Kalbear

US Politics: On Many Sides

408 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This Fox & Friends exchange has been up all day on HuffPo, but I didn't get around to watching it until now.  Damn.  That segment producer gravely miscalculated.  And shame on Abby Huntsman, her parents surely taught her better.

ETA:  Speaking of FNC, there's also this:

Quote

 

Fox News host Shepard Smith said Wednesday that the network tried and failed to get a Republican on-air to defend President Trump's controversial comments on violence in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend

"Our booking team — and they're good — reached out to Republicans of all stripes across the country today," Smith said on his show "Shepard Smith Reporting." 

"Let's be honest, Republicans don't often really mind coming on Fox News Channel. We couldn't get anyone to come and defend him here because we thought, in balance, someone should do that," he continued. 

"We worked very hard at it throughout the day, and we were unsuccessful. And of those who are condemning the president's condemnable actions, I've not heard any prominent leaders, former presidents, members of the House or the Senate use his name while speaking in generalities," he said. 

 

Tough day for FNC and the GOP defending Trump.  I really feel for them.

Edited by dmc515

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fez said:

I think personal collusion would do it, possibly. My feeling is, he'll only ever get impeached over direct evidence of action on his part, and it needs to be an undeniably bad action. He won't ever get impeached over words he has said, or the actions of others that he knew about, or the fallout caused by his inaction, or an action that can be read multiple ways. There needs to be something physically tangible that he did, and that cannot be denied.Unfortunately, he is such a toxic combination of cowardice and incompetence, I suspect that there hasn't been such an action.

However, this is why I think Congressional Republicans will turn much more forcefully on him if he does commit an action that is blatantly unconstitutional or incredibly harmful.

I'm not as confident as you are Fez. If feels like at this point Trump has done so many seemingly unforgivable things and gotten away with it that nothing will sink him other then him being so toxic that no Republican can support him, and I don't think the Russia issue will do that. There's already been so much goal post moving on the issue, and at this point, if it came out that he actively colluded with Putin his supporters and many Republicans will just say, "He did what he had to do to protect us from Hillary," or something to that effect. I've been thinking about it all day, and the one thing I think he could do to have Republicans truly turn on him is to do something so deeply offensive and unforgivable towards Christians, but I'm not sure exactly what that would be. And to your last point, hasn't he already done both of those already? He's been in violation of the Constitution since the moment he took his oath of office and almost everything he's done has been incredibly damaging to the country, both at home and abroad. I mean literally just last week we were wondering if he might preemptively nuke North Korea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That is good news, and we need some right about now. Cheers!

Though it's a statement in and of itself that something that should be routine now passes as good news.

What a world we live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Though it's a statement in and of itself that something that should be routine now passes as good news.

What a world we live in.

Yeah, Trump is truly singular, isn't he? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kalbear @Clegane'sPup

Quote

Intolerance towards all who hold different opinions than yourself. As it turns out there are a whole lot of people who aren't actually bigots. 

Quote

bigotry is the intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Who among us is not a bigot.

Or, you could go with the actual definition instead of trying to come up with an approximation of one.

Quote

Definition of bigotry

plural 

bigotries

  1. 1:  obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices :  the state of mind of a bigot 

- Miriam-Webster

a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:

 - Cambridge

If you leave out the prejudices / unreasonable beliefs element of bigotry you get to accuse people who are not prejudice and who do not hold unreasonable beliefs of bigotry because they are intolerant towards Nazis and white supremacists. Intolerance by itself =/= bigoted.

If you are intolerant to Nazis because of their master race and Jew-hating views then you are not a bigot. Tolerance towards irrational intolerance (WS&N beliefs on race) is itself not rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you think we'll talk about these days/years a couple of decades from now? Will it be "gather round, kids, I'll tell you about a truly mad period of time in the history of Western democracy"? Or will it be "I'll tell you about the years when The Great Decline began"?

Because those are the only two options, aren't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is a great example of the paradox of tolerance. We are a society that is tolerant without limit when it comes to bigotry. And that is dangerous, especially when dealing with fascists like white supremacists and Nazis. If this country continues to be that way, the intolerant will basically destroy us and start turning their wet dream into a reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, denstorebog said:

How do you think we'll talk about these days/years a couple of decades from now? Will it be "gather round, kids, I'll tell you about a truly mad period of time in the history of Western democracy"? Or will it be "I'll tell you about the years when The Great Decline began"?

Because those are the only two options, aren't they?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, denstorebog said:

How do you think we'll talk about these days/years a couple of decades from now? Will it be "gather round, kids, I'll tell you about a truly mad period of time in the history of Western democracy"? Or will it be "I'll tell you about the years when The Great Decline began"?

Because those are the only two options, aren't they?

I suppose the third option is we're all dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

54 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Or, you could go with the actual definition instead of trying to come up with an approximation of one.

 

54 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Definition of bigotry

plural 

bigotries

  1. 1:  obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices :  the state of mind of a bigot 

- Miriam-Webster

a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:

 - Cambridge

My point stands. Are we all bigots.

Edited by Clegane'sPup
I had to correct my statement and remove the word not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

My point stands. Are we not all bigots.

I think @The Anti-Targ cut off quoting the Merriam-Webster definition at the most important part:

Quote

especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In that sense, no, we inarguably are not all bigots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

How do you think we'll talk about these days/years a couple of decades from now? Will it be "gather round, kids, I'll tell you about a truly mad period of time in the history of Western democracy"? Or will it be "I'll tell you about the years when The Great Decline began"?

Because those are the only two options, aren't they?

There are many worse ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

 If this country continues to be that way, the intolerant will basically destroy us and start turning their wet dream into a reality. 

I'd say that everyday brings us closer to this.  It appears inevitable that they will at least try. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There are many worse ones. 

Clearly you don't know what The Great Decline will mean for your diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

34 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

My point stands. Are we not all bigots.

No, if I do not like Nazis because I know that if they are in power they will kill me that is in no way unreasonable, and as such not bigoted

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Clearly you don't know what The Great Decline will mean for your diet.

Just%20let%20that%20sink%20in_zpssijgkmp

/Just let that sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

My point stands. Are we not all bigots.

I don't think so.

Do you hold unreasonable beliefs or prejudices and are intolerant towards those who have views opposing those unreasonable or prejudiced beliefs?

I'm pretty sure I do not qualify under both criteria for bigotry on any of my views. In the views of some people I could be said to hold unreasonable beliefs (I believe in God and I am religious), but I have a live and let live attitude to people who are not religious and who don't believe in God. Hence I am not bigoted on matters of God and religion.

I am also intolerant towards racists. But aside from people who are racist, everyone else agrees that racism is an unreasonable thing and being opposed racism is reasonable. Therefore intolerance towards unreasonable attitudes, especially those that include an attitude of hate and self-superiority is not bigotry, because it is a rational science and evidenced based intolerance. Of course there is the little problem that no one thinks their beliefs are unreasonable. So clearly a racist will think I'm a bigot towards them. But what a racist thinks on matters of race is not the standard on which matters of bigotry should be judged.

If you want to do a bigotry test on yourself then I guess you could list all the things that you could start a sentence with "I hate..." and such a sentence would be true. If you find something in that list that is an unreasonable belief or prejudice, and you realise you are intolerant towards those people who have an opposing view, or who are part of the group you hate. Well, then you know you have something to work on.

I'm reasonably sure I don't have anything to work on on the bigotry front. Because the only living thing I hate is big spiders. And that's completely rational. I've got 99 problems but bigotry ain't one, to coin a phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.