The Many Faces of US Politics...

Started by Tyrones own, March 20, 2009, 09:29:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

omaghjoe

Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 02:53:59 PM
"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....:o :o :o

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

seafoid


Al Franken
@alfranken

Tom Rukavina always fought for the Range and for the little guy. My favorite Tommy story—he was in a parade and a guy he knew called out, "Hey, Tommy! Why do you only care about the poor?" Without missing a beat, Rukavina responded, "You ARE poor, dummy!"
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

easytiger95

Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 05:13:14 PM
So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin
So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

Gmac

Quote from: easytiger95 on January 08, 2019, 05:56:36 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 05:13:14 PM
So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin
So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.
where do u live ?

whitey

Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 04, 2019, 09:18:18 PM
Maybe they can unearth another shocking video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing on a roof top in college.

That'll show 'em!


Hey J70

Did you See the latest example of fake news?

NY Times and Newsweek claiming conservatives were outraged by the dancing video and sprung to AOC 's defense. Problem is it was all BS


https://www.google.com/amp/s/hotair.com/archives/2019/01/07/conservatives-actually-offended-ocasio-cortez-dance-video/amp/
Yet the only reason I became aware of the video in which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was dancing was through seeing it in tweets by pro-Trump fascist accounts, which were retweeted by non-fascist accounts I follow, which were highlighting the absolute misogyny and downright creepinesss of pro-Trump fascist ideology.

Pro-Trump fascists absolutely tried to "slut shame" Ocasio-Cortez.

They belatedly tried to row back - but only when they knew it was completely backfiring and merely exposing them as the vile, misogynist creeps they are.

So a handful of idiots on twitter now represent all Conservatives?

I'm on Twitter all the time and the first I read about the "outrage" was when I read about the outrage about the outrage


whitey

Quote from: easytiger95 on January 08, 2019, 05:56:36 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 05:13:14 PM
So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin
So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

If that is what the Mueller investigation finds then I'm all for prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.......nice deflection by the way

Eamonnca1

Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 06:03:10 PM
So a handful of idiots on twitter now represent all Conservatives?

Yes.

sid waddell

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 08, 2019, 05:44:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 02:53:59 PM
"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....:o :o :o

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   
I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

Eamonnca1

Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 05:01:36 PM
This is a technique frequently used by far right nutcases to control the terms of "debate". Basically just fire out lie after lie after lie.

And always in a super confident fashion.

When you have no interest in facts and every interest in promoting lies, you can do that.

The airwaves are polluted by the these robo-fascists. Not just in the US, but, increasingly, everywhere.

Media loves them because they provoke "reactions". It's all about "reactions" these days.

And sadly, that makes media who platform these reality-deniers complicit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

I didn't know there was a name for this method. I see conservatives use it a lot. Flood their opponents with a Niagra of lies, half-truths, misleading statements, straw men, and other assorted fallacies. Pile the bullshit so high that it would take forever to refute even bits of it.

easytiger95

Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 06:05:07 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on January 08, 2019, 05:56:36 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 05:13:14 PM
So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin
So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

If that is what the Mueller investigation finds then I'm all for prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.......nice deflection by the way

Oh, I learnt from the best. Can't wait for your deflections tonight when your fearless leader tries to declare a national emergency to build his wall. Imagine - a declaration of a non-existent emergency in order to facilitate the building of an imaginary solution to an immigration crisis when immigration at the Mexican border has been at a net deficit for the past two years.

Believe what you want.

omaghjoe

Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on January 08, 2019, 05:44:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 02:53:59 PM
"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....:o :o :o

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   
I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.


"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

sid waddell

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 08, 2019, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 06:03:10 PM
So a handful of idiots on twitter now represent all Conservatives?

Yes.
"Conservatism" has all but disappeared.

The Republican party isn't a "conservative" party. It's a destructivist party.

Those who think of themselves as "conservatives" tend to be nothing of the sort. They're destructivists and nihilists.

The problem for "conservatives" is that they have fundamentally mislabelled themselves and they don't know what they are.

Look at their attitude to climate change, for instance. There couldn't be a more genuinely conservative issue than protecting the environment.

Yet the Republican party has been completely hijacked by climate change deniers and environment destructivists.

"Conservatism" is in a total crisis of thought, but then again, when you refuse to think, you'll always have a crisis of thought. It literally doesn't know what it is, except that it entirely definez itself against things it doesn't like. It has no coherent positive vision.

"Conservatism's" problem is that for hundreds of years, it has been wrong on pretty much everything. But it at least at some points during those several hundred years, there was at least some semblance of attempts to think and come up with some coherent thoughts, even if they were pretty much always wrong.

Now, it has just given up and resorted to its true self, which amounts to nothing more thsn whinging and moaning like a petulant four year old child.

"Conservatism" really should be renamed "destructivism", or "whingeism", or "moanism" , or "petulant child throwing its toys out of the pram-ism", or some such.

Dolph1

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 08, 2019, 06:17:44 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 06:08:15 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on January 08, 2019, 05:44:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 08, 2019, 02:53:59 PM
"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....:o :o :o

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   
I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.


"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

I would not put it past them. You've already seen what antifa are capable of in their pursuit of social justice.
Empowering these nutjobs is dangerous.
Trump 2020. Making America Greater Again

whitey

Quote from: easytiger95 on January 08, 2019, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 06:05:07 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on January 08, 2019, 05:56:36 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 05:13:14 PM
So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin
So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

If that is what the Mueller investigation finds then I'm all for prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.......nice deflection by the way

Oh, I learnt from the best. Can't wait for your deflections tonight when your fearless leader tries to declare a national emergency to build his wall. Imagine - a declaration of a non-existent emergency in order to facilitate the building of an imaginary solution to an immigration crisis when immigration at the Mexican border has been at a net deficit for the past two years.

Believe what you want.

Well for one I am not a Trump supporter, though I do support a handful of his ideas

Secondly, I have never advocated building a wall and think it is a ridiculous waste of time and money

dec

Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 06:33:59 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on January 08, 2019, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 06:05:07 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on January 08, 2019, 05:56:36 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 08, 2019, 05:13:14 PM
So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin
So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

If that is what the Mueller investigation finds then I'm all for prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.......nice deflection by the way

Oh, I learnt from the best. Can't wait for your deflections tonight when your fearless leader tries to declare a national emergency to build his wall. Imagine - a declaration of a non-existent emergency in order to facilitate the building of an imaginary solution to an immigration crisis when immigration at the Mexican border has been at a net deficit for the past two years.

Believe what you want.

Well for one I am not a Trump supporter, though I do support a handful of his ideas

Secondly, I have never advocated building a wall and think it is a ridiculous waste of time and money

Who did you vote for in the 2016 presidential election?