Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 5 hours ago, WinterFox said: I've always preferred this Lion King scene to describe Trump and his followers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I've always preferred this Lion King scene to describe Trump and his followers: No shit, the Orange Shit Thing sure has brought many hyenas out into the light. (saw the play a few weeks ago, so fantastically great! Just wonderful) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: This is clearly two parties treating minorities as pawns IMO. Even if one were to concede this point (which I don't tbh), it doesn't change the fact that in the end one stance has a morally superior outcome, regardless of the motives. You can't argue that a party's policy is meaningless because its purpose is to win elections. Directly or indirectly, most policies aim at winning the next elections. That is the very basis for the way our representative democracies work: we judge political parties and their policies by their ability to serve the interests of the greater number, of "we, the people," and our judgment is passed through voting. So it doesn't matter that much whether the Democrats are sincere of hypocritical if their policies do benefit the people and/or fundamental principles of our democracies such as equality under the law (XIVth amendment). Conversely, any policy which is inherently discriminatory should be condemned and rejected by anyone who believes in the principles laid out in the US Constitution. The idea that one party should be excused for its blatant racism because the other is not sincere in its anti-racism doesn't hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Rippounet said: Even if one were to concede this point (which I don't tbh), it doesn't change the fact that in the end one stance has a morally superior outcome, regardless of the motives. You can't argue that a party's policy is meaningless because its purpose is to win elections. Directly or indirectly, most policies aim at winning the next elections. That is the very basis for the way our representative democracies work: we judge political parties and their policies by their ability to serve the interests of the greater number, of "we, the people," and our judgment is passed through voting. So it doesn't matter that much whether the Democrats are sincere of hypocritical if their policies do benefit the people and/or fundamental principles of our democracies such as equality under the law (XIVth amendment). Conversely, any policy which is inherently discriminatory should be condemned and rejected by anyone who believes in the principles laid out in the US Constitution. The idea that one party should be excused for its blatant racism because the other is not sincere in its anti-racism doesn't hold water. Do you keep up this logic if/when Democrat policies do not result in positive outcomes for minorities? Or worse, result in negative outcomes for minorities. And I'm in no way whatsoever attempting to excuse Republican racism, I'm baffled that you are implying that I'm attempting to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 33 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: Many of these R's want the same as DeVos, a 'return to god' in school including school prayer. Having spent four years in grade school in a Catholic school, this makes me cringe, especially the 'prayer in school' thing as many of it's advocates claim it's a magical be all/end all to solving all sorts of issues around child behavior and society. Uh, no, no it doesn't let me say that from experience. As for the unqualified/corrupt, I don't think they give a shit as she is one of the tribe and the D's are just being mean! Let's not ignore that these people also want a return to segregation in all but name. "School choice" is barely disguised code for that. DeVos is a big proponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said: Do you keep up this logic if/when Democrat policies do not result in positive outcomes for minorities? Or worse, result in negative outcomes for minorities. Of course. I have absolutely no reason not to condemn the Democrats for their failures. I just believe Republicans have a far greater tendency to infringe on fundamental rights such as voting. 1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said: And I'm in no way whatsoever attempting to excuse Republican racism, I'm baffled that you are implying that I'm attempting to do that. Apologies then, but I fail to see where you are going with this. If you want to say that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans for minorities, I'm willing to believe that, but you'd have to provide some examples and sources to support your assertion because at a glance the Democrats have consistently defended the rights of minorities for the past fifty years, so much so that it has made them unpopular with a significant portion of the WASP electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, Rippounet said: Of course. I have absolutely no reason not to condemn the Democrats for their failures. I just believe Republicans have a far greater tendency to infringe on fundamental rights such as voting. Apologies then, but I fail to see where you are going with this. If you want to say that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans for minorities, I'm willing to believe that, but you'd have to provide some examples and sources to support your assertion because at a glance the Democrats have consistently defended the rights of minorities for the past fifty years, so much so that it has made them unpopular with a significant portion of the WASP electorate. How much better off are minorities today than they were at the beginning of these 50 years of Democrats being their champion? No, actually. How much worse off are minorities today than they were at the beginning of these 50 years of Democrats being their champion? How much better off are they than they were 8 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 So Trump's team has been finalized. It looks like America, or at least the America Republicans like: 32 people 27 men 26 white guys 5 women 3 minorities https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: How much better off are minorities today than they were at the beginning of these 50 years of Democrats being their champion? No, actually. How much worse off are minorities today than they were at the beginning of these 50 years of Democrats being their champion? How much better off are they than they were 8 years ago? They're a hell of a lot better off than they were 50 years ago and everyone is better off than they were 8 years ago. More and more minorities are going to college and graduating, especially African American women. They're opening their own businesses and succeeding. But wage gaps still exist between men and all women--not sure how that's the Dems fault, though. A whole generation of African American men, however, are in prison thanks to Reagan. And Nixon's drug policy was aimed specifically at African Americans. Gee, both Republicans, go figure. The fact is that everyone gains economically under Democratic leadership and suffer under Republicans. Whites, blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: How much better off are minorities today than they were at the beginning of these 50 years of Democrats being their champion? No, actually. How much worse off are minorities today than they were at the beginning of these 50 years of Democrats being their champion? With all due respect, I'm the one asking you to provide examples and sources to show that the Democrats' policies have been at least as bad as the Republicans' for minorities. Since you're the one making the extraordinary claim (basing myself on the 1964 Civil Rights Act), the burden of proof rests on you. I'll acknowledge the hidden argument you're making though, and remind you that policies not making things better is very different from policies making things worse. It is not enough to say that things have not been made better (though this is already very debatable in itself) ; in your case you are asserting that they have been made worse. Thus you must demonstrate a correlation between Democratic policies and negative economic or social evolutions for minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: They're a hell of a lot better off than they were 50 years ago and everyone is better off than they were 8 years ago. More and more minorities are going to college and graduating, especially African American women. They're opening their own businesses and succeeding. But wage gaps still exist between men and all women--not sure how that's the Dems fault, though. A whole generation of African American men, however, are in prison thanks to Reagan. And Nixon's drug policy was aimed specifically at African Americans. Gee, both Republicans, go figure. The fact is that everyone gains economically under Democratic leadership and suffer under Republicans. Whites, blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, everyone. I mean in comparison to non minoroties. How much closer to white people in terms of wealth, health, power, and whatever other criteria we measure how awesome white people have it and how terrible minorities have it. How much has this gap shrunk in 50 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brandon Stark Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, Rippounet said: With all due respect, I'm the one asking you to provide examples and sources to show that the Democrats' policies have been at least as bad as the Republicans' for minorities. Since you're the one making the extraordinary claim (basing myself on the 1964 Civil Rights Act), the burden of proof rests on you. I'll acknowledge the hidden argument you're making though, and remind you that policies not making things better is very different from policies making things worse. It is not enough to say that things have not been made better (though this is already very debatable in itself) ; in your case you are asserting that they have been made worse. Thus you must demonstrate a correlation between Democratic policies and negative economic or social evolutions for minorities. All you need to do is look at all the Democrat-controlled cities around the Nation and tell me if they are better off right now. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, DC...the five highest crime rates are cities that Dems control. The five highest poverty levels are in Dem controlled cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rippounet said: With all due respect, I'm the one asking you to provide examples and sources to show that the Democrats' policies have been at least as bad as the Republicans' for minorities. Since you're the one making the extraordinary claim (basing myself on the 1964 Civil Rights Act), the burden of proof rests on you. I'll acknowledge the hidden argument you're making though, and remind you that policies not making things better is very different from policies making things worse. It is not enough to say that things have not been made better (though this is already very debatable in itself) ; in your case you are asserting that they have been made worse. Thus you must demonstrate a correlation between Democratic policies and negative economic or social evolutions for minorities. No, you brought up 50 years. I didnt. My argument is that it's absurd to claim morality based on who you vote for or what politic party you support. To draw an imaginary line of good and evil between two power hungry bozos that want to be president is just ridiculous IMO. Someone then brought up voter suppression as the smoking gun that proves how Republicans are the racists while the Democrats are not, which I disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: I mean in comparison to non minoroties. How much closer to white people in terms of wealth, health, power, and whatever other criteria we measure how awesome white people have it and how terrible minorities have it. How much has this gap shrunk in 50 years? 9 minutes ago, The Brandon Stark said: All you need to do is look at all the Democrat-controlled cities around the Nation and tell me if they are better off right now. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, DC...the five highest crime rates are cities that Dems control. The five highest poverty levels are in Dem controlled cities. We could trade analyses and numbers, but I'll stick to the purely logical argument for the time being. How does this show that the Democrats' policies have been bad for minorities? Where is the correlation between Democratic policies and the -allegedly bad- situation for minorities today? In other words, can you demonstrate that the Democrats are to blame for poverty and criminality (for example) ? 3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: My argument is that it's absurd to claim morality based on who you vote for or what politic party you support. To draw an imaginary line of good and evil between two power hungry bozos that want to be president is just ridiculous IMO. So, because two candidates both want to win an election, it doesn't matter what they are proposing? Since they are both "power hungry" one cannot judge their proposed policies on moral grounds? Seems to me this is what can be called a false equivalence fallacy. Or, as I would personally put it, terrible intellectual laziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Just now, The Brandon Stark said: All you need to do is look at all the Democrat-controlled cities around the Nation and tell me if they are better off right now. Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, NYC, DC...the five highest crime rates are cities that Dems control. The five highest poverty levels are in Dem controlled cities. Well, not everyone can do the bang up job they did in Kansas. And by the way, the poorest states tend to be controlled by who again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Because the last thread was closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 @Rippounet Seems to me this is what can be called a false equivalence fallacy. Or, as I would personally put it, terrible intellectual laziness. ...and we go 'round and 'round again. That is all that DunderMifflin is capable or willing to offer. --From weird, stubby, formerly new thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 [mod] In relation to what is and is not acceptable language on the board: - the moderators will decide what is and is not to be moderated, and if you want to talk about that, do it with us privately. We'll listen. - we do give slightly more leeway when discussion is about a public figure than about another user, or a private individual, but this does not extend to allowing hate speech. Again, it will be the moderators' call what is and is not hate speech. - we will also not allow name-calling of a public figure if in our view it's a way to disguise hate speech or personal attacks on other users. - beyond what is moderated, people are perfectly entitled to have their own standards. Many of us think, for example, that attacking public figures on the basis of their appearance is kind of crass. Many of us think that nicknames in general should be avoided. Others disagree. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't derail threads by criticising others for having different standards. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I can't speak for Mormont but I'd say starting that discussion on its own merits, perhaps in its own thread, is a very different thing to leaping onto that discussion from how it started in the now deleted posts. That context matters. A lot. From a not remotely mod, I'd also suggest sticking to the psychology angle and avoiding criticising those who use it to vent frustrations and fear. Eta: And this post now makes no sense lol. Sorry Mormont, that's twice now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 No problem karaddin. I just think we need a moratorium for now on the terminology arguments: they were taking over the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.