u.s. politics: faygo to the polls

[Zorral]

49 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 

Quote

i do agree however that nazis would pose a more immediate and dangerous  threat were their numbers significant ( I really don't believe they are)

 

Were the English, the Spaniard numbers significant . . . so the  Pamunkey, the Caribe, the Aztec, the Inca first thought . . . .

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Were the English, the Spaniard numbers significant . . . so the  Pamunkey, the Caribe, the Aztec, the Inca first thought . . . .

The right see Islam as a threat even if numbers are small , the left see nazis as a growing threat even if numbers are small. Are they both right or wrong?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

33 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I thought you said you prefer to keep politics out of friendships.

Or maybe you just meant you only want friends who align with your own personal belief systems.  Sort of like how everyone else works.  

What I mean is I don't push political views with my friends and my friends don't hold strong ones either. I don't think anyone should be pushing their own political agenda on their friends.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

What I mean is I don't push political views with my friends and my friends don't hold strong ones either. I don't think anyone should be pushing their own political agenda on their friends.

Well, there's nothing wrong with you or your friends holding strong beliefs, but everything else quoted I completely agree with.  If you have friends that express any form of approval for white supremacy by all means extricate thyself from the situation.  Otherwise it's not that hard to just be a person.

[Rippounet]

29 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The right see Islam as a threat even if numbers are small , the left see nazis as a growing threat even if numbers are small. Are they both right or wrong?

It's not about numbers, it's about political influence. The neo-fascists, even with very limited numbers, have been able to exert significant influence in several Western countries. Their ideas have become more acceptable and more popular.
Conversely, Islam has very little political influence in the West ; on the contrary, the rise of right-wing populism has reversed whatever gains political Islam may have made in the past decades or so.
As far as I'm concerned, violent events such as Charlottesville or terrorist attacks are close to irrelevant. They are scary for one's personal safety, but by themselves they don't threaten an entire society. It's political trends and movements that ultimately have the capacity to change everyone's life for the worse.
Similarly I don't give a damn about "culture." Culture, by definition, is ever-changing and can take care of itself.
But politics... That's what one has to pay attention to. Lest you want to wake up living in a 4th reich some day.
In fact, if islamists developed a credible political party in my country I'd be worried too (like in Houellebecq's shitty novel Submission). But since right now it's the neo-fascists who are getting 20% of votes, I'm worried about them first and foremost.

[Larry of the Lawn]

44 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

What I mean is I don't push political views with my friends and my friends don't hold strong ones either. I don't think anyone should be pushing their own political agenda on their friends.

Well, must be nice to live a life where politics don't really affect you or your friends.  That's not a luxury some of us can enjoy.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The thing about ideas, is that they may very well be distinct from one's persnality. One can be charming, kind, and generous, and still think that all Jews (or Blacks, or Muslims, or whatever) are subhumans that should be deported or exterminated.
The question then becomes whether you can ignore the violence of someone's ideas. Not his current actions, or his past, but merely his ideas,

I can't, and I don't think anyone should.
Ideas don't exist in a void. They aren't mere abstractions. Ideas have consequences. They influence people, actions, and elections. You can't easily dismiss the fact that someone deeply believes that "Hitler was right" for instance.
Breitbart writers call this "creating the crime of wrongthink." They thing "leftists" are intolerant because they don't respect other people's ideas, that the 1st amendment and the US Constitution means everyone is entitled to their opinions, however vile.
Well, I don't think that's true. I think there's an unwritten compact for anyone living in a human society to actually respect other human beings, regardless of their origins, ethnicity, religion, sex... etc. Respect must be given before respect is owed. If you refuse to abide by that compact, then you lose the right to expect the respect of others.
Or their friendship.

I don't think there is any unwritten compact of this sort. The version you describe is logically inconsistent and could never exist because many religions draw sharp distinctions between, for example, people of different genders so you run into the tolerance of the intolerant issue. However, even if we restrict the compact to immutable properties such as origin and ethnicity, there is no such compact in our society -- it is something that might exist in a utopia, but it is definitely not here today.

I don't think disassociation from people who merely hold ideas you find offensive is necessarily the best course. Certainly, there is a threshold past which one cannot be friends, but such people are relatively rare. Half of the US voted for Trump and a third of France voted for Le Pen. If you start automatically excluding people based on affiliation with their parties, the number of excluded will be large. Also, in the long term, the less people interact with other ideological groups, the easier it is to persuade them to commit atrocities (though I think we're still far from such considerations).

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

"Social justice warriors" may seem extreme at times, but ultimately they are politically harmless ; even if they had power their ideas wouldn't hurt people. As for antifas, they generally hold a very diverse set of ideas, only some of whom may be dangerous.

The SJWs are not harmless. In fact, even at the level of power they wield now, they have managed to inflict significant harm in the US (e.g. the establishment of kangaroo courts in American universities). The antifa are dangerous mainly because they are do not shy away from initiating violence which has obvious escalation problems.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I think that's why this bullshit false equivalency has to stop. If you think SJWs are comparable to neo-nazis, then you're already very much on the right, whatever you may say or think. It means you're pretending not to know or understand the violence of ideas.

Leave the strawman be: I doubt you'll find anyone on this board who believes the SJWs are comparable to neo-nazis, but the latter are pretty rare (at least in the US). The alt-right is no more ideologically coherent than the alt-left and I suspect that the majority of both groups is driven not so much by an ideology as by vague ideas of justice and a whole lot of self-righteous anger. They differ from each other mainly in whom they consider to be the oppressors and whom they consider oppressed.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Which means when shit hits the fan, you are part of the problem. You are one of those who will stay at home if there is ever a coup, one of those who will watch by as others are deported and murdered.
Not because you are morally weak, mind you, but because you won't see it coming.

Seeing it coming is about as useful as a man tied to a railroad tracks knowing the exact speed and position of the train heading in his direction. For example, many people (including myself) said that if the violence at the rallies continues, it's only a matter of time before somebody is killed -- and indeed, somebody died. Or, for example, knowing that some of the people photographed at the Charlottesville rally lost their jobs, were kicked out of university, etc., it's a pretty safe bet that eventually, they'll figure out a way to hide their faces (the antifas are way ahead of them on this). Seeing it coming only matter if you have the power to change anything and in our society, the number of people who has enough power for even a chance at this is quite small.

[Bonnot OG]

Boston didn't disappoint. They are totally out numbered there.

[DMC]

Which known Trump supporters should I deem unacceptable?  My two half-Mexican uncles?  A Korean-born female - or better yet one of my closest friends that was a victim of China's one-child policy?  Do I lecture them on the plight of minorities?  Do I lecture my colleague that's a Chilean immigrant on how tough it now is for immigrants?  

I think how you bring politics into your interpersonal relationships is for everyone to figure out on their own.  But the implication being expressed here seems to be even the notion of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" is now an unacceptable position.  And that's very much a part of what's wrong with this country.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think there is any unwritten compact of this sort. The version you describe is logically inconsistent and could never exist because many religions draw sharp distinctions between, for example, people of different genders so you run into the tolerance of the intolerant issue. However, even if we restrict the compact to immutable properties such as origin and ethnicity, there is no such compact in our society -- it is something that might exist in a utopia, but it is definitely not here today.

I'm talking about the most simple and logical of philosophical axioms: that one can only expect to be treated as well as they treat others. Hence, any group or movement seeking to deny another group its humanity, or some of its basic rights, can expect to be seen as less human by others.
And this does, in fact, work perfectly for religious extremisms: it is precisely because of the way women are treated due to some traditions and religions that these traditions and religions are then criticized as primitive or barbarian.

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Half of the US voted for Trump and a third of France voted for Le Pen. If you start automatically excluding people based on affiliation with their parties, the number of excluded will be large. Also, in the long term, the less people interact with other ideological groups, the easier it is to persuade them to commit atrocities (though I think we're still far from such considerations).

Actually, I would tend to believe the very opposite: that the more acceptable some nauseating ideas become, the easier it is to persuade the most extreme believers to commit atrocities.

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The SJWs are not harmless. In fact, even at the level of power they wield now, they have managed to inflict significant harm in the US (e.g. the establishment of kangaroo courts in American universities).

Assuming these are actually a problem (I'd have to do some research to form an opinion on them), they are still politically irrelevant and I'm fully confident that the over-legalized American society will sort this out (it has already started).

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The antifa are dangerous mainly because they are do not shy away from initiating violence which has obvious escalation problems.

Or they be the only ones with the balls to stand up for what's right, who knows?

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Seeing it coming is about as useful as a man tied to a railroad tracks knowing the exact speed and position of the train heading in his direction. For example, many people (including myself) said that if the violence at the rallies continues, it's only a matter of time before somebody is killed -- and indeed, somebody died.

But again, I'm talking about politics, not violence. Violence is scary, but without political support it's not hard to either avoid or confront.

There are lots of things one can do to fight against a dangerous political movement, and even against a dangerous government.
And if all else fails, it's always useful to know when to pack your bags and leave your country. My grandparents on my father's side fled two authoritarian governments in their lifetime.

[Rippounet]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I think how you bring politics into your interpersonal relationships is for everyone to figure out on their own.  But the implication being expressed here seems to be even the notion of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" is now an unacceptable position.  And that's very much a part of what's wrong with this country.

You don't necessarily need to be actively disagreeable.
Fifteen years ago one of my cousins told me he voted National Front. That was the last time I had a conversation with him. I only say "hi" and "goodbye" to him when I see him now. And before you think that's extreme, bear in mind that fifteen years ago, Le Pen the elder was very clearly a neo-fascist piece of filth. When my aunt adopted a little girl from Madagascar, she told that cousin that if she ever heard him say something even remotely racist in her daughter's presence that he could consider himself forever removed from the family. I've never heard him talk politics again.
Is that better or worse than actually discussing things in a civilized manner? I dunno. But we must all draw the line in the sand somewhere.
I don't envy all of you Americans who have to decide where to draw it these days, and I hope to god I won't have to do that in five years.

[Bonnot OG]

38 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Which known Trump supporters should I deem unacceptable?  My two half-Mexican uncles?  A Korean-born female - or better yet one of my closest friends that was a victim of China's one-child policy?  Do I lecture them on the plight of minorities?  Do I lecture my colleague that's a Chilean immigrant on how tough it now is for immigrants?  

I think how you bring politics into your interpersonal relationships is for everyone to figure out on their own.  But the implication being expressed here seems to be even the notion of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" is now an unacceptable position.  And that's very much a part of what's wrong with this country.

I'd say all are unacceptable. They heard his racism, misogyny, heard about the numerous sexual assaults, saw him mock a disabled reporter and they still supported them. There are gay trump supporters even though he is clearly homophobic and has some extremely homophobic people in key positions.

and no, whats wrong with this country is fence sitting and being respectful toward scummy people. and yes, trump supporters are scum. the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'd say supporting Trump is a good place to start. Voting for him says a lot about the people that did.

[Inigima]

Boston showing the rest of us how it's done. Holy shit y'all.

Estimates put the number of Nazis between 15 and 133.

Estimates put the number of counterprotesters between 15,000 AND 40,000.

It's official, guys. From now on when Boston claims to the best city in the world we are honor bound to agree with them unless we can make that gap even bigger.

[Dr. Pepper]

I don't know how anyone can have any sort of discussion with someone that isn't informed by politics.  Even if all you talk about is aesthetic gardening, the conversation is shaped by the political spectrum whether or not you consciously think about it.  The seeds you buy, the amount of leisure time you have, how much water you can afford to use, etc has all been shaped and governed for you by the political sphere and the way you discuss these things reveals a little bit of your ideology to one another.  

Furthermore, I don't get where some decide that drawing the line at who you allow within your group of friends somehow means you are unwilling to be close to those with whom you disagree.  For most decent people, some things are simply non-starters.  Racism is a non-starter for me, as an example.  You aren't eating at my dinner table or stopping by for xmas if you are overtly or casually racist.  Nope.  It's not about being unwilling to disagree but being unwilling to put up with people who dehumanize others based on the way they were born.  

45 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Which known Trump supporters should I deem unacceptable?  My two half-Mexican uncles?  A Korean-born female - or better yet one of my closest friends that was a victim of China's one-child policy?  Do I lecture them on the plight of minorities?  Do I lecture my colleague that's a Chilean immigrant on how tough it now is for immigrants?  

I don't understand.  Do you think members of minority groups get a free pass or are unable to know the difference between right and wrong? Like I couldn't imagine wondering these things if, say, it's a gay person who thinks gay people should be sent to conversion camps or women who think women should be chained to the kitchen.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

50 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Boston didn't disappoint. They are totally out numbered there.

They were totally outnumbered in Charlottesville, weren't they?

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The right see Islam as a threat even if numbers are small , the left see nazis as a growing threat even if numbers are small. Are they both right or wrong?

Which one carries guns and comes overtly to to conquer?  Stop de-railing.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

50 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Which known Trump supporters should I deem unacceptable?  My two half-Mexican uncles?  A Korean-born female - or better yet one of my closest friends that was a victim of China's one-child policy?  Do I lecture them on the plight of minorities?  Do I lecture my colleague that's a Chilean immigrant on how tough it now is for immigrants?  

I think how you bring politics into your interpersonal relationships is for everyone to figure out on their own.  But the implication being expressed here seems to be even the notion of "disagreeing without being disagreeable" is now an unacceptable position.  And that's very much a part of what's wrong with this country.

Very well said. As you posited earlier, just be a person. The Golden Rule tends to be pretty universal. 

[Bonnot OG]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Which one carries guns and comes overtly to to conquer?  Stop de-railing.  

But how else islamophobia be interjected into the conversation?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Boston showing the rest of us how it's done. Holy shit y'all.

Estimates put the number of Nazis between 15 and 133.

Estimates put the number of counterprotesters between 15,000 AND 40,000.

It's official, guys. From now on when Boston claims to the best city in the world we are honor bound to agree with them unless we can make that gap even bigger.

Urm, Boston is racist as all hell. Good for them in regards to this counter-protest, but best city in the world? Not Sure If Serious.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Urm, Boston is racist as all hell. Good for them in regards to this counter-protest, but best city in the world? Not Sure If Serious.

It is? I thought it was really progressive.