatism and rural provincialism. They are the values of multiculturalism and cosmopolitan globalism.

Therefore, their whole stick was creating media that attacked the liberal biases of the mainstream media and what is obvious now is that this doesnt just work for mainstream republicans, but also works for the groups on the far right. I think this works especially well on the right because there is obviously a good portion of the Republican voting block who don't think their interests are served by the republican establishment. They are then susceptible to outsider right wing news sources because those are also shitting on the mainstream establishment right.

This does not have much resonance on the left because by and large, their voting blocks do not feel that their politicians are completely on the wrong path. They think they are simply not going far enough.

There was politico piece that talked about the de-legitimization of democrats by Newt and Frank Luntz when they framed their language not as legitimate political opponents with differing ideas, but as traitors and the like. These are powerful words that obviously powerfully hits our emotional lizard brain.

Again, the problem for republicans is that they are finding that the attacks they leveled against the mainstream media and democrats can be used against themselves because a large portion of their voting constituency is not for free trade, not for globalization, not for cutting entitlements. They think they are being left behind and the world is moving too fast, and the Republican elite is contributing to that as well. They see minorities have an advocate in the democrats, but don't see a party that wants to protect their jobs and listens to their concerns.

What you get is a significant portion of the populace very receptive to a different message because they don't think they have a voice in mainstream politics or media that voice their concerns about the gutting of blue collar jobs in America and also express their social values

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/podcasts/understanding-the-trump-voter.html

I thought this was an interesting podcast, and the guy who wrote that book doesn't think that these people are inherently racist, but are being led by racists like Trump and probably Brietbart because those are the outlets that give a voice to their desires - populist social conservatism.

I don't know if that is true, but it is an interesting what if if another publication and politician tapped that anti-elite anti-globalization populist social conservative electorate without going the racist white nationalist route.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
Piecake said:
I think the most charitable explanation would be that the people on the right felt like their values were not reflected in major newspapers and the news broadcasts of the major channels. This does have a ring of truth to it because the values that these newspapers and major networks are not the values of social conservatism and rural provincialism. They are the values of multiculturalism and cosmopolitan globalism.

Therefore, their whole stick was creating media that attacked the liberal biases of the mainstream media and what is obvious now is that this doesnt just work for mainstream republicans, but also works for the groups on the far right. I think this works especially well on the right because there is obviously a good portion of the Republican voting block who don't think their interests are served by the republican establishment. They are then susceptible to outsider right wing news sources because those are also shitting on the mainstream establishment right.

This does not have much resonance on the left because by and large, their voting blocks do not feel that their politicians are completely on the wrong path. They think they are simply not going far enough.

There was politico piece that talked about the de-legitimization of democrats by Newt and Frank Luntz when they framed their language not as legitimate political opponents with differing ideas, but as traitors and the like. These are powerful words that obviously powerfully hits our emotional lizard brain.

Again, the problem for republicans is that they are finding that the attacks they leveled against the mainstream media and democrats can be used against themselves because a large portion of their voting constituency is not for free trade, not for globalization, not for cutting entitlements. They think they are being left behind and the world is moving too fast, and the Republican elite is contributing to that as well. They see minorities have an advocate in the democrats, but don't see a party that wants to protect their jobs and listens to their concerns.

What you get is a significant portion of the populace very receptive to a different message because they don't think they have a voice in mainstream politics or media that voice their concerns about the gutting of blue collar jobs in America and also express their social values

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/podcasts/understanding-the-trump-voter.html

I thought this was an interesting podcast, and the guy who wrote that book doesn't think that these people are inherently racist, but are being led by racists like Trump and probably Brietbart because those are the outlets that give a voice to their desires - populist social conservatism.

I don't know if that is true, but it is an interesting what if if another publication and politician tapped that anti-elite anti-globalization populist social conservative electorate without going the racist white nationalist route.
Click to expand...

Thanks, solid feedback. I understand the fear behind loss of blue-collar jobs etc. and that feels like something to build on, just wonder if there's a middle ground to be found where you toss out the Alex Jones crowd, or if Republicans can get there and just accept losing the White House like the Dems from the 60s-early90s when they tossed the segregationists and became more a Congress party until enough people warmed back up them as being new-ish.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Slizeezyc said:
Okay so an HBO show that sucks and some mostly garbage movies? But fair enough it's an attempt.

Bernie is new, but he's a politician not a media dude either way.
Click to expand...
My examples are equitable to yours. I would further include The Huffington Post and Mother Jones, as well as The Young Turks. Also, Bernie Sanders is proof that an alt-left has political leverage equal to or greater than the alt-right. In fact, I think it's even greater. You just don't notice it because the opinions that live there are less offensive to you than the alt-right.

Also, I like Bill Maher. >:/
 
C

CoffeeJanitor

Member
Piecake said:
I think the most charitable explanation would be that the people on the right felt like their values were not reflected in major newspapers and the news broadcasts of the major channels. This does have a ring of truth to it because the values that these newspapers and major networks are not the values of social conservatism and rural provincialism. They are the values of multiculturalism and cosmopolitan globalism.

Therefore, their whole stick was creating media that attacked the liberal biases of the mainstream media and what is obvious now is that this doesnt just work for mainstream republicans, but also works for the groups on the far right. I think this works especially well on the right because there is obviously a good portion of the Republican voting block who don't think their interests are served by the republican establishment. They are then susceptible to outsider right wing news sources because those are also shitting on the mainstream establishment right.

This does not have much resonance on the left because by and large, their voting blocks do not feel that their politicians are completely on the wrong path. They think they are simply not going far enough.

There was politico piece that talked about the de-legitimization of democrats by Newt and Frank Luntz when they framed their language not as legitimate political opponents with differing ideas, but as traitors and the like. These are powerful words that obviously powerfully hits our emotional lizard brain.

Again, the problem for republicans is that they are finding that the attacks they leveled against the mainstream media and democrats can be used against themselves because a large portion of their voting constituency is not for free trade, not for globalization, not for cutting entitlements. They think they are being left behind and the world is moving too fast, and the Republican elite is contributing to that as well. They see minorities have an advocate in the democrats, but don't see a party that wants to protect their jobs and listens to their concerns.

What you get is a significant portion of the populace very receptive to a different message because they don't think they have a voice in mainstream politics or media that voice their concerns about the gutting of blue collar jobs in America and also express their social values

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/podcasts/understanding-the-trump-voter.html

I thought this was an interesting podcast, and the guy who wrote that book doesn't think that these people are inherently racist, but are being led by racists like Trump and probably Brietbart because those are the outlets that give a voice to their desires - populist social conservatism.

I don't know if that is true, but it is an interesting what if if another publication and politician tapped that anti-elite anti-globalization populist social conservative electorate without going the racist white nationalist route.
Click to expand...
That last paragraph could be a real winning strategy come next cycle
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Piecake said:
I watched for about 30 seconds, got to that like pets line and just cringed so hard.

Afterwards I wondered whether the writers were just so stupid that they felt it was believable that any person would be totally happy being treated like a pet and define themselves as such or whether they felt that their audience was just a bunch of morons and would buy it.
Click to expand...

The game is so poorly written, it can't even seem to have the character have a coherent reaction on whether or not she views being a pet as bad or not.

"All my life, I've just been a pet to them." >Seems anti-pet.
"When other Gods turned me into a suicide bomber, I lost everything"> Wait a second, you said you were just a pet so how much did you really lose... Unless you really liked your life as a pet???

Then Lightning decides to not commit genocide based on her perception of being viewed as a pet even though it's unclear what Lightning's feelings are to the idea.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Boke1879 said:
Ok just saw the part of Trumps speech trying to appeal to AA voters with "what the hell do you have to lose?"

Honestly the shit sounds worse imo in context. I mean not that he can go any lower with AA voters but the only people this appeals to is his base. Literally. He said that shit in front of a mostly white crowd who then cheered.
Click to expand...

I mean, that's the point. The purpose of GOP "black outreach" is not to convince black people to vote Republican but to convince Republicans that black people should vote Republican. It's a problem for a party of non-racists that only white people vote for them and they have the enthusiastic support of white nationalists. It's important that they perform reaching out to black voters and representing their policies as good for black voters.

Ultimately, black people are unlikely to vote Republican as long as they have a sense that the Republican coalition just doesn't like them very much. A Republican would probably have to go farther than a mainstream Democrat on black identity politics issues in order to get anywhere - a politician would have to pick a fight with the Republican base and be seen to reject them. A Republican can't appeal to black voters and the base at the same time because both groups are going to be very suspicious about anything the other likes.
 
M

mo60

Member
watershed said:
So are y'all done panicking over Trump's latest pivot? If so, get ready for the polls to tighten, the horse race is coming.
Click to expand...

At most the polls are only going to tighten by a point or two and then it will be back to possibly a 7 or higher lead for Hilary once the debates start.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Slizeezyc said:
PoliGAF fam, has there ever been an analysis or discussion on why the alt-right (see: other word for not-okay views) is so prominent versus an alt-left?

There was some Bernie Bros stuff on the left, but there's not like "stars" of the movement really in the same way. Is there a true alt-left that does all this insane stuff and I'm just not aware? A Breitbart and Drudge of the left that is popular and at least profitable enough? An Alex Jones? A Rush? A Hannity?

In short, why is the alt-right so dominant versus an alt-left beyond the obvious hate aspects (if any)?
Click to expand...

I mean, I don't think you can really say "beyond the hate." The reason the alt-right is so strong is that they espouse hateful, antidemocratic and reactionary beliefs that are considered out of bounds in the popular media, but are still believed by lots of Americans. They have to go somewhere!

There are similar beliefs on the left -- Stalinism, radfem maybe -- but they've never attained meaningful support in America. The alt-right is based on racist and sexist beliefs that were common in America as recently as last century. So of course there are lots of them running around.
 
J

Joeytj

Banned
Spoiled Milk said:
My examples are equitable to yours. I would further include The Huffington Post and Mother Jones, as well as The Young Turks. Also, Bernie Sanders is proof that an alt-left has political leverage equal to or greater than the alt-right. In fact, I think it's even greater. You just don't notice it because the opinions that live there are less offensive to you than the alt-right.

Also, I like Bill Maher. >:/
Click to expand...

Ok, slow down everybody.

First, can we please get a definition of what really is the "alt-left"? And Alt-right?

Alt-right is a bit more defined, having even its own Wikipedia page, but the term "alt-left" seems to be relatively new and simply a desire to invent a left-wing version of the alt-right, but there's not a big defined movement out there for it. Maybe Bernie or Busters and Jill Stein supporters are proto-alt-left, but I don't think it's as defined yet.

Bernie Sanders alt-left? Hmmm. Don't know.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Slizeezyc said:
Thanks, solid feedback. I understand the fear behind loss of blue-collar jobs etc. and that feels like something to build on, just wonder if there's a middle ground to be found where you toss out the Alex Jones crowd, or if Republicans can get there and just accept losing the White House like the Dems from the 60s-early90s when they tossed the segregationists and became more a Congress party until enough people warmed back up them as being new-ish.
Click to expand...

I think this undercurrent is going to continue to exist until at least they feel like a mainstream political party and media outlet expresses their values, concerns and show these voters respect.

Right now, I think the only way to really counter the emotional charge of white nationalism by Brietbart and Trump is to go straight anti-elitist. I don't think this is an easy or short fix at all, but eventually that social conservative populism that is riding in on anti-elitism could turn into the Republican party platform, or at least an accepted member of that platform like establishment conservatives and evangelicals are now.

This creates a lot less unified party on economic issues, but what does bind them is social conservative values. I would guess that most blue collar voters could accept this in the future because voting is about values and at least some of their values are being heard. More importantly though, their views are being respected and heard and given equal footing instead of simply being dismissed as not conservative on economic matters when talking to republicans or backward on social issues when talking to Democrats.

The podcast has an interesting line where the author states that the only disadvantaged group that you can point and laugh at are hillbillies. You certainly wouldn't do that to blacks and hispanics in polite culture, but it is okay to ridicule hillbillies in polite culture. The author noes that honor and respect are big deals in that culture (and I buy that because it certainly was historically), so this patent disrespect and voicelessness can result in a lot of these people finding a voice and finding respect in other outlets and other forms. Basically, this is how people, in general, can be radicalized.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
Joeytj said:
Ok, slow down everybody.

First, can we please get a definition of what really is the "alt-left"? And Alt-right?

Alt-right is a bit more defined, having even its own Wikipedia page, but the term "alt-left" seems to be relatively new and simply a desire to invent a left-wing version of the alt-right, but there's not a big defined movement out there for it. Maybe Bernie or Busters and Jill Stein supporters are proto-alt-left, but I don't think it's as defined yet.

Bernie Sanders alt-left? Hmmm. Don't know.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am not comfortable calling Sanders Alt-Left. When I think Alt-Left, I think batshit Youtube atheists.
 
C

Crisco

Banned
Why do people dislike Bill Maher? Because he isn't afraid to name Islam (and religion in general) as a major contributor to human rights abuses and terrorism around the world? Yeah, he can be a bit of an ass at times, but he's generally very consistent in his views and isn't a bullshit monger like his right wing equivalents (which is why he doesn't really have any). Dude is a national treasure in my opinion and should be celebrated by liberals.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
BlastProcessing said:
Yeah, I am not comfortable calling Sanders Alt-Left. When I think Alt-Left, I think batshit Youtube atheists.
Click to expand...

That's fair, I wasn't implying Bernie was alt-left anyway, just some of the Bros. And again, it was more the media aspect than the politicians.

Anti-Vax, AIDS is a hoax -- I would put that stuff in alt-left. Like, I think some individual ideas get some play in the alt-left, just don't think there are those types of spokespeople around.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Crisco said:
Why do people dislike Bill Maher? Because he isn't afraid to name Islam (and religion in general) as a major contributor to human rights abuses and terrorism around the world? Yeah, he can be a bit of an ass at times, but he's generally very consistent in his views and isn't a bullshit monger like his right wing equivalents (which is why he doesn't really have any). Dude is a national treasure in my opinion and should be celebrated by liberals.
Click to expand...

isn't he an anti-vaxxer?
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
mo60 said:
At most the polls are only going to tighten by a point or two and then it will be back to possibly a 7 or higher lead for Hilary once the debates start.
Click to expand...

That's what I think too. It'll dip down to 5 or so, and stay there for awhile until the debates start and, assuming Hillary doesn't bomb, will settle her back at 7 or so.
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
Crisco said:
Why do people dislike Bill Maher? Because he isn't afraid to name Islam (and religion in general) as a major contributor to human rights abuses and terrorism around the world? Yeah, he can be a bit of an ass at times, but he's generally very consistent in his views and isn't a bullshit monger like his right wing equivalents (which is why he doesn't really have any). Dude is a national treasure in my opinion and should be celebrated by liberals.
Click to expand...

I just am not a big fan of his show. I don't really care if he wants to go after religion etc. that's not why I dislike him (I'm not religious).
 
S

Slizeezyc

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
That's what I think too. It'll dip down to 5 or so, and stay there for awhile until the debates start and, assuming Hillary doesn't bomb, will settle her back at 7 or so.
Click to expand...

Isn't the new hot rumor that Trump wants to get Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates? Trump doesn't want to go 1-on-1 as he only got love in Republican debates when it was a full house of candidates and he could just stunt on them all.

Also I guess he just wants to get to 40 percent and thinks Stein and Johnson will only pull voters from Clinton (seems an odd strategy since all numbers show more Johnson taking Republican voters than Stein taking Democrats so far).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
235
42K
OverHeat replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
  • 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
Top Bottom