Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

I hate to be so focused on the specific political parties.  

 

I really hate the level of gaslighting that has been going on in the last couple of years.  It's really, really blatant.  You can't not see it.

 

That's the unfortunate part. You can not see it, if you want to not see it. Trump always told his supporters that everything they think and believe, all their biases and fears, are right and true. There are now many media sources which openly tell them the same thing. At this point his supporters denying Trump's narrative would be tantamount to denying themselves, which many people, perhaps the majority, would refuse to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... Rosenstein... yep.

 

Power comes to those who take it, I guess.  Without a care.  The country can burn as long as the billionaires have theirs, eh?

 

I wouldn't be so negative, but it's interesting that a lot of talk (in government representatives sent to a discussion in a science and education group someone I know is associated with) is about "what can we do to survive?"  And interest in moving to and building in Canada.

 

Not about 'how can we prevent global warming', but how can we effectively flee the US and manage whatever equipment we have when we set up in the north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zeropoint said:

Maybe it's time to start burning billionaires?

That's not exactly constructive.

 

Not that I expect any action on climate change from anyone regardless.

 

I mean, I'd like to see billionaires invest more money in that, and maybe decentralized, modular construction and power generation.  But man, bunkers are becoming an actual thing to invest in.

 

The education that I was referencing (I don't know which it was, just that I know someone who was there) had a lot of interest in buying and building in Canada for the next ten years.  Not even like thirty or forty years.  Personally I think that's pretty silly, but... ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory is Jim Jordan is after Rosenstein because about a hundred wrestlers have come forward to say he knew they were being molested at the University where he was the coach. He's trying to avoid having to give up his seat, or at the least act like he can be the house speaker when Ryan retires.

CES  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2018 at 1:58 PM, Lord Liaden said:

The idea that the Russian government would act to help the Democrats defies all logic.

 

I think it makes sense for Russia to ineffectually attempt to help Democrats. It would let the Republicans claim that a) they're doing it to both sides so Republicans can't be blamed and, b) it didn't have any real effect so it doesn't matter.

 

Of course, I might be being paranoid, but even paranoids have enemies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 3:21 AM, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

I think it makes sense for Russia to ineffectually attempt to help Democrats. It would let the Republicans claim that a) they're doing it to both sides so Republicans can't be blamed and, b) it didn't have any real effect so it doesn't matter.

 

Of course, I might be being paranoid, but even paranoids have enemies...

An appearance of helping Democrats serves Putin's ends: If the Dems take the House (as the Economist's model says is 70% likely), Republicans can say they were robbed and get even crazier and angrier. If Republicans keep the house, they now have more ammunition for attacking Democrats as enemies of America -- look who's trying to help them!

 

The same is true, in reverse, if Russia lets itself be seen apparently trying to help Republicans. Whoever wins, partisans get angrier and legitimacy is damaged. So Putin wins either way. I expect meddling that seems intended to help both sides.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the July 14, 2018 issue of the Economist has a good article on the built-in bias Republicans enjoy in American elections. This isn't just superior gerrymandering -- a lot of it goes back to elements of the Constitution designed to privilege rural regions over cities. (The clause about slaves being treated as 3/5 of a person for census purposes even makes an appearance.) The rural bias didn't matter as long as the two parties had both urban and rural constituencies. But now all the cultural, political and economic polarities have aligned, turning Democrats into the Big City Party and Republicans into the Smaller Community Party. By the Economist's electoral models, Democrats need to beat Republicans by at least 7% in popular votes even to break even in electoral votes.

 

The July 21, 2018 issue also has a nice editorial (in the "Lexington" column) on how Republicans seem to have come to accept their place as "minority majority" party and "white ethnic" party. Forget about those exhortations of yore (like, 2012) that the GOP must broaden its base to survive. With enough gerrymandering and a fervent enough base, they can keep power... for now. Of course, the longer and more squalidly they keep trying to implement de facto apartheid, the more destructive the eventual crash becomes. South Africa was very lucky in having a Nelson Mandela. No one should count on such luck.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never really bothered me.  I'm white, so what?  Never met another white person who was particularly bothered by being called white either.  

 

Edit:  ooh, I see now, article has nothing to do with title.  Just white people being insulted for being called detrimental, getting taste of own medicine somewhat in that regard.  Yeah, the content makes it make more sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken, but what I took from the article is that white people in America generally dislike being designated "white" in the way that others are designated as "black" or "Hispanic," i.e. as part of an ethnic group that carries socio-cultural generalizations and assumptions. And the fact of that reaction highlights that white people have long considered themselves, consciously or unconsciously, to be the normative, baseline ethnic group; hence discussing them as just another ethnic category calls that normative status into question. They're made uncomfortable both by the challenge to that assumption, and by how it makes them face that the assumption exists in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read of the article:  A lot of white have a tendency to blame America's problems on minorities, but get snippy and offended, at any suggestion that they may be the problem.  As hypocritical as that may be.  Nothing about being called white being offensive was covered, apart from the author throwing out his own hypothesis.  Note: Without looking at his replies, of course, which I have better things to do than read a 1000 mindless opinions, which the author probably counts on, to avoid proving or disproving his comment.

 

A shame, they had some interesting points without throwing that one claim in, for whatever reason.  As your synopsis is otherwise spot on the mark. One of the replies actually saying that calling those of Caucasian persuasion white being offensive is needed at the very least to give the title of his article any weight.  (they actually win on the merits of white being hypocritical with race with their poll, why get greedy?**)

 

**Probably for click-baitiness, which I guess it succeeds.  

 

Note: I know on the surface, I probably look like I am nitpicking, but the tenuous nature said topic has been the last few years.  I feel utmost accuracy is needed, without pushing such unneeded assumptions, above and beyond.  Just where I am coming from, for what it is worth.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zeropoint said:

I assume it's threatening to them to be put on equal footing with other kinds of "people with adjectives" instead of just being "people" by default.

 

7 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I may be mistaken, but what I took from the article is that white people in America generally dislike being designated "white" in the way that others are designated as "black" or "Hispanic," i.e. as part of an ethnic group that carries socio-cultural generalizations and assumptions. And the fact of that reaction highlights that white people have long considered themselves, consciously or unconsciously, to be the normative, baseline ethnic group; hence discussing them as just another ethnic category calls that normative status into question. They're made uncomfortable both by the challenge to that assumption, and by how it makes them face that the assumption exists in the first place.

 

On this point, has anyone watched "Nanette" on Netflix? it is a, nominally, comedy stand-up routine by Australian comedienne Hannah Gadsby... and it turns, throughout, into an annihilating critique of current society that is gut wrenching and raw and incredibly unsettling... and must be watched. She addresses the point above very specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a white middle-class male, from the tail end of the baby-boom generation. But I grew up a first-language English speaker in Quebec, Canada, which has always been a majority French-speaking province. When I was young, English was the language of commerce, and of power. French speakers really were treated as second-class citizens in a number of ways. Where I grew up in Montreal, it wasn't even necessary to speak French to live your life comfortably -- you just assumed French Quebecers should learn English. But when I was a teenager, the French nationalist Parti Quebecois came to power. Suddenly the provincial government was "protecting and promoting" the French language and French Quebec culture by demanding the use of French in all public and commercial institutions; severely restricting English's use in signage and other advertising; limiting or reducing English-language educational institutions. French Quebecers became emboldened to publicly express their hostility and resentment toward the way English Canada had treated them (which feelings were not unjustified), and to return some of that to English-speaking Quebecers.

 

That experience gave me a bit of insight into what someone with my background almost never feels elsewhere in Canada or the United States: what it's like to be considered a minority. Not a visible minority, of course -- that's another level of misfortune -- but nonetheless one whose self-identity is being called out and challenged. The effect of the big things is easy to recognize and describe, but what always struck me is how the little things impact you. Constantly being told that you're different, you're lesser, that you don't really belong, having to fight for respect others take for granted... it's like the Chinese water torture, a constant drip-drip-drip that wears you down until you feel either like giving up or exploding.

 

As unpleasant as it was to go through, I think I'm better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...