U.S. Politics: Leaving On A Jet Plane

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How about ban Islam because of Muslims committing terrorism, or being homophobic, or misogynistic?

What you’re proposing as more of grey area is equally as bigoted.

I'm not sure if the comparison is exactly apples to apples given the rampant xenophobia in America. 

Quote

It should also be western nationalists use religion as a disguise their xenophobia and racism.

I'm here for this conversation.

[Kalbear]

I'll put it another way- I'll worry about hosting the likes of Weiss or any other conservative pundit when fox starts routinely hosting liberal viewpoints.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes.  And you've repeatedly suggested I don't even though my first response to you yesterday explicitly pointed out this distinction.

Well I would just say afterwards the conversation shifted and some of your comments did to me suggest that you were okay with shutting down debates with conservatives who fell within what I would call reasonable territory. Apologies if I offended you.

Quote

I don't see how that example is relevant.

Why not? Giving airtime to such a figure to promote a debate is a good thing imo. Obviously that does mean you expand that to everyone, but in the context of the example, wouldn't you like to hear a debate between a pro-Chinese government advocate and a pro-Hong Kong liberation advocate moderated by a skilled interviewer? 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

So, to move the conversation along a little bit:

1.  Lifting of the COVID-19 travel ban, giant middle finger or giant infected middle finger to the Biden administration?  Discuss.

2.  Publishing the “1776 Report” on MLK Day (a federal holiday, no less), dog whistle or just, you know, whistle whistle?  Discuss. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Apologies if I offended you.

More annoyed with your frequent tactic of either strawmanning or acting obtuse (or both) when your arguments have clearly and thoroughly been refuted.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

wouldn't you like to hear a debate between a pro-Chinese government advocate and a pro-Hong Kong liberation advocate moderated by a skilled interviewer? 

Erm, no.  I really don't need to hear a member of the Chinese government "debating" the merits of one party rule.

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, to move the conversation along a little bit:

1.  Infected middle finger.

2.  Whistle whistle.

These are too easy!

[OldGimletEye]

17 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Publishing the “1776 Report” on MLK Day (a federal holiday, no less), dog whistle or just, you know, whistle whistle?  Discuss. 

I'm not going to read the 1776 report, as its likely a bunch jingoistic malarkey, and I have better things to do with my time. And obviously a response to the 1619 Project. Probably not a popular opinion around these parts, but I do take some issues with the 1619 Project, particularly the stuff written by Princeton sociologist Matt Desmond. He relies heavily on the New History of Capitalism, who include  Cornell Historian Edward Baptist and Sven Beckert.

Some of the claims made by Baptist and Beckert have been addressed (and debunked) by scholars in the field like Gavin Wright Paul Rhodes and Alan Olmstead. Stanely Engerman also takes issue with some of their stuff.

The 1776 Report isn't an effective rebuttal.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The 1176 Report isn't an effective rebuttal.

What about the 1066 report?

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

What about the 1066 report?

I think that's when my norman ancestors came to England. That's all I know.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

I'll put it another way- I'll worry about hosting the likes of Weiss or any other conservative pundit when fox starts routinely hosting liberal viewpoints.

That assumes Fox is a news network. It hasn't been for a long time, if it ever really was at all. 

And furthermore, why sink down to that standard? Shouldn't you strive to be better?
 

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

More annoyed with your frequent tactic of either strawmanning or acting obtuse (or both) when your arguments have clearly and thoroughly been refuted.

Well I would dispute that claim given the subject at hand is a matter of opinion, not one of fact. And you just did your own strawmanning by bringing NAMBLA up.

Quote

Erm, no.  I really don't need to hear a member of the Chinese government "debating" the merits of one party rule.

Debating and then facing criticism. Jesus, it's not like I'm saying you should give them an unmoderated platform. 

[Fragile Bird]

The 1776 report apparently says, hey guys, everybody in the world owned slaves, it wasn’t just an American thing, so don’t feel bad about it.

And ending travel bans? Trump doesn’t feel like he’s killed enough of you yet.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well I would dispute that claim given the subject at hand is a matter of opinion, not one of fact. And you just did your own strawmanning by bringing NAMBLA up.

It is a matter of fact that I delineated between the type of people and ideas Maher has helped propagate from all conservatives and you ignored that.  It is a matter of fact that Stewart and Colbert did nothing like what I and others were objecting to with Maher yet you persisted with such a blatantly false equivalence.  And I brought up NAMBLA to point out that views don't need to be "censored" in order to be denied platforms by media.  I think both the speech/ideas peddled by Coulter, Conway et al. and that of NAMBLA fall under this category.  And, more importantly, the former is much more corrosive to our democracy and political discourse.  Do you disagree?

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Debating and then facing criticism. Jesus, it's not like I'm saying you should give them an unmoderated platform. 

Again, I don't think a Chinese government official, or anybody for that matter, arguing in favor of one party rule should be given any platform.  Don't give a shit how it's "moderated."  And I really don't see why that "debate" should even be raised in the United States, or how it's relevant to this discussion.

[SpaceChampion]

I waited all day to find the perfect MLK quote that would never be used by virtue-signalling right wing politicians, and here it is:

Nominee for worst person(s) in the world virtue-signalling about MLK today:
 

 

[SpaceChampion]

 

[briantw]

8 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

 

I don't feel like looking up the tweet but Zach Braff called her Insurrection Daria and I think that's worth posting everywhere. 

[SpaceChampion]

I just read Insurrection Daria's ex-boyfriend was the one who tipped the FBI off on her, so there is a chance he's bitter at her for personal reasons and made up the whole angle about giving the laptop to Russia.  I think this one is a wait and see if the story holds together.

[Kalbear]

@Tywin et al. - no. We don't have to be better than the other group. We have to win. We have to realize that anywhere from 20 to 30% of the populace wants authoritarian rule (regardless of other leanings). Ignoring that and ignoring the current environment means things will continue to be asymmetrical and one sided until, well, they win. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure if the comparison is exactly apples to apples given the rampant xenophobia in America. 

I'm here for this conversation.

My point was it would be extremely bigoted to ban a religion that encompasses dozens upon dozens of countries with their own unique cultures.

If one proposed banning catholicism because of the bad actions of some it’s members they’re not really better than the right wing chuds who do the same thing about Islam for the actions of some of its followers.

And the conversation of “should Islam be banned because of its mistreatment of gays and women and attacks against democracy.” Is more common.

[Varysblackfyre321]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

@Tywin et al. - no. We don't have to be better than the other group. We have to win. We have to realize that anywhere from 20 to 30% of the populace wants authoritarian rule (regardless of other leanings). Ignoring that and ignoring the current environment means things will continue to be asymmetrical and one sided until, well, they win. 

Okay these numbers seems unreasonable

It’s too low.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump’s support is in the high 30 right now after Congress almost got lynched due to fear mongering.

And some numbers he’s already rebounded to the low 40s in terms of approval

So 38-45 percent of America probably wants authoritarian rule.

[Martell Spy]

42 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Okay these numbers seems unreasonable

It’s too low.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump’s support is in the high 30 right now after Congress almost got lynched due to fear mongering.

And some numbers he’s already rebounded to the low 40s in terms of approval

So 38-45 percent of America probably wants authoritarian rule.

No. At least a few percentage points don't want it, but will tolerate it if it means tax cuts.

[Inkdaub]

2 hours ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

We don't have to be better than the other group.

I'd also like to say that we are already better than the other group.  It does no good at all for us to pretend that isn't the case. 

Also, I worry that many people are aware of these programs but aren't actually watching.  So you have your righty people seeing their guy on the tube owning the libs...but they don't actually understand or even watch the 'debate' or whatever it might be presented as.  Their guy being on tv writes it's own narrative. 

I would love it if pointing out the idiocy of the right had some sort of effect but I just don't think it does.  I have to come down on the side that platforming these people does more harm than good.