Scott Alexander gives a great breakdown of Trump and how the portrayal of him as being "openly white supremacist" is probably (likely) wrong.
I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he's "the candidate of the KKK" and "the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement" is made up. It's a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.
I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn't want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. But since we're past the point where that matters any more, I want to present my case.
He further states: "I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately, so whatever."
So do his claims hold up under scrutiny, is he manipulating the figures, or is he just a 'crazy person' ?
(Score: 4, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:23PM
WTF is he babbling about? Media? Thinker? WTF? THERE ARE NO THINKERS IN THE MEDIA! FFS, people, the media won't present real issues to convince voters of anything, it's all just idiocy, aimed at low information voters.
Yes, Alexander is indeed a crazy sumbitch.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:09PM
My [kpfk.org] Pacifica Radio [wikipedia.org] station [wikipedia.org] has plenty of thinkers:
Ralph Nader, Richard Wolff, Blase Bonpane, Jon Wiener, Maria Armoudian, Jim Lafferty, Eric Mann, Jimmy Dore, David Feldman, Mitch Jeserich, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Suzi Weissman, Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Michael Slate, Chris Burnett, and Roy Tuckman to name a few.
Wikipedia also has a more historical list some Pacifica thinkers. [wikipedia.org]
Sorry about the lousy media you consume.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:52PM
Hmm, sounds to me like they'd be all for unfettered immigration, demonizing all White men, calling for unquestioning and unwavering support for Israel, and continuously calling Trump a puppy-kicking Satan-worshipping candy-from-a-baby-taking Nazi.
Is my guess correct?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:45PM
In order to comment on Trump, a responsible media person would have to find the diametrically opposed things that that two-faced son of a bitch said on every subject and address each of those separately.
That sounds exhausting.
...even more exhausting than doing the same with Hillary.
Trump is simply a huckster, a carnival barker who will say whatever he thinks will draw your attention at the moment.
WRT to him, I am disappointed that we aren't hearing with regularity the use of the word "demagog". [google.com]
As for Israel, I can't think of a single Pacifica presenter who supports or defends that apartheid state.
...and when you hear a presenter's opinion on Pacifica, it's clear that that is opinion.
...and, typically, that is backed with facts, not just more opinions as happens with Lamestream Media.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:54PM
"overtly left-leaning political content on Pacifica stations. "
Even left leaning people believe that Pacifica leans overtly left.
And, FWIW, just because people struggle to think inside of an echo chamber, doesn't mean that they are really "thinking". Instead, what you hear coming from their mouths are echos of what went in their ears. That's the problem with both the left and the right. Each creates it's own echo chamber, and they can't hear anything from outside.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:25AM
Any nitwit can edit Wikipedia and use whatever incorrect terms occur to him.
The only Pacifica presenter I can think of who is overtly anti-Capitalist is Richard Wolff ("Economic Update").
Now, Pacifica (the first listener-sponsored[1] radio network, started in 1949) -is- overtly Progressive.
[1] The term "Public Broadcasting" has become so perverted with corporate "sponsors" and "underwriters" by NPR and PBS that I now find the term repulsive.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:28AM
"Any nitwit can edit Wikipedia"
I think we all understand that. Some nitwit posted something you don't agree with, but soon, some other nitwit will edit to something you like better.
I believe that it is fairly obvious though, that Pacifica is indeed leftist? Making it more or less the obverse of the same coin on which the Republicans stamp out their "think tanks". That is, they start with an agenda, they find respected people who are willing to advance that agenda, hire them, and start publishing things that will advance their agenda.
And, like I said, they all have credibility issues.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:36AM
It's possible to be non-Republican without being "Left".
(The Blues are pro-Capitalism.)
Lazy nitwits (like you) won't make the distinction.
Lazy nitwits (like you) use 1-dimensional terms where they aren't appropriate and aren't accurate to describe the the political position of someone on what is a multi-dimensional palate.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:24AM
Whatever, nitwit. Meanwhile, I'm neither left nor right, neither Republican nor Democrat. I have my place on the political spectrum, as defined by several European sites - but that place doesn't fit into American politics at all. Now, who is the nitwit?
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:28PM
He knows how to persuade people to come to his side. That's why he said so many different things while running, he was blatantly telling the audience what it wanted to hear.
Build the wall? He doesn't expect to build it. That was his opening bid, the other side will give something up, he'll come down, and finally settle for what he wanted in the first place.
Torpedoes are the only pedos Republicans are willing to fire.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:36PM
Build the wall? He doesn't expect to build it. That was his opening bid, the other side will give something up, he'll come down, and finally settle for what he wanted in the first place.
Who do you think he's negotiating with? Mexico? Trump's going to negotiate down and just build a fence and mexico is negotiate down only pay for half?
And when he said that the judge couldn't be impartial because he's "mexican" who was he negotiating with?
But in the end, your entire premise is flawed. Making racist arguments in order to obtain a better negotiating position is still racist.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:43PM
Illegal is not a race. Neither is Mexican. Choose your words more precisely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:16PM
That's a nice strawman you got there... where did you get it from?
(Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:22PM
The proposed wall is to keep illegal Mexicans out. Illegal is not a race. Mexican is not a race. Thus the wall is not racist. The comment I replied to said the wall was a racist argument. I refuted that.
Do please go look up the definition of a strawman.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:34PM
The wall is to keep out not only illegal Mexicans but also illegal Guatemalans, El Salvadorians, Nicaraguans, as well as illegal aliens from places other than South America who seek to enter the United States illegally though the Mexican-American border -- including terrorists of Middle-Eastern origin.
Personally, I agree that a wall is a nonsensical and excessively expensive method of border control -- I believe we should use existing resources, such as the National Guard, to shoot on sight anybody crossing the border illegally. It's a win-win situation because our Guard is better utilized and receives combat training, and our borders are controlled. What's not to like about that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:02PM
why pay the National Guard when there are Minutemen, Patriots, Freemen, Bundistas et al who seem chomping at the bit to do it for free?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:24AM
You and the Buzzard honestly can't see a common theme to those you want to keep out? Really? Let me help you out: none of the people groups you identified is white Anglo-Saxon.
<sarc>Umm, yeah. Let's just turn the border into an active war zone. That will certainly calm things down.</sarc>
Actually, there's plenty not to like about that. We need less violence at our southern border, not more. Hoo boy! You alt-right types really need to get a clue!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:56PM
"Personally, I agree that a wall is a nonsensical and excessively expensive method of border control -- I believe we should use existing resources, such as the National Guard,"
Existing resources? We have millions of welfare recipients with nothing to do with their time. Tens of millions, even. Load them onto trains, and ship them to the border to build the wall.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:11PM
> Illegal is not a race.
Never said it was.
The OP is the one who brought up the wall as some weird proof that trump is not racist.
> Neither is Mexican.
Oh jesus christ.
Even Paul Ryan said it was textbook racism. [politico.com]
When even the republicans are calling something racism, its racism.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday November 21 2016, @02:29AM
Who do you think he's negotiating with? Mexico? Trump's going to negotiate down and just build a fence and mexico is negotiate down only pay for half?
Congress, and to a lesser extent the American people. Mexico has no say in it.
Torpedoes are the only pedos Republicans are willing to fire.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:08PM
Not much of a negotiator, managed to negotiate his casinos right out of business. More like a bully who is used to getting his way. And a dirtbag who was just fined for taking tuition at the fake "Trump University". Also, see the New Yorker piece by the ghost writer for "Art of the Deal" who came clean and admitted that the book was all fiction --
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all [newyorker.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:06AM
By phrasing it that way he got everyone to agree the wall was going to be built.
And focused them all on the 'and mexico will pay for it'.
He got everyone to agree to the wall as a given.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:29PM
There is too much in that blogger's post to completely address. So for the sake of being concise I will limit it two of his points, one narrow and one broad.
(13) Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”.
No. There is no generalization going on here. Trump literally said "Islam hates us." And in case that was just an inartful phrasing, the interviewer prompted him to say that he was not talking about normal muslims. Trump would not do it, instead he said "its very hard to define because you don't know who is who." That is the religious equivalent of "they all look alike to me." See it in this 50 second clip of his interview on CNN. [youtube.com]
Furthermore, his pick for national security advisor has a history of holding all muslims responsible for the worst actions of the few [politico.com] in ways that would leave no question of bigotry if he were to say the same thing about jews or christians. For example he promoted a video literally named "Fear of Jews is RATIONAL" on twitter. So not only is Trump saying it, he's hiring someone who says the same thing for a position where that opinion will directly influence policy decisions.
(17) Isn’t this a lot of special pleading? Like, sure, you can make up various non-racist explanations for every single racist-sounding thing Trump says, and say a lot of it is just coincidence or Trump being inexplicably weird, but eventually the coincidences start adding up. You have to look at this kind of thing in context.
...
This is the natural pattern you get when challenging a false theory. The theory was built out of random noise and ad hoc misinterpretations, so the refutation will have to be “every one of your multiple superficially plausible points is random noise, or else it’s a misinterpretation for a different reason”.
The blogger compares Trump's words to a random collection of unrelated, cherry-picked facts that have been back-fitted into a bogus theory about Atlantis, but Trump is not a random collection of cherry-picked facts. Trump is a single, cohesive person who chooses what he says . Even when prompted to lay out a non-bigoted explanation for his words, he won't do it. That's literally the opposite of back-fitting.
To argue that Trump is not explicitly and deliberately racist unlike any recent president is to deny not just Trump's own words, but Trump's responsibility for his own words.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:45PM
Islam is not a race. It is an ideology. Those are fair game to discriminate against if you find valid reason.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:55PM
> Islam is not a race. It is an ideology. Those are fair game to discriminate against if you find valid reason.
Is hispanic a race?
Is white a race?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:58PM
Me: Mustangs are not Chevrolets
You: Are Camaros? Are Corvettes?
Your argument confuses me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:02PM
Answer the questions. Yes or no. You are the one so concerned with precision, so I asked you questions that could not be more conscise or direct.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:05PM
Your questions are a non-sequitur. You might as well have asked if I like puppies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:13PM
If islam isn't a race. then white and hispanic are not races either. If you disagree explain why that's wrong.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:24PM
If Mustangs are not Chevrolets then Corvettes and Camaros are not Chevrolets either. Do please listen to what you are saying. We're done here unless you have a point to make.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:31PM
Hispanic is not a race either. Hispanic is a (US) ethnic designation. You are Hispanic (in the US sense) if you speak Spanish at home, grew up speaking Spanish at home, or at least one of your known ancestors did so, and you feel like calling yourself that. You could be of any race, and any religion as well, even though most Hispanics are Catholic.
"White" is the only one of the three words you gave that can be argued to be a race. It's a classification that traditionally is seen as quite explicitly racial, although if you read some of the modern works you'll actually find people more and more using it as an ethnic designation instead, leading to even more confusion when two parties to the conversation are using it in two entirely different senses.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:53PM
> you cannot convert to or from a race, not in any possible reality, period
Really? On what basis do you make that claim?
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:04PM
I assume he bases it on the definition of the word "race".
I suppose you'll be redefining it to suit your argument though. That's been very much in vogue lately.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:05PM
So, is it also your contention that is impossible to change race?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:21PM
Currently, yes. In the future there may come a day when a retrovirus can alter the DNA of each of your cells enough to change your race but that day is not today.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:31PM
Well, there are literally millions of examples of people changing their race.
For example, Carol Channing. [biography.com]
Its pretty funny you cited a dictionary definition of race without linking to that definition and then accused me making up a definition of race.
Where did you get that definition from?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:18PM
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/05/millions-of-americans-changed-their-racial-or-ethnic-identity-from-one-census-to-the-next/ [pewresearch.org]
The researchers, who included university and government population scientists, analyzed census forms for 168 million Americans, and found that more than 10 million of them checked different race or Hispanic-origin boxes in the 2010 census than they had in the 2000 count. Smaller-scale studies have shown that people sometimes change the way they describe their race or Hispanic identity, but the new research is the first to use data from the census of all Americans to look at how these selections may vary on a wide scale.
“Do Americans change their race? Yes, millions do,” said study co-author Carolyn A. Liebler, a University of Minnesota sociologist who worked with Census Bureau researchers.
But clearly buzzard knows better than all of those people and the scientists who study them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:43AM
Man, you're a fucking Genius with a capital G!
What I need now is an official form with check boxes for the length of my penis, how many minutes I can last with 10 cheerleaders, and my yearly income. Three check boxes away from being able to change reality!
- Butthead
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:15AM
Okay, so my car is a Corvette, but I sometimes call it a Yugo and sometimes a Ducati motorcycle.
It's still a Corvette, though.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:40AM
Since we aren't actually talking about cars, you fail.
In kindergarten you learned one simplified age-appropriate definition of race and despite growing up, your understanding never matured.
You know that definition that buzzard cut-n-pasted?
Do you know why he didn't include the URL?
Because the rest of the definition totally contradicts him.
Go ahead, google that definition. The link will take you right to the whole thing. He cited 1.1, take a look at 1.2.
Or don't. You seem more interested in rationalizing remaining ignorant of what all of science settled decades ago.
BTW, do you know what a definition of bigot is?
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Being obstinately devoted to a child's definition of a word pretty much qualifies.
I'm guessing its not the only opinion of yours that would qualify. Seems to go hand-in-hand with a lot of other ones.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:24PM
Just because racists are wrong about multiple races existing, though, doesn't mean that race is not a word that conceives of, that necessarily implies a biological division, indeed that is precisely their error - they reify social divisions and conceive of them as racial rather than social.
If there were such a division, you certainly couldn't cross it without changing your DNA, and whatever race you attribute to Channing, it clearly never changed, at most it could be said to have been misidentified either in the first case or the second. Those are different things.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:32PM
> She didn't change her race, she was born human and the best I know she still is.
Why should anyone take you seriously after that?
You simply do not understand race. [nap.edu] You, like buzzard, think genetics determine race when in fact genes are only a small, superficial component of race and determinate of nothing in particular. Anyone who has actually studied race knows that to be true because racial distinctions are so arbitrary [vox.com] that they change on the timescale of decades.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:35AM
Wow. You do realize how full of shit you are right? You did not demonstrate a change of race:
A clerical error and misinformation is very distinct from an actual state change. Five minutes before she knew, she still had her father's genes in her, and five minutes later she continued to do so. All that changed was her ignorance of it.
You literally argued that ignorance once removed constitutes a physical state change. This is the one and the same principle that allows little children to fly in Neverland. You should've sprinkled your post with Pixie Dust.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:44AM
> Wow. You do realize how full of shit you are right? You did not demonstrate a change of race:
Hey genius. Genes are not race. They are genes.
Race is something that society both imposes on you and you express to society.
Everybody thought carol channing was white. She never had to experience being treated as black. For everything that matters, she was white.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:28PM
Forget him. He's obviously trolling. And not very well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:33PM
Not trolling. Trying to get lazy minds to make concrete statements of their beliefs so that those beliefs can be debated.
Buzzard knows he's on really thin ice, that's why he's always trying to squirm out from making specific, falsifiable statements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:22PM
What are you smoking and where can I get some?
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:23PM
While I agree with the distinction between genetic differences and religion, it is not possible for every Muslim to renounce his/her beleives. Apostasy [wikipedia.org] is punished in some countries by death or long prioson terms, in others by "only" losing custodial rights over the own children, inheritance etc. In other countries it might be completely legal and without sanction, but you can't generalize it.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:30PM
Difficulty, even a death penalty, is not "impossible". If it was impossible to abandon Islam, there'd be no death penalty for doing it because it would be ... impossible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:52PM
If you are that categorial things get a bit difficult, because with extensive plastic surgery, skin transplants, makeup, I am not sure it's impossible to change race.
At the least Asian to Caucasian seems very plausible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:45PM
It's a religion. Free exercise of religion, and freedom of conscience, are fundamental core American values. Saying "it's fair game to discriminate" against a religion is dangerous. Perhaps you parse it very narrowly and in a way that can be harmonized, but even if you do, your reader cannot be expected to understand that from what you wrote.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:00PM
True, the problem is if you are remotely good at being Islamic, you are a horrible person by western values and values can and absolutely should be discriminated against because they are a large part of what decide our actions. By "western values" in this case I mean egalitarianism, tolerance, and peacefulness. None of which are found within the religion of Islam as it is largely practiced in the world.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:41PM
Objectively true and stated in a civil manner but gets modded Flamebait? Please don't make me link to the "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" clip.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:23PM
Your surprise is a big part of the problem. You have beliefs that are extreme, one might call you an extremist! But hey, lots of old people also have "a good friend who is black" so you'll probably have company if you go work for a retirement home.
Every time I've been modded flamebait I'm forced to think about and I've always said "yup, deserved". Try imagining you can be wrong?
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:28PM
Not surprise. Annoyance that people still downmod things they simply disagree with. If I am attempting to be civil and have a civil discussion, my posts are not within the definition of Flamebait. Neither Troll. It is simply a bad moderation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by linkdude64 on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:52PM
" You have beliefs that are extreme, one might call you an extremist! "
This is problem with liberals. You think that people on the political right are extremists. You literally think that having an opinion - even an outright racist one - is extremism.
No.
If you would like, I will link you a video demonstrating extremism. The heads of dozens of kneeling people with black bags over their heads getting sawn off - right in front of your eyes, in HD quality, because they are not the "right kind of Muslim."
THAT is extremism, and YOU ARE CRYING WOLF just like the article states. If you would like to see the meaning of your words, I will show it to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:14AM
I'm sure that is what a lot of people said before the Nazis carted them off. "Don't worry, they just don't want us here. They'll take us somewhere till they have somewhere to send us!"
Taking this stuff lightly is not an option for me, and it is sad that you consider it a viable path. You even offer to behead me, that right there shows your mental state. I may be crying wolf, but that's just cause the wolf is hiding in his granny costume pretending to care about all the tasty people.
Or was I supposed to know that was just "guy talk"?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:43PM
"You even offer to behead me, that right there shows your mental state."
NEVER would I do that to somebody. I would rather shoot myself or cut my own throat than saw the head off of a disarmed person. The true extremists would not - and I can show you a VIDEO of that as empirical evidence - I never once meant to threaten you. Only to educate you as to what extremism actually is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:29PM
Well in case you haven't been paying attention, there are extremists on both sides. Maybe not up to beheading people on camera, but violence has been done to liberals and conservatives. Many people have advocated violence this election cycle, and while much of it is hot air (such as you) it is impossible to tell when someone will snap and make good on their threats.
My original extremist comment was a bit tongue in cheek to point how the irony how most that dislike Muslims are themselves on the path to prejudice and extremism.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:19PM
I have.
"If you finish that sentence I will have to kill you" were his exact words. In disbelief I let one more word out, and he immediately repeated his threat. I stopped cold. I could see he actually meant it. Would you call that extremist behaviour?
You see, even the seemingly moderate and seemingly reasonable muslims have a dangerous psychopathy and sociopathy, because their religion obliges them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:09PM
"Have you ever had a seemingly moderate and seemingly reasonable muslim threaten to kill you if you finish the sentence where you explain why you became an atheist?"
No, but estimates of muslim extremists worldwide are held at an estimated 15%-25%. With a worldwide muslim population of almost 2 billion, that is a huge number. Even if you are lying, there is statistical certainty that hundreds of millions of people around the world have had that exact same experience.
Fools think that violent minorities are not enough to cause problems - that focus must be kept on how peaceful the majority are.
Tell that to the majority of peaceful Germans in Nazi Germany. Or to the majority of peaceful Russians during their revolutions which killed tens of millions. Or to the peaceful Japanese majority as the minority butchered their way across southeast Asia.
Radical Islamic Terrorism is a global threat, because Radical Islamic Terrorists are seeding themselves all around the world and gathering resources - especially in the European countries that are essentially committing suicide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @09:16AM
I never once meant to threaten you. Only to educate you as to what extremism actually is.
Oh, great, now I am really, really scared. That is what the extremists always say, just before they cut off your head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:03AM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but in my opinion if you are still harbouring racist views in the 21st century then you are an extremist. And I'm not a liberal. Now, according to the First Amendment, you are allowed to have those views and gather together with like-minded individuals who share your views. But that in no way protects you from the neighbours calling you and your racist friends out as extremist assholes. That's not how the First Amendment works.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:45PM
You misunderstand - you have every right to call me an extremist, but we would then only be extremists relative to Western civilization. That is a relative scale.
On an absolute scale, we would be extremely moderate, because of the "real" extremists for whom genocide of those who you disagree with - within your own religion - is acceptable.
Even the KKK doesn't kill people anymore. That alone should say something about them compared to ISIS.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:53PM
The only thing that saves that statement from being a bald-faced lie, of course, is the caveat at the end.
But even if what you are saying isn't completely and utterly incorrect, what you are doing is picking up, endorsing, amplifying the claims of the very people I am sure you think you are against. Islam encompasses many schools, many traditions. Most of them very different from the picture you paint of them. One group, a group that was small, despised, without power or influence a century ago, matches your picture. The UK foolishly gave them control of the Muslim holy sites and the Arabian oil fields (and the US confirmed and extended the policy to this very day,) and they've been using those gifts to promote their own view worldwide since, and they've grown powerful and influential enough to be a serious problem, most seriously for other muslims of course.
They are the enemy here - not Islam in general, just this one strain of it. They hope to polarize, to create a world where the west as a whole makes exactly the mistake you make here - giving their claims credence, endorsing them as 'real Islam' is absolutely playing into their hands. They want all the other Muslims to feel so hated, so downtrodden, so trapped, that they have no other choice but to join the jihadis, and the narrative you are pushing is exactly the one they want us to accept for that reason.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:06PM
And yet the end of it does make it objectively and provably true. Which is why I typed it.
No, there are several different yet similarly violent strains of it currently dominating the Middle East and other areas where Islam is the majority religion. But that's me being a bit pedantic. It is not simply those in power who are pushing for Islamic domination through violence. It is quite popularly supported among the people on the street of Islamic nations as well, last I checked.
Were they convinced of this by those in power or would they have been of the same opinion left to their own devices? It doesn't matter. Their current views are what is relevant. Passive support of the destruction of all that is not Islam is not as dangerous as outright jihadism but it still should not be allowed within our borders willingly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:15PM
It doesn't matter, really?
:?
<sarc>No, no, of course not, understanding why something is happening has nothing to do with formulating effective plans to stop it. What was I thinking? </sarc>
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:25PM
Welcome to conversing with a true believer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:31PM
For the purposes of deciding to allow or disallow immigration, no, it does not. Much like the reason behind a bus is speeding towards you is irrelevant until you are out of its path. What would be relevant is that a bus is speeding towards you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:53PM
I'll go you one better. Some people are terrorists, therefore no people should be allowed to immigrate again. My plan doesn't make any more sense than yours does in terms of solving terrorism, but at least it's not so directly inconsistent with the Constitution.
Seems you're smart enough to realize there's a problem but still don't understand the importance of diagnosing a problem correctly before you prescribe a solution. 'Just do something' is a foolish motto. All too often, those who are the quickest to 'do something' do the wrong damn thing and make it worse. Sometimes, quite often actually, an attack is not really about the damage it does. It's about provoking a specific reaction. Giving them the reaction they seek is not such a great strategy.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:25PM
Caveat? Actions is what is real.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:24AM
> the problem is if you are remotely good at being Islamic, you are a horrible person by western values
Oh shut the fuck up already. You dumbass okie who has never met a muslim in your entire life.
I grew up in Dewey, but then I got the fuck out of dumbassistan and actually met real people who were from other places.
And you know what? They are all the same. Most all of them are decent. They just want to live their lives like anyone else.
The idea that you can't be a good muslim unless you are like ISIS is total fuckwadery
That's what ISIS says. Nobody fucking likes ISIS least of all other muslims.
That's like saying you can't be a christian unless you live like the Lord Resistances Army.
Being muslim isn't defined by what the worst muslim thinks their religion is.
So stop collaborating with the enemy.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:12PM
Free exercise of religion, and freedom of conscience, are fundamental core American values
Well, no. Just as an example: if your religion requires you to practice cannibalism, you will find your freedom rather severely restricted.
The problem with Islam, or at least the branches of it that concern us, is this: They believe that theirs is the only valid religion, and that they are commanded to convert or slay everyone else (do note: this includes other muslims). Islam (by which I mean this fundamentalist branch of the muslim faith), is incompatible with Western values. Simple self-preservation requires that we ban this barbaric ideology. Adherents are welcome to live out their lives in their own countries, but they have no place in ours.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:18PM
People (by which I mean this one really rude guy at work)...
The mind boggles. If you don't mean Islam then quit saying Islam.
The word you are looking for is Wahhabism.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:15PM
...and it's worth mentioning that the chief purveyor of that radical brand of Islam is valued USA.gov "ally"[1] Saudi Arabia (think: religious police).
[1] This "ally" also finances IS/ISIL/ISIS/Daesch.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:36PM
Free exercise of religion, and freedom of conscience, are fundamental core American values. Saying "it's fair game to discriminate" against a religion is dangerous.
Glad you feel that way. People are such a bigots hating on us peaceful Khornites for wanting to chop off their heads upon the field of battle as a ritual of worshiping our lord and savior [wikia.com].
Chaos Undivided is the religion of peace, especially Khorne, the god of war and violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:31PM
qualifies as a cult, like Scientology :)
Games Workshop certainly acts like Scientology's leadership.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:45AM
TMB is right. Islam is mostly an ideology and political system, with a small dab of religion stuck on sideways. For enlightenment, check out Bill Warner's videos (Political Islam on Youtube).
And it's entirely fair and reasonable to discriminate against an ideology, especially one that flat out states its goal is to destroy everything that doesn't submit to it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:49PM
> Islam is not a race. It is an ideology. Those are fair game to discriminate against if you find valid reason.
Islam is not an ideology, it is a culture. Or rather it is a broad group of cultures.
Being muslim means a million different things to a million different people.
Literally all it takes to be a muslim is to follow the five pillars - prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage and belief in god.
Everything beyond that is subject to interpretation and for plenty of people who consider themselves muslim you don't even have to do all five - tons of muslims will never take a pilgrimage. Tons do not pray on a daily basis, some are too stingy or to poor to afford charity. Plenty of muslims don't even consider other muslims to be muslim. Just ask any saudi salafist, they'll tell you the mullahs in iran are not muslim.
Kind of like how millions of evangelicals deny that catholics are christian. [born-again-christian.info]
So, if even muslims can't agree on who is really a muslim, its ignorant to say that islam is an ideology.
Furthermore, race is not genetic. Race is culture. That's why guys like Ben Franklin did not consider Italians, Germans or even Irish to be white. [gutenberg.org]
the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny; Asia chiefly tawny; America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who, with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.
So your reductive complaint that "islam is not a race" is at best meaningless pedantry, but really a confession that you think race is merely biology when the actual definition [oxforddictionaries.com] is far more broad than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:09PM
Nope, we are just at the point where people are trying very hard to keep their prejudice palatable. Fear and prejudice is sneaky and such people aren't evil, just misguided. They feel like their reasoning is justified and don't consider that they are generalizing unfairly. I don't think TMB sees how close he is to it...
I've got a friend who went on and on about how Muslims are inherently violent etc, until I pointed out how Christians have bombed clinics and such. He had to think a bit on that one and pulled back a bit on his judgments. I doubt TMB is willing to adjust, he is too smart for his own good.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:28PM
Christianity, as practiced overall in the modern world, does not preach or even condone violence. Islam does. That is your difference. I am not afraid of Islam or those who follow it any more than I am afraid of lightning strikes. I simply recognize that there is no way to mesh mainstream Islam as it is practiced overall today with western values. Individual cases may vary but the generalization holds. Any attempt at integrating the two will lead to violence as is being witnessed all throughout Europe as we speak.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:51PM
It is already being done. You're so full of baseless presumptions.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:19PM
Fair argument. Incorrect but at least well thought out.
The only possible entry in your link to support your position is 1.2 and it is not in current, popular usage. Certainly not widely enough to be the root meaning of the extremely widely used "racism". Definition 1.1 is clearly the only definition of "race" as involved with the word "racism" [oxforddictionaries.com], unless you are looking to redefine that word.
No, it is simply a simplification of convenience. If you were to take every last interpretation of Islam, give it a name, and replace "Islam" with that name in my statement, it would still be correct. Religions and ideologies are not races as required for the term "racism".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:11PM
> The only possible entry in your link to support your position is 1.2 and it is not in current, popular usage.
I see you do not understand how dictionaries work. The definitions are ordered by the frequency of current usage. That's why the last definition in the list is the one labeled archaic. Thus the second on the list is the second most common usage.
Race as a synonym for culture is used all the time. For example, black music. [nmaam.org] Music isn't genetic. Maybe you'd like to argue that black is not a race?
And similarly islamic architecture [britannica.com]. Architecture can't have an ideology, but it is definitely cultural.
> Certainly not widely enough to be the root meaning of the extremely widely used "racism".
Now that we've established that culture is a commonly used meaning of race. Lets apply that to the definition of racism as you linked and see how well it fits:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own culture is superior
Well, surprise. That's exactly how Trump sees islam.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:40PM
I disagree but for argument's sake, let's go ahead with your definition and conclusion.
And in that he would be absolutely correct. By any objective standard you care to think up, western culture will come out superior to Islamic culture.
Or would you rather throw homosexuals to their deaths from rooftops, restrict women from going to school, driving, walking unescorted, or showing so much as an ankle in public, allow the raping of your wife, punish the women when they are raped, and call for the deaths of anyone not subscribing to western culture? Because that is precisely what Islamic culture would bring you.
It's a valid question. You need to answer it, to yourself at least, before you go promoting cultural equality.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:00PM
> I disagree but for argument's sake, let's go ahead with your definition and conclusion.
No lets not.
Switching to an argument about whether your racism is justified is just a capitulation because you can no longer defend your original statement.
That's all I cared about.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:13PM
Did you fail to notice who Trump appointed to lead the Justice department? Someone who argued in favor of locking up homosexuals.
Your point about people claiming to support Trump does not mean that Trump agrees with those people. However, that point becomes irrelevant when Trump appoints those same people to his cabinet. You can't say that the KKK supporting Trump is irrelevant when Trump appoints a white supremacist as his chief strategist.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:32AM
Look, I don't give a damn about your vaunted notions of culture! What I care about is individual people. By all means, hold individual persons accountable for their actions; you get no argument from me on that point. And I have little patience for someone who wants to be excused for their actions because "it's just a part of my culture". But to hold an individual accountable for the culture they were born into, as if they have complete control over everyone of their neighbours, is just plain stupid. I notice that this is not the first time you have been called out for being rather uncharitable (some might even say mean-spirited) in your views. The fact that you don't seem to learn from your past mistakes does not speak well of you. Frankly, I would expect better from the people who post comments here on SN. If you like, you may consider this my way of trying to positively influence those within my cultural sphere.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:00PM
Islam is not an ideology, it is a culture. Or rather it is a broad group of cultures.
Literally all it takes to be a muslim is to follow the five pillars - prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage and belief in god.
So Islam is not an idology but it entails following a set of doctrines and beliefs... You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Being muslim means a million different things to a million different people.
Yes and they all agree they should follow the Quran. Which describes a set of practices that all good Muslims should follow.
So, if even muslims can't agree on who is really a muslim, its ignorant to say that islam is an ideology.
And all Nazis can't agree on who is really a Nazi, therefore it's ignorant to say Nazism is an ideology.
Everything beyond that is subject to interpretation and for plenty of people who consider themselves muslim you don't even have to do all five
Any doctrine with more than 10 followers has practitioners who half-ass it. That doesn't mean they stop being ideologies, it just means there are people who are bad at them.
Kind of like how millions of evangelicals deny that catholics are christian.
That would be a No True Scotsman which is a well-established logical error.
Furthermore, race is not genetic. Race is culture.
Right. Okay, who let the post-modernist loon in here?
That's why guys like Ben Franklin did not consider Italians, Germans or even Irish to be white.
Ben Franklin is not an anthropologist. His opinion on what consists of race is about as relevant as Ted Stevens's opinion on the nature of the Internet.
So your reductive complaint that "islam is not a race" is at best meaningless pedantry, but really a confession that you think race is merely biology when the actual definition is far more broad than that.
Ah, I see what the problem is. The actual definition depends on what all speakers of a given word agree upon. Most English speakers use only one definition for the word, which is the classification of people based on external traits as it defined in the old anthropological models of classifying humans. Furthermore, since people like you are trying to redefine race as cultural in order to abuse the power of branding people of racist, this creates the logical error where the vilification of racism is justified because people are unable to control their heritable genetic traits, but this would not apply to race(culture) since you can choose not to follow tenets of your own culture. Nice sophism through, I rate it 19/84.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:43AM
Most English speakers use only one definition for the word, which is the classification of people based on external traits as it defined in the old anthropological models of classifying humans.
That's some fancy ad populum fallacy. And your evidence for what "most english speakers" mean is what exactly?
Because essentially all geneticists say there is no biological basis for race. [scientificamerican.com]
For example, Craig Venter of the Human Genome Project: [nytimes.com] ''Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,''
Perhaps what you really mean is that most in the group of bigoted english speakers like yourself.
Do you really want to argue with the previously cited oxford english dictionary? [oxforddictionaries.com] Are you so confident that you think you know better than them what is common usage?
I guess there is no telling a bigot anything he doesn't want to hear.
Why not just own that r-word? Get it off your chest, out in the open.
You will feel so much freer to indulge your true self without the internal restraint of trying to conform to social norms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:47AM
That's some fancy ad populum fallacy.
No, this is literally how language is formed. It's not faulty logic because this is the actual mechanism of action of word formation. That would be like saying it's an ad populum to say that the person who got most votes won the election.
Incidentally, citing the dictionary is actually an argument from authority, because dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. A dictionary does not tell you how you should use words, it tells you how words are being used by people. Furthermore, ignoring the fact that the very same page also lists the definition of race you argue against is cherrypicking.
And your evidence for what "most english speakers" mean is what exactly?
None, this is just my opinion. If you really have to be a contrarian about it, we can agree to disagree.
Because essentially all geneticists say there is no biological basis for race.
I didn't say it is. It's not that unusual for people to use vague and inaccurate definitions, that doesn't mean the definition is wrong. A logically unsound concept can be accurately defined.
Perhaps what you really mean is that most in the group of bigoted english speakers like yourself.
No.
Do you really want to argue with the previously cited oxford english dictionary?
I'm not even sure how exactly one is supposed to argue with a definition. Suppose that OED defined "rock" as a "large blue mouse". How exactly would you argue against it?
Are you so confident that you think you know better than them what is common usage?
Being in the dictionary does not imply it's commonly used. Many words have rare, outdated or domain-specific interpretations. Take hacker for example, some tech nerds use a fairly benign meaning for it, but to most people outside the hacker subculture, it just means someone who illegally breaks into computer systems.
I guess there is no telling a bigot anything he doesn't want to hear.
That's a bit extreme to say about someone based on linguistic disagreements.
Why not just own that r-word? Get it off your chest, out in the open.
You will feel so much freer to indulge your true self without the internal restraint of trying to conform to social norms.
Raspberry!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:05PM
Christianity therefore is not a religion either, by that agument, and thus not protected by 1st Amendment etc either.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:13PM
If a religions belief (Islam, Muslim, or whatever) is that all other religions (Non Islam, Muslim, or whatever) are "Infidels and should be killed", I think that violates the first amendment right there. If you want to argue that statement then why not open the border and invite ISIS to freely invade the USA and do what they've been doing? Freedom of religion right?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:21PM
Seems quite reasonable to me, all considered...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:53PM
You dumbfucks are tiresome. You really want to get into a "pick your favorite line" game? I'm up for it as long as I can use that Old Testament with all it's hateful, incestual passages.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:16PM
Sure, also tally it with the amount of people that have been murdered due to writings in the Old Testament vis-a-vis the Quran in recent history. Tiresome indeed...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:26PM
Sure, also tally it with the amount of people that have been murdered due to writings in the Old Testament vis-a-vis the Quran in recent history.
Christians killed about 100,000 muslims [combatgenocide.org] in the former yugoslavia during the early 1990s.
So, if bodycount is what matters, christianity is looking pretty horrible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:47PM
Where did the New Testament instruct Christians to do that? Were these actions not roundly condemned by (almost) every Western country?
We're getting towards 50,000 human beings murdered by Islamic terrorists in the last 2 years alone. [thereligionofpeace.com] Many of these victims are muslim, as is the case of the (est.) ~275,000,000 people slaughtered in the name of Islam over the last 1400 years.
What you should know is that I am an atheist and opposed to every single one of these murders. Stalin was wrong, loss of human life is not a statistic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:47PM
> Where did the New Testament instruct Christians to do that?
Are you really going to try to retcon the old testament out of modern christianity?
Most christians, especially the orthodox christians who murdered those muslims believe that old testament is official christian canon.
But don't take my word for, here's what Jesus said:
'The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35)
‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3)
‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13)
And the big one:
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.
(Matthew 5:18)
> Were these actions not roundly condemned by (almost) every Western country?
And ISIS has been widely condemned by muslims [google.com] too.
> We're getting towards 50,000 human beings murdered by Islamic terrorists in the last 2 years alone. Many of these victims are muslim
If everyone who is killed by muslims is killed because of religion including other muslims then the rwandan genocide puts the christian bodycount up another 800,000 and that's ignoring a couple of little wars you might have heard of - WWI and WII.
And this is going to be my last response to you because anyone citing an islamofoe webnsite like that is not someone looking for truth, they are someone looking to rationalize bigotry. There is no honor or humanity in debating with someone doing that because there is no possibility to change minds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:36PM
Orthodox christians say Old Testament does not matter now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:03PM
The Ottomans didn't conquer these lands until the 15th Century and following the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Bosnian situation escalated because an independence referendum was voted on in the absence of the Serbs (together with Croats, they made up around 60% of the population). It was Pakistan that violated the UN embargo on the supply of arms and turned the situation to complete shit. The KLA didn't start shooting Serbian police until the late '90s. I suggest that the the usual list of suspects get the blame. [counterpunch.org] You cannot seriously be suggesting that orthodox Christians woke up one morning and decided to start massacring muslims apropos of nothing but religious compulsion?
This was a post-colonial tribal war, the Tutsi comprised both Christians and Muslims. The original point of contention was not religion.
Err, no! These wars were simply not fought over religion.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:04AM
Compared to what? By some estimates, Islamic jihad has killed around 270 MILLION people across 1400 years. A fairly comprehensive overview, well worth an hour of your time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y [youtube.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:20AM
> By some estimates,
Grow up. No one neutral has made such estimates, only outright bigots.
If you insist on citing outright bigots, that makes you an outright bigot too.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:06PM
I didn't see the video and have no intention of seeing it, but the fear of both the Israeli and the Palestinians is rational. If you look back through just a few decades of history you can easily see that they both have extremely rational reasons for fear. Currently the Israelis have more power, and they are using it abusively, but this doesn't mean that their fears are irrational. If you just go back a few decades (years?) every single country neighboring to Israel was endeavoring to destroy the country. Frequently with explicitly anti-jewish slogans. In the case of the Palestinians you only need to go back a week or so. (I don't follow the news carefully, it could have been yesterday.)
The problem is there's a quite small parcel of land and two quite immiscible groups are both trying to live there. They both have valid reasons to distrust the other. And given the history of the reason I'm tempted to say there are no good guys there, though when talking of individuals rather than governments and quasi-governmental groups I know this is false.
Now it's clearly wrong to judge a video by it's title, but your post was essentially asking me to do just that, so this is my response.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:22AM
> didn't see the video and have no intention of seeing it, but the fear of both the Israeli and the Palestinians is rational.
Since when did muslim mean palestinian and when did jew mean israeli?
You sound even worse than Flynn.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ledow on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:38PM
Trump had/has racist views.
Whether he's 70 years old, white or male is not an excuse (it may be a "reason", but it doesn't excuse such behaviour, and any normally intelligent and well-adjusted person should be capable of stopping their instinctive, embedded, brainwashed reaction and insert common sense in its place).
Whether it's a part of the program? Almost certainly. Nigel Farage in the UK is inherently racist as well (though he's been trying to deny that a lot recently), that's why they get on so well. But over here that generated disgust and only ONE constituency (a constituency full of white, working class people - I know because my parents are in that place, and voted for him) actually gave him any kind of influence. Which, because in the UK it's basically useless, he's tried to take to America where your equivalent has just been voted president.
Did Trump being racist - which is a FACT if you only look at what he says - affect his chances? Apparently not. That's the scary part you should concern yourself with. Enough people didn't care about his casual racism that he still got in anyway, whereas in other countries, that group of people were in the minority.
What level of racism is behind him (does he just not like others, is it an instinctual reaction because of upbringing or generation, does he have a personal vendetta, would he go so far as to evict, or murder, or whatever) is unknown, but it's undeniable that he is racist. Like my parents. Like a lot of people I know. Like a lot of people I've distanced myself from. Like a lot of voters in both countries. Like a lot of people I went to school with, and like EVEN MORE of their parents and their parents.
But racism is being accepted, not called out, not generating shock. That's the disgusting part. Especially for a country built of immigrants and invaders.
Just the talk about walls, and "Mexicans" (as a grouping), and so on is dangerous and racist.
To be honest, quite a lot of the world is now disgusted with you, America. You have failed to convince your friends, your family, your colleagues, that a racist is what he is (undeniable) and that you shouldn't have a racist in charge of the country.
Just imagine for a second someone brought up in the immediate post-war era, 1946, after victory over an evil warlord who was inherently racist and pretty much invented concepts, groups and techniques that didn't exist before in order to apply such racism to the world. Someone who has acquired those racist views post-war, propagated those racist views through adulthood, and still holds them in his geriatric life. And DOESN'T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. What the hell kind of an influence do you think such a person is going to exert on the world, whether he was "just joking" or "just building controversy" (an excuse I've heard from lots of people), in an era where we've now got the ability to discover, detain and deport people en-masse?
He's scary. Scary not because he's directly threatening, but because he's an indicator of the populous and their prejudices and desires.
And, like a Milgram experiment, I wouldn't want to be within a thousand miles of him, or anyone who supports him.
You guys have elected a fucking idiot into an election (the first scary part) and then into power because you "didn't want to vote for the other one" or whatever your reasoning was. And now you even attack people who voted third-party (i.e. didn't want to vote for either of the candidates that they DON'T WANT in power), didn't vote or whatever.
You guys cooked your goose. Rather than try to justify it, try to fix it. Or it's going to be a very lonely world.
I'm actually disgusted by my own country's leader's response to such an action occurring as they went into immediate "we welcome him" bullshit mode rather than just stand up and say "We don't deal with racist, sexist, fraudulent bankrupts, sorry. Come back when you show people some respect."
Maybe it will pass without incident, but all that will go to show is that you will still think it's acceptable to vote morally repugnant people into power still.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:52PM
Take some solace in the fact that Trump is more than 1.3 million votes behind [cnn.com] and by the time the last ballot is counted will probably be more than 2 million votes behind. He still "won" the election, but no president has ever "won" by so many negative votes. In fact the first time a president won with any negative votes in over a century was Bush. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't take any solace in that...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:37PM
I take solace in the fact that the REACTION to Trump will drive progressive values forward.
Had HRC been elected, we'd be toying with nuclear confrontation with Russia over who gets to build a pipeline through Syria because had HRC set up a no-fly zone, we'd eventually be looking at shooting down a Russian plane or backing off. And through the entire process, establishment Democrats would have sat on their thumbs whistling quietly to themselves and never saying one word of protest.
It is odd that the only time progressive values get an airing, is when the GOP has power, but that's the fact we live with now, at least until the DNC finally implodes.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:56PM
You know, that hadn't occurred to me. It does fit with virtually every advancement in civil rights coming through Republicans though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:06PM
> It is odd that the only time progressive values get an airing, is when the GOP has power, ]
Oh please. Obamacare happened when dems had all the power, they spent nearly all of it on obamacare, but the GOP was not in power.
Gay marriage happened under Obama.
Trans rights became a big deal under Obama.
Tons of green energy stuff happened under Obama.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:06PM
Oh please, the Democrat's greatest modern achievement is getting a less liberal version of Nixon's Healthcare Plan passed (no individual mandate in Nixon's version): http://khn.org/news/nixon-proposal/ [khn.org]
If anything, that proves the secondary point, which is that the job of the GOP is to propose rightwing shit, and the job of the DNC is to make it the new normal. Rinse and repeat till we're at the point where "liberal democrats" are bombing weddings all over the Middle East, spying on everyone in violation of the 4th amendment, building the largest prison state on the planet, and militarizing the police force while at the same time, working their darndest to make sure nobody else but their cops and personal bodyguards have weapons.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:59AM
the job of the GOP is to propose rightwing shit, and the job of the DNC is to make it the new normal
Yup. Since George McGovern (the Blues' candidate in 1972) got skunked, the Blues have been running away from their base (assuming those folks have nowhere else to turn) and courting the Red base.
Now would be a good point to mention that it was Jimmy Carter who started the deregulation mania.
In this (meta)thread, I already linked to Clintonism. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [truth-out.org]
That's exactly what The Working Class rejected this time around.
Now, whether the choice of a replacement was wise, we'll have to wait and see.
(My bet is on NO.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:10PM
Responding to your other points:
Gay rights was a Supreme Court thing, not an Obama thing. In fact he spent a lot of presidency denying certain rights to gay couples where one person worked for the Feds that other married couples have.
Obama has nothing to do with Trans rights, and for that matter, Trump doesn't think its an issue.
Green energy - right, look at DAPL -- Obama's response to a company building a pipeline across Indian Territory because NIMBYs in Bismark didn't want it? "I'll ask the company to hold off". It ignores him. Apparently, Obama is totally powerless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:14AM
As far as I care, the only thing Obama achieved in 8 years in office was open the door to buying Cuban cigars soon. Everything else was nothing but a clusterfuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:29AM
> Gay rights was a Supreme Court thing, not an Obama thing.
With two of his appointees in the majority. It is almost like you don't understand what power the president has.
> In fact he spent a lot of presidency denying certain rights to gay couples where one person worked for the Feds that other married couples have.
He repealed DATA. He extended rights to federal employees before the scotus ruling.
> Obama has nothing to do with Trans rights, and for that matter,
It was the DoJ that said trans kids can use the bathroom in school.
The DoJ run by his appointees.
> Trump doesn't think its an issue.
If you think the DoJ is going to actively pursue title IX protections for trans people under Trump you are delusional.
Frankly your response is pretty damn intellectually dishonest. Not only do you downplay, even lie, about the progress made in the last 8 years you warmly embrace making the perfect the enemy of the good. When you do that you enable the worst rather than encourage the best. It makes you an accomplice of the forces you claim to oppose. I'm sure it makes you feel warm with righteousness. But screw you for collaborating.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:41AM
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was pushed to the forefront by the Log Cabin Republicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
and in fact Obama completely screwed the gay community by repealing DADT prior to the pending legal precedent.
Gay marriage nationally was midwifed from Hollingsworth v. Perry, which was argued in part by Theodore Olson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson#cite_note-11 [wikipedia.org]
founding member of the Federalist Society.
Best bit from the wki article-
In September 2007, Olson was considered by the Bush administration for the post of Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. The Democrats, however, were so vehemently opposed that Bush nominated Michael Mukasey instead.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:56PM
The author provided a hell of a lot of evidence to back up his position. You have not. I am thus disinclined to give your statements credence.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:18PM
And we're disinclined to accept your defense that you're not prejudiced. Your arguments in this thread so far are just vague sidesteps.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:31PM
You seem to be arguing as if I am defending Trump. I am not. I am poking holes in faulty arguments. Thus you are either attempting to construct a strawman or you are simply mistaken. I'll be generous and assume the latter.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:57PM
Nope it wasn't about defending trump, you are defending against accusations of "racist" in a more general sense not just specifically trump. I made it pretty clear, you have obviously prejudiced views to the point where I do wonder if you're racist. Personally I think its more likely you're just a white guy who is not comfortable around other cultures and has internalized some fear mongering propaganda about Muslims. But that is ME being generous. Nice try with your own strawman.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:58PM
Perhaps, but what then of Clinton? Trump's views even if you take the media at its word, which you probably shouldn't, are probably not any worse than other people of his generation. But, the Clinton's mass incarceration of people of color under their get tough on crime policies were far and away worse.
What's more, they haven't apologized or even explained why she would have been different from her husband when he was President.
Also, Trump is a lot of things, but he's not a homophobe and it seems really strange to me that somebody who is a supporter of LGBTQ rights is being portrayed as a hopeless bigot. At bare minimum, that shows that he can grow as a human being as opposed to Clinton who only seems to grow when and in ways that the polling data demands.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:11PM
> What's more, they haven't apologized or even explained why she would have been different from her husband when he was President.
That's just false. They've both done it on television multiple times. She even said during the debate it was a mistake.
Furthermore her platform included a comprehensive plan for criminal justice reform. [hillaryclinton.com] Mass incarceration is the first issue mentioned on that page, literally the third sentence. But who cares about facts, amirite?
> that somebody who is a supporter of LGBTQ rights is being portrayed as a hopeless bigot.
Because if you aren't a bigot about everything then you can't be a bigot.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:39PM
Would that be her public personae that changed or her private one?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:14PM
Uh, yeah.
Rand Paul was similarly beaten with the racist stick
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/chris-hayes-rand-paul-racist_n_3570440.html [huffingtonpost.com]
and yet also supports criminal justice reform
https://www.randpaul2016.com/news/keep-pushing-criminal-justice-reform [randpaul2016.com]
so which is it then?
Well if the candidate is left, it is obvious proof that they are not racist, but if right, proof that you can be racist and support criminal justice reform (and obviously just for white people), amiright?
It's exactly this type of double-dealing that leads to the left being openly mocked- you too have racist in your midst, and wrapping yourselves in the cloth as free from any type of bigotry actual promotes racism, as there can be no honest discussion about racism.
And quite frankly, I care less that Trump might burn crosses in people's lawn as recreation as much as I'm concerned with actual polices. Stop and frisk is an abomination regardless of what race you are, but instead of holding his feet to the fire on that on constitutional grounds, the left resorts to petty name calling that does nothing, accomplishes nothing, and in fact makes the situation worse by directing the attention to identity politics (yes Esmeralda, that's racist too) instead of actual actions that affects people's lives.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Francis on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:36PM
No, because people who aren't homophobic are usually not racist. Racism is generally less socially acceptable than homophobia is. I'm sure there are examples out there of people that are racist, but not homophobic, but it's not something that's common.
As far as Clinton's campaign goes, that's a load of crap. I take it you haven't seen the video of her ejecting a black lives matter protester and then at the tail end of the video saying that she has to get back to the issues. Whether or not you consider the #BLM to be right, it's asinine to suggest that it isn't an important issue of the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXv6G6_d-lQ [youtube.com] this is just one of the videos, there are others with comentary by other groups, but she has shown no shame nor did she give anybody reason to believe that she's had a change of heart. I don't know why the black voters didn't show up for her as much as they might have, but, having made a lot of them felons over pointless BS definitely didn't help. It turns out that if you take away people's right to vote that they have a tendency to not show up to vote. Funny how that works.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:07PM
Everybody has/had racist views.
Is it only a bad thing when White people do it? One of the bigger problems here is that people in places to influence public perception are picking and choosing which kind of racism is okay and which isn't.
Racism is racism is bad, whether or not it is against Whites or Blacks or every shade in between -- even those filthy Latinos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:20PM
Why'd you mod this troll?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:39PM
last four words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:54PM
Heh, ya well I have a memory and on multiple occasions EF has stated he is at least part Latino so those last words are a joke as far as I can tell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:38PM
Trump a good boy. He dindu nuffin.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:12PM
Or perhaps they simply noticed that HRCs racism is professional, not casual, and voted for the lesser evil.
"Just the talk about walls, and "Mexicans" (as a grouping), and so on is dangerous and racist."
No, it's not, actually. The wall is a stupid idea, but no one has proposed that it discriminate based on race. Generalizing about "Mexicans" is probably also a stupid idea in most contexts, but again there is no element of race involved. Mexican is a nationality, not a race. Is it racist to generalize about Canadians? If I notice that Brits often have bad teeth does that make me a racist? C'mon. Words have meanings, and not everything is about race.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:26PM
HRC is elitist, not racist. Do not conflate the two. Its "fun" seeing the mental gymnastics done to defend Trump.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by stretch611 on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:42PM
yes, we voted this idiot into office. Yes, I agree that he is racist, sexist, and a general asshat.
BUT... under no circumstance should you think that the US is full of people (or even a majority) that condone racism, or sexism, or a general hatred of islam/muslims. To think that we all said that we prefer a racist to someone that isn't (and I'm not sure if HRC is or isn't) is just stupid.
In many cases, the presidential vote has become a referendum on the current president. Many people that are doing better now then they were 4 years ago vote for the same party as the current president. Consequently, if they are doing worse they tend to vote for the other party. If the economy is squeezing the life blood out of you like a vice grip around your balls, you are going to vote with who you think will change that, regardless if you think they are a racist or not in many cases. While Wall St has been doing well, the average american has not been nearly as lucky. Guess what, HRC has been making the rounds to the Wall St elite, telling them how things won't change with her as president, Trump was telling people he would bring about the needed change and he is not a career politician. While I do not believe Trump to be honest, I think he did convince many people that he would be better than Clinton.
As for 3rd party candidates, the 2 parties in power as well as the media claim that voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away because they never win. Sadly they have convinced many of the people that this is true and that leads to a self-fufilling prophecy... the more people that believe this lie, the more accurate it is. On the plus side we had more people vote 3rd party this year, than any other year since 1996 with Ross Perot. With a 2 party system, you only have to produce a candidate slightly better than the other one to win. This had lead to a steep decline in quality and will continue until people wake up to the fact a 3rd party is viable if people truly want change.
TL/DR:
Just because we voted for the lesser of 2 evils, does not mean we condone the policies of the winner.
Non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent of the U.S. Half of those are women. So Trump has made bigoted remarks to about 68.5% of our population. While I am part of the 31.5% of white male population even I find Trump offensive. Myself, like the majority of the US should not be considered racist just because that idiot was voted in.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:14PM
For many people in many parts of the world, you crossed a line.
A red line, that unlike Obama's is Syra is real.
Politics is politics and people will work with Trump (and even give him the benefit of doubt for a while, plus Hillary wasn't exactly loved either in many places).
But for quite a while to come, I wouldn't expect there to be much respect for US citizens as a group.
There is no question there is a huge amount of very decent people living in the US. And people have gotten used to things like your broken judicial system, broken 2-party system etc., but to many at this point it doesn't matter whether you voted for someone who says horrible things all the time because you agree with them, or because you failed to ensure you have a better alternative (and whether he meant them matters even less).
If you want to be taken seriously and respected (I mean not in the "like Saudi Arabia" way due to pure political/military/whatever power) then show you at least care enough to fix your shit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:29AM
Actually, I was all set to vote Libertarian until Gary Johnson flaked out and made himself look like a total pothead! Considering that the Republican ticket was such an inappropriate travesty, the Libertarians could have easily picked up two to four states in the electoral college this election cycle and really caused seismic changes to the American political landscape. In fact, they had a real chance of winning this time, seeing as they were the real Republicans in this election running against an obvious charlatan. But, no, Gary Johnson made himself look totally pig ignorant on foreign affairs. (And not just once but at least two or three times!) So, Libertarians, listen up! While I understand that you guys take a much more isolationist stance than most other political parties, that is no excuse for being so completely ignorant of the world outside our borders. Considering that one of the (more important?) powers enumerated to the President by the Constitution is Commander in Chief, it behooves you to know the issues that he (or she) might likely encounter during their term in office. And let me tell you, if I know more about foreign affairs than the candidate, then you are not at all ready to assume the role of Commander in Chief. Stop your navel gazing. You have four years to prepare and educate yourselves for the next election. I suggest you use your time wisely.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:02PM
He's scary. Scary not because he's directly threatening, but because he's an indicator of the populous and their prejudices and desires.
Trump played the electorate exactly as if he were negotiating one of his business deals. Promise whatever gets him in, worry about the particulars afterwards. He has to translate that to political power now, in business he got his foot in the door and then turned to his lawyers to get him concessions until he had what he really wanted. It is a different game now and he has to learn as he goes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tonyPick on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:44PM
Disagree, based on the things he's actually said [1]: For example http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/ [fortune.com]
And... the article data doesn't seem to have the data to falsify those things: only presented a few of the more scripted Republican campaign messages on minorities, and noting that the things he's said don't seem to have affected his polling numbers as much as you'd expect, and they don't break down as neatly on race lines as a result. Articles like this one would seem to back up http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/us-election-results-and-state-by-state-maps/, [telegraph.co.uk] and there isn't much else there.
So I'm unconvinced that the opening premise follows on from the data presented.
[1] Admittedly, there might be quotes lying around of the Bush family sitting around saying things like this, from the John O'Donnel book, but you'd have thought we'd have heard about it:
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:02PM
A well thought out response. Not a comprehensive one, mind, but it is of the quality I was hoping for after RTFA-ing earlier this week and seeing it in the queue. Cheers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:27PM
Also, the article does not mention the people that Trump is appointing, like Stephen Bannon and the fact that he and his father had to settle racism charges relating to their property business.
Just because not everything he says is racist, does not make him not racist.
The article has stupid things like this:
He appointed one of the alt-right's organizers to his cabinet. He ignores that Breitbart news is aimed at the alt-right.
This article is a poorly constructed attempt at a whitewash, using the simplistic idea that you can just ignore any facts that are contrary to the author's views.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:37PM
had to settle racism charges relating to their property business.
I take it you have never owned/rented property. There are a lot of crazy people out there. They will say *anything* to fuck over a property owner. My father is currently fighting sexual harassment charges. Want to know what he was trying to do? Taking his client to lunch and collect rent. He does that for all of his clients. He has done that since the 60s. She wanted to maneuver it so he could not kick her out or raise the rent on her. My dad screwed up and did not research her. This is the 3rd landlord she has done this to. Many times settling is cheaper and easier if they only just GTFO of the building and out of your life. Do not put too much stock in 'racism' charges and someone who is being thrown out. If you dig a bit deeper you would probably find many missed rent payments and lots of yelling in phone calls as they dodged the rent. Then to drag it on even longer they decided to file racism charges.
Just because not everything he says is racist, does not make him not racist.
Yet you go on to conclude he is. You are suffering from cognitive dissonance. You are trying to 'whitewash' the facts so they continue to fit the narrative you believe to be true. Of the two candidates only one had a heavy hand in punishing blacks and 'superpreditors'. The 3 strikes law that Hillary Clinton and her husband promoted and helped get passed did more to damage black and hispanic communities. One purposefully joined a whites only golf club. One purposefully changed their club to be mixed. I also believe both of the candidates were equally racist.
He appointed one of the alt-right's organizers to his cabinet
Yeah and Obama basically appointed the list of people citibank wanted. After spending a year saying we need change away from that. What is your point? Most first year cabinet people will be gone by this time next year. Your only qualms against the guy is he is 'alt-right'. That is not a good argument against him.
This article is a poorly constructed attempt at a whitewash
Interesting conclusion. Perhaps if you re-read it with a bit of an open mind instead of 'I am going to ignore all the points' you would realize you have been lied to. These are lies you want to believe. Not lies that are true or false. That is how our media works now. They tell you half truths that you want to hear. News and politics is a persuasion game. Persuasion is all about making the other guy look bad. Don't think persuasion is effective? Then you must only buy generic items and have no idea what the difference between coke and pepsi is. You can not hum an old theme song to a tv show or quote a famous line from a movie. Persuasion is so ingrained into our society we do not even really see it anymore.
I will now make a prediction. You and others who have read this, that disagree, are mad at me. What you are feeling is natural. It is not that I am wrong and you are right or the other way around. You have been confronted with a world view that does not match your own. People do not like the idea that they are wrong. It makes them mad. Set aside your anger and take into consideration that there are different views on what you perceive as facts. I personally turned off the news in 2000. The news I was listening to was even telling me what I wanted to hear! This year has been one giant confirmation bias for me in the world view of the news does not have news. It has opinion disguised as news. I have not heard anything that will change my opinion on these talking heads. From what I have been seeing these news orgs are hemorrhaging money. One major org I heard of was bleeding 200million a year on an income of 300 with a spend of 500. Yet political organizations are propping them up. Why would they do that? Because propaganda in the form of news is effective.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:35PM
The article includes this:
Please, would someone tell me where in that quote Trump refers to illegal immigrants? The author has simply imagined it in some weak attempt to show that what is obviously racist is not racist. Combined with Trump's statements on the judge in the Trump University case, Trump has clearly demonstrated outright racism in relation to Mexicans.
The author goes on to attempt some kind of moral equivalency with statements by Bill Clinton and John McCain, both of which are explicit about illegal immigrants, but in any case, more equivalency does not remove the racism from Trump's statement.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:45PM
You're being willfully blind. Stop that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:04PM
LOL.
That's that the article author is doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:31PM
Many things are "obvious" and false. The Earth is not flat just because that matches your subjective observations of it.
Combined with Trump's statements on the judge in the Trump University case
Bullshit for a number of reasons, most egregious of which is is the faulty assumption that increasing the volume of circumstantial evidence is definite proof.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:39PM
Why is it okay for the National Council of the [Mexican] Race, the NAACP, the [Jewish] ADL, the Council of American-Islamic Relations, the various Congressional Racial Caucuses to all exist, but anything that could be a united political front for European Americans is instantly assumed to be a new KKK-SS?
At a certain point "racist" and every other left-insult becomes so overused that it has lost any meaning to the point it is becoming a badge of honor on the alt-right.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:22PM
As far as I can tell, it's because white people have done bad things in the past, and many still do today, and while all of those other people have done bad things in the past and still do today, it's different, because they're white, and white people organizing is scary and racist, while people who aren't white doing so are just protecting themselves (from the white people (who have been guilty of doing basically the same bad things they did)).
No one is really innocent of harming anyone else. Some people just have better PR about it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:41PM
Lololol, racist isn't a "left insult", you can go ahead and call all the white haters racist. See, this is part of the issue. You trump supporters just want to ignore all the problems by pretending they aren't there. Why can't we have "white" clubs? Because there is a whole group that coopted that concept to promote racism. There are German/French clubs etc, so your argument is full of trump promises.... Bullshit.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:56PM
but anything that could be a united political front for European Americans is instantly assumed to be a new KKK-SS?
Yeah, strange, ain't it! But maybe ya think that it might have something to do with history, and how nice all these "white" identity groups engaged in violence and oppression and were in general not very nice?
At a certain point "racist" and every other left-insult becomes so overused that it has lost any meaning to the point it is becoming a badge of honor on the alt-right.
So you are trying to say, in that uniquely intellectually impaired fashion that only white supremicists can pull off, is that only racists can call each other racist? Seriously, you want to add an "R" word? You stupid racist! Racist, racist, racist!!!! Racist! And I really suspect that you have some Saracen blood. Did not some of your ancestry come from the Iberian penisland?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:38PM
For the same reason it's okay for Apple (not a monopoly) to do things that Microsoft (a monopoly) cannot. Only one is an abuse of power.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fritsd on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:58PM
It's an easy question to answer if you reason from principles:
Such a united political front for European Americans (whatever definition you choose for those) is okay, as long as they demand to have equal rights to other groups in America e.g. Mexicans, Negroes, Jews, Muslims.
And it is not okay if they demand to have more rights than (any!) other group.
If you need to ask why, try figuring it out yourself from principles, it is not difficult, and I'm not even a lawyer.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:25PM
As an Asian, I demand to have parity with blacks when it comes to affirmative action, and further demand white have parity with me when it comes to income and educational attainment (sick of dumbass white people).
Oh, wait, that's not what you meant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BK on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:18AM
First principles... wow.
Done! I appoint you spokesman! I don't know who you are or where you're from but the whole world is just a plane ride away. So... I'll meet you in Chicago -- we'll get organized, have our first presser, and then have a protest march. I'll let you lead the march since it was your idea. We'll be protesting that this sportsball team [nba.com] clearly has racist hiring practices! In the USA, 70%+ of the population is "white" (according to this [census.gov]). Less than 20% of the population is black. Less than 20% of the population is Hispanic (overlaps with black, white, and other racial designators). Which means that the Chicago Sportsball team is racist!
And since the NAACP and La Raza and whatnot only want equality based on first principles, I'm sure they'll join us! It'll be fun!
</sarcasm>
No. When you hold that press conference, they'll call you a racist. Identity politics is not about equality. It's about identity. In this case, racial identity.
I sense that you may be rationalizing -- sure the sportsball team is racist to the detriment of some races... but in the larger society it's different. But that's not how it works. Identity groups advocate for their advantage where they see particular injustice. If they win, they move on to the next thing. If they go past equality... they still move on... it's still a victory.
From GP:
If you really want to get back to first principles, it's not. These groups and their members are all racists [google.com]. That we don't all recognize and call them such is (mostly) leftist shame and PC doublespeak.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:14PM
Straw man.
Neither the Ku Klux Klan nor your Chicago Sportsball team are in a position of power. People are free to join another sportsball team or another "walking around in sheets scaring people" team. They are NOT free to join another US government or US judiciary, therefore the rules are stricter for governments than for your examples.
A homeless man on a soapbox ranting about how everything is the fault of <some_minority> can be walked past (with a little detour). A police commissioner or NSA general ranting about how everything is the fault of those <some_minority> can not be walked past or ignored.
There are exceptions for politicians in parliament: as long as they're not in government, they are allowed to say much *more* negative shit about <some_minority> than common people.
See for example the first trial of Geert Wilders [wikipedia.org].
But there are still discrimination laws.
See for example, the *current* trial of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands [theguardian.com]. It's not mentioned on Wikipedia. He had carefully prepared a speech, anticipating the shouts of his audience:
GW: "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands?"
public: "FEWER!"
GW: "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands?"
public: "FEWER! FEWER!"
GW: "Then we are going to take care of that."
He's trying to blame the judge, get her fired, blame the system, he's completely innocent, refuses to show up for his trial etc. etc.
But where he went wrong is subtle:
He could have shouted "Do you want more or fewer of those Moroccans who are criminals in the Netherlands?"
He could have shouted "Do you want more or fewer of those Moroccans who are islamists in the Netherlands?"
He could have shouted "Do you want more or fewer of those Moroccans who are rapists in the Netherlands?"
But, he didn't. On purpose. And that's discrimination. No Moroccan(*) can be blamed for being of Moroccan descent. It's their parents' fault :-)
Geert Wilders will probably be sentenced to a few thousand euro fine. He might still win the election, though.
(*) The Dutch call "Moroccan" anybody who's looking a bit swarthy and whose forefathers probably came from the Maghreb. One, two or three generations ago. If they're Dutch citizens born in the Netherlands, doesn't matter. See also "allochtoon" and "naffer".
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:23PM
This "position of power" nonsense is another example of situational ethics. If a company has disproportionate hiring of "South Asians" that's likely a crime, then so too should it be for the Sportsball teams. You seem to be saying that discrimination is okay because your ethical system cannot be applied without counting skin color. And that's the height of racism.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:19PM
I wasn't aware that you can get paid for being in a Sportsball team; I don't actually really know what Sportsball means. So maybe you're right.
I don't know what you mean here. But I don't mean that it's ok to be racist, not even if you're racist to people with the same skin colour as you :-)
I grew up in a time and place where almost everyone was white, and racist and sexist jokes were the norm. I remember the first time I played with kids who were a different colour than me, because it was quite the novelty and a bit scary.
So maybe you have detected that I am somehow subliminally racist, I don't know. I don't intend to be racist, is all I can say in defense.
Nowadays and where I live now is quite mixed, the tiny village I live in has doubled in size with all the real Syrian, Afghani, Eritrean and other refugees. I don't interact a lot with my new neighbours because I'm depressed. But I don't see them as inferior to me. And whenever I pay taxes, it goes partially to feed, clothe & house them.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday November 21 2016, @12:27AM
Probably worth looking it up before labeling a straw-man argument. I even provided a link. These guys get paid VERY well. Just like their sportsball counterparts in the Netherlands [wikipedia.org].
Anyway, this is Sportsball [knowyourmeme.com].
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday November 21 2016, @12:38AM
Fritsd:
The straw man was yours. I just destroyed it for you since you left it in command of the field.
Fritsd:
Your acceptable united political front would still be labeled racist [google.com]. That the others named aren't is just hypocrisy. Your possible acceptable front is the straw man.
If you really believed in this... well then hopefully you can move on.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @05:52PM
" Negroes, "
RACIST!
Oh, now you've angered the leftist looneys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:43PM
This is the problem with that mentality: https://www.google.com/search?q=whites+only&rlz=1CAACAO_enUS674US681&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=943&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ [google.com]
In this country "white people" have privileges that people who are not "white" do not because they don't have "white people" color. If you can look at all those pictures and still not see the problem then try this:
The "White people" have a *history* of oppressing
1) the original people of this land. Look up "Trail of Tears" for *1* example;
2) African Americans -- slavery for 200+ years; Jim Crow laws. Does anything else need to be said?
3) Asian people -- first by limiting how many could immigrate into this country, then putting them in internment camps, then limiting how many could get a college education;
4) Jewish people with covenant laws, job discrimination;
5) Hispanic people -- find out what happened to the hispanic people living in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma when they were annexed by the U.S.
6) Anybody "not white".
The groups like the Anti-Defamation League didn't get formed so that "special" groups could get ahead in America. They got formed because *white people* oppressed them as a *matter of fact*. Those organizations exist to PROTECT minorities FROM white people. Does that help you understand the situation?
It's not white people who were put in slavery or had their property stolen from them or banned from immigrating into America or forbidden to get a college education or can't live in certain communities because they are white.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:48PM
Is this author pretending that an endorsement of Donald Trump didn't appear on the cover of the official newspaper of the KKK [twimg.com]? Or that there was public support from David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK [cnn.com]?
Donald Trump organized an effort to prevent any of his properties from renting to black people [fortune.com], and was sued for it by the Nixon administration. He apparently was told to do this by his father, Fred, who just happened to have been arrested at a KKK rally [washingtonpost.com], which suggests even if it doesn't prove that he might have been a Klansman himself.
According to Ivana Trump, he liked to read Hitler's speeches [vanityfair.com].
I agree that Democrats do themselves no favors by screaming "racism" at every turn. But in this case, there is substantial evidence that Trump is or at least has been racist. I don't think he's led the lynch mobs, nor do I think he's bandied about the n-word or something, but I have good reason to think that he believes that different opportunities ought to be available for black people than for white people.
I also don't think that racists form the core of his base of support: A lot of people who voted Trump did so simply because they saw Hillary Clinton as a dangerous, corrupt, power-hungry, warmongering liar. Which she is.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:03PM
His father was a robe-wearing KKK member. [vice.com]
It wasn't the southern KKK, a more genteel, New York City KKK.
But still, the KKK.
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:36PM
I hereby endorse Thexalon. See what I did there?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:48PM
> I hereby endorse Thexalon. See what I did there?
How does that work? You agree with thexalon's positions?
No?
Then is it your contention that the KKK is lying about endorsing Trump? That they are trolling the country?
Because you gotta be a special kind of stupid to believe that.
And if your point is that you can't stop some rando from endorsing you, then you are willfully missing the point.
The KKK endorsed Trump because they see him as an ally. They know racism when they see it because they like it.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:03AM
Duke also endorsed Ronnie Ray-gun. I'm not necessarily trying to make any point by stating this, but I felt like it should be mentioned.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jiro on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:59PM
He covers that in the article; did you read it?
That's a lawsuit from 1973. Given the length of time it takes for the government to get a lawsuit together, that means that the property was under the control of his father at the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:41PM
Are you seriously suggesting that we should judge people by who decides to endorse them? If so... well Hitler and Stalin endorsed left-wing politics, so I hope you are not a leftist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:06PM
Hitler was a Fascist.
Stalin was a Totalitarian.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:16AM
Hitler and Stalin on disagreed on the means to create a socialist society. They both agreed it took violence just upon who and the amount to seize and who was in control afterwards was the disagreement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:53AM
Nothing could be farther away from Socialism than Fascism.
Pastor Niemoller's warning about victims of Fascism SPECIFICALLY mentions Communists and Trade Unionists. [wikipedia.org]
Your ignorance has no rival.
When Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin took over, all efforts toward the Soviet brand of "Socialism" ended.
They occasionally paid lip service to "Communism", but it was a ruse.
Stalin's regime was Authoritarian; that's the OPPOSITE of Socialism.
I suggest you start becoming informed by investigating the 1932-1933 famine in the Ukraine which was caused by Stalin.
Your ignorance of History, Economic systems, and Governmental forms is immense.
You do, however, have a great willingness to swallow bullshit from sources with a propaganda agenda.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Reziac on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:23AM
This sounds a great deal like the, um, disagreement between the Sunnis and Shiites. One philosophy, two implementations.
And answer me this: Since people don't generally come to socialism on their own ... who enforces it??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:43AM
Socialism starts in the workplace.
If you don't have that, what you have isn't Socialism.
What you are describing is Authoritarianism.
(You've swallowed too much Cold War bullshit.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 21 2016, @12:16AM
Back to the same question: So we've got a workplace. Now we're going to take it away from the owner and give it to the workers. So far so good.
Who makes it happen? Cuz business owners aren't likely to give up their investment just cuz someone asks 'em. It required enforcement.
Oh, you say it starts with the workers? Show me where that's happened. No administration (authority), no enforcement, just workers agreeing to it and the whole thing not falling apart first time someone comes up a slacker.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @03:32AM
You don't understand Socialism or worker-owned cooperatives in the slightest.
...and it appears that you're making an effort to be obstinate rather than trying to become enlightened.
The narrow-mindedness of you folks who can -only- think in (Capitalist) terms of top-down and using force in order to accomplish things is particularly disgusting.
I have linked to Maracora law already in this (meta)thread.
I suggest that you find that, read that comment, and click the link to become informed.
.
Now, when an -existing- company is "taken over", that is typically because the goddamned blood-sucking corporation has failed the workers/community and is getting ready to desert it.
...and the new (worker-)owners do a MUCH better job of running the joint.
Part 2 (after the takeover)
Can Worker-Owners Make a Big Factory Run? [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [labornotes.org]
Part 1 (the takeover)
Mexican Workers Win Ownership of Tire Plant [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [labornotes.org]
Another example (multiple ownership changes; same kinds of slimy Capitalist ownership)
Chicago factory occupiers form worker cooperative [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [libcom.org]
The place was great once the Capitalists--who didn't give a shit about the workers or the community--were out.
.
With Baby Boomer owners aging out and retiring, another idea is to arrange an ownership transfer to the workers who made his retirement possible.
Sam Walton leaving his company to his greedy, parasitic children rather than his employees was a particularly slimy, narrow-minded act IMO.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @04:41AM
That's been done here DOZENS and DOZENS and DOZENS of times. [soylentnews.org]
You need to pay attention and stop being so narrow-minded.
Look also for "8100" in this (meta)thread.
The name of the region is Emilia-Romagna.
That's also been mentioned here several times. [soylentnews.org]
Do you have Attention Deficit Disorder?
There are lots of opportunities for co-ops in child care, in-home healthcare, food retailing, and the "service economy" that the Neoliberals tried to sell us when they exported the good-paying manufacturing jobs by the tens of thousands.
People who want to take their lives into their own hands are going for that bigtime.
If you're actually interested, and not simply trying to demonstrate how big an asshole you can be, this page is pretty good.
How Worker-Owned Companies Work [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [billmoyers.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @05:23AM
I meant to linkify in-home healthcare, but I had trouble finding the link.
Here that is.
How America's Largest Worker Owned Co-Op Lifts People Out of Poverty [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 21 2016, @03:21PM
There's a way to do this that isn't overly disruptive:
1. The workers form a legal collective of some kind.
2. Somebody gives a loan to the collective to buy the business from the owner.
3. If the owner was an active manager of the company, the workers' collective may choose to hire them.
4. The workers pay back the loan with the profits that are now theirs.
There's an image on both the right and the left that collectivization necessarily entails running the former bosses out of town by force. But if you have a business where the owner is taking home, say, $150K a year, if you wave $1 million at them now plus $90K to stay on as manager there are bosses that won't object to that.
This gets even easier if the owner is nearing retirement, or the business is publicly traded and at a real risk of going bust.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 21 2016, @05:01PM
That's all fine. Nothing wrong with =voluntary= worker-centric socialism. Basically it reinvents the farmers co-op. And there are a few worker-owned businesses that have done well (Winco Groceries leaps to mind).
But the problem with socialism being thrust upon a society is that most businesses are not amenable to this (the reasons aren't relevant here) so if you want to achieve socialism, it has to be imposed by force.
Back to my previous question: who imposes it?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @09:54PM
You're still going to cling to the Cold War bullshit, aren't you?
You're not going to make the slightest effort to become less stupid, are you?
Just keep repeating your ignorance. That'll do it.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 21 2016, @05:05PM
Want to make another point: the style of socialism you describe requires that someone else FIRST builds the business and absorbs all the capital expenditures. Workers by definition cannot afford to buy that out, or they would have built their own businesses instead of working here. Working as a group to achieve a goal is not the same as a group taking over an existing goal; the latter is basically redistribution, not growth.
It follows that socialism has a tough time if it has to bootstrap itself, because its very existence depends on someone else doing the foundation work.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 21 2016, @05:41PM
If you're trying to bootstrap those kinds of businesses, you get a group of people together to for a co-op. Quite a few businesses along those lines were started in the 1970's, and some of them are still around and operating that way.
And unlike you, I'm not against a certain amount of redistribution: Redistribution is one way to deal with demand being too low to buy up the supply of consumer goods/services. The basic problem that capitalism is running into is doesn't have a good way of dealing with the problem of having an overabundance of something.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 21 2016, @06:52PM
Well, there I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'm all for groups bootstrapping themselves into a mutually beneficial co-op. I'm against redistributing ... after all, the next logical step is for successful co-ops to be "redistributed" to fledgling co-ops. Methinks the end result would be that no one ever works beyond the bare minimum, and innovation grinds to a halt... because after all, as soon as you finally get comfortable financially, someone will take it away from you.
Back to that question: WHO does the redistributing? Someone's got to enforce it, given that most humans are unwilling to give up something they've worked for and get nothing in return but having to start over at the bottom -- over and over and over.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @09:47PM
you get a group of people together to [form] a co-op
Right. It's abundantly clear that he STILL hasn't investigated Maracora law. [google.com]
(The minimum they will accept is 10 individuals.)
It becomes more and more obvious that he isn't interested in becoming more informed but is simply trying to be obstinate, falling back on Cold War propaganda (bullshit).
(His use of the word "redistributing" is a Liberal Democracy term and has NOTHING to do with Democracy in the Workplace AKA Socialism.)
In particular, he keeps insisting that Socialism is a -governmental- form when it is an ECONOMIC system.
N.B. The governmental form inherent in Socialism is DEMOCRACY.
If you're having things "forced" on you, either your brand of "Democracy" is really crappy or (as in so many self-proclaimed "socialist" places) what you actually have is a Totalitarian gov't and a State Capitalism economic system.
In short, he's ignorant and full of shit and insists on remaining ignorant and full of shit.
A typical Reactionary.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @01:25AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
For every claim you make i can find one that is the negative showing your candidate did the same or worse.
AND she's been doing it on the taxpayer dime the entire time.
Maybe we need a more objective measure. Like perhaps the number of dead people that candidate left behind them...
Oh wait.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:27PM
"Your candidate"? Being anti-Trump does not make one pro-Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:25PM
You missed his point about the KKK. The KKK is a completely ineffective organization at this point. The are a tiny fraction of a minority of the people out there. He made a big deal of it and even told you in his article that he overestimated them. Your points may be true. But he also went out of his way to desegregate his golf club. Hillary and Bill went out of their way to join a segregated club. They helped mold and create the 3strikes bills which eviscerated the black and hispanic community.
but I have good reason to think that he believes that different opportunities ought to be available for black people than for white people.
I disagree. He has been quite clear that he hires and fires people on the basis of merit.
The racism thing is just a way to quickly catalog him and shorthand for who you support. However when you have the new york post saying 'damn dudes wtf...' you are doing something wrong. http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/keep-crying-wolf-about-trump-and-no-one-will-listen-to-a-real-crisis/ [nypost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:05PM
As president, Mr. Trump has to nominate American citizens to various cabinet and staff positions. What is the composition of the people that he has nominated? What is the gender of the people he has nominated? Are they all men? "Racial type"? Are they all "white"? What about religion? Are they all "Christian"? If the answers are yes, yes, yes what is a reasonable conclusion that one can make? If the answer is no for one of the questions, is there a strong bias one way or the other? If there is a strong bias that does not reflect the composition of the U.S. population what would a reasonable person conclude?
They can tap dance as fast as they can, shine pretty lights in peoples' eyes, shout as loud as they can to drown out the facts, but the numbers speak for themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:31PM
If he is hiring people with experience (i.e., politicians) and tending to hire Republicans rather than Democrats, then it is the composition of the cabinet relative to that pool that tells you whether or not he is racist, sexist, etc. He doesn't exactly have a lot of options with the Republican party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:43PM
I don't care if he surrounds himself with tap dancing homosexual nazis as long as he kills off Obamacare, lets the states run the things the states were originally supposed to run, doesn't implement more socialist big government bullshit and leaves me the fuck alone. Hillary would have had government running our lives from cradle to grave no matter who she surrounded her royal self with.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:51PM
I don't care if he surrounds himself with tap dancing homosexual nazis
Steven Bannon, Peter Thiel, and Milo Pansuckallofits appointed to Trump transition team.
FakeNews-R-us.com [brietphart.com]
Done, done, and done!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:24PM
I notice nobody seems to be deploring the inclusion of a blatant political/election article. Is that because SoylentNews has driven off moderates/techies, or because users are still in shock over President Trump and want to talk about it? A lot.
I was thinking of submitting an article about NASA/space policy under Trump (he apparently supports Europa exploration) but I didn't. Then this gets through. From seeing the headline, I figured it would be deleted.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:38PM
RTFA, yo. It's well thought out, well referenced, and quite civil. A nice change of pace, really.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:16PM
Yep! We don't want the Minongly Brazierre picking the Fine Articles.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:18PM
I've given up complaining about off-topic and political articles. The truth is, we like to talk about politics. Or maybe argue.
If someone launches a rocket and it doesn't blow up, there's not much to talk about. If someone publishes a study with an an obscure meeting or with no direct link to policy, again there is not much to talk about.
Trump, or politics in general, on the other hand, seems to provide endless opportunities for "discussion".
TFA is one of the best researched and cross-referenced articles about current politics that I've seen-not just in the past couple of months but in the past couple of years. If we_must_talk about politics, I hope all of the articles on which we base our discussions can be of this quality.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:50PM
Yep, I had high hopes for the discussion on this one. Unfortunately there've been very few well-considered comments. Mostly it's just been "your team sucks" and "no, your team sucks". I may end up seeing if I can talk the eds into a moratorium on political stories until April or so if this is really the best we can manage given a FA of this quality.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by fleg on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:16AM
indeed. also, most seemed to have missed that Scott is really focusing on the "openly" part of "openly racist".
not sure if you're aware but the regulars on the ssc site are discussing the article on the "hidden" open thread here [slatestarcodex.com], plenty of well-considered comments there.
>moratorium on political stories until April or so if this is really the best we can manage given a FA of this quality.
i'd rather you didnt, fwiw i think the occasional political story is a useful pressure release valve even if it does generate more heat than light.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:23AM
Suggestion: Just have one overtly USA political story per week. Preferably at some 'usual' day and time. (The way things are going, one European (EU/Russia) political story and one Asian (China/HK/Korea(s)/Japan) story might also make sense). We clearly can't resist commenting on them but without some limit, they will dominate the site.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @08:17PM
It doesn't look like anything exciting or important happening in tech... Also, the comments are themselves entertaining, as is their structure.. what words map to what meanings in peoples heads... i think its fine.
Yes, i know that the political spectrum is a horrible multidimensional space, closely intertwined with interests of the financial, military and other criminals. Yes, its dumb to represent it as a left-right, when there's no left, just right and righter.
Maybe we should represent the american political spectrum with one coordinate, and just state the relative distance in milliCrazies between the indistinguishable politicians?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:28AM
It would be entertaining to map all our users here to the two-axis political map, and plot them on a graph.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @09:16PM
We can cut to the chase- the election of Trump is more a wholesale indictment of the left than any tacit approval of racism. The political cheerleading as to whether Trump is or is not racist matters less than that is the absolute best argument the left has concerning most anything, and in fact seems to be the ONLY thing the left chooses to discuss.
Calling everyone else racist doesn't mean you aren't racist too.
Every single talking point on the left seems to revolve around identity politics, and what worse the left has failed to measure up to the fringes of the Republicans on nearly every. single. issue. That's not hyperbole. That's a fact.
When your best and brightest can't even scrape the heels of Republicans, you have a problem. Your party has a problem. You are the problem.
Most of the rancorous criticisms of the left have originated from the left. But you choose to ignore them, or label them alt-right, or brand them as ideologically unpure.
Calling everyone racist, sexist, Islamophobe, etc. isn't working anymore (if it ever worked) and focusing your attentions on petit bigotry such as proper pronoun use, unflattering depictions of women in the media, invisible knapsacks, whether white people listening to rap is cultural appropriation, the minute differences between Muslim and Islam, etc. has made you a laughingstock and reaffirmed how detached you are from reality.
Whether or not Trump is racist matters not one whit now that he has survived your sling and arrows and still emerged victorious. You may have to resort to arguments of substance now.
Fix your shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:08AM
the election of Trump is more a wholesale indictment of the left
There were 4 parties who were on the ballot in enough states to possibly get 270 electoral votes.
NONE of them were Leftist (anti-Capitalist) parties.
To find a party that is Leftist, you have to go way down on this page
United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016 [wikipedia.org]
to section 3 "Candidates receiving more than ten thousand popular votes".
There, you will find Gloria La Riva and Alyson Kennedy.
Going even farther down the page, you will find e.g. Monica Moorehead and Jerry White.
You will also notice that The Left in USA is splintered into -many- parties.
(Following the Red purges of the early part of the 20th Century, McCarthyism, and the Cold War, USA doesn't have much of a Left left.)
Now, this doesn't seem to keep nitwits like you from referring to anyone who isn't a Republican as "Left".
It especially doesn't keep nitwits like you from using a 1-dimensional term to describe people's political position.
...and, by at least 1 indicator, Hillary is farther to the Right than Trump. [politicalcompass.org]
.
What Trump's win indicates is that the USAian Working Class is tired of Clintonism. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [truth-out.org]
A major element of that is Neoliberalism. [soylentnews.org]
The low-information voters who selected Trump are about to realize that there is a major overlap with Republicanism of the last 4 decades and Neoliberalism.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:27AM
Yeah yeah yeah, heard it before.
You know, you share several similarities with libertarians who castigate anyone whose not an anarcho-capitalist. You guys sure do love purity tests :)
Nonetheless, the polices and argumentation styles of those who describe themselves as "left" just got a wake up call.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:10AM
I've heard people describing themselves as "geniuses".
That doesn't make it so.
Words have meanings.
The 1st characteristic of a Leftist is rejection of Capitalism as a viable economic system.
The sloppy, lazy, dogmatic media people who have used the term in other contexts are losers who have a Capitalism-only agenda.
I suggest you start being more selective with your media sources.
Begin by switching off corporate-sponsored TeeVee.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:42AM
Leftist economic beliefs range from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy and the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning,[27] to the anarchist/syndicalist advocacy of a council- and assembly-based self-managed anarchist communism.
-wiki
Continue with the pomp and smugness. I mean it has served you well thus far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @05:55AM
It has already been mentioned in this (meta)thread that any nitwit can edit a wiki with any kind of bullshit.
I'll make it easy for you:
Right == Capitalism (a Bourgeoisie class)
Left == Socialism (no Bourgeoisie class)
(The concepts are opposites.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:46PM
Isn't Communism the rejection of Capitalism, while Socialism is a less *ahem* 'pure' version thereof that doesn't require all property to be owned by everyone, i.e. the State?
The way I see it is that Socialism is runny Communism, like Protestants are runny Catholics.
FWIW, I *am* on the political left (minus the authoritarianism, though that is a problem for the left, right and anyone in-between), but don't think that having everything owned by the State is a good idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @06:33PM
All property owned by the state would be state capitalism. Communism has the means of production owned by the people, and socialism is where everyone who works for a company is co-owner (known as "co-ops" in the US I believe).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @07:43PM
Communism is indeed the end state of Socialism, there the Bourgeoisie class has been eliminated and an egalitarian condition has been achieved.
Marx recognized that a society which -starts- with a pre-existing Capitalist economic structure would need to go through a condition of State Capitalism on its way to the ideal.
N.B. Most self-proclaimed "Socialist" societies vapor-lock at this point and don't progress on the worker-owned workplaces element.
The "best" of those stalled transitions (northern Europe) end up with Liberal Democracy AKA Social Democracy which is sometimes called Christian Democracy which is way short of Socialism.
Italy (which we don't tend to think of in the context of "Socialism") is a fine example which has, since 1985, had the Maracora law [google.com] which encourages the establishment of worker-owned workplaces.
In a single region in northern Italy, they have over 8100 of those at my last count.
About a third of that region's economic output is due to those worker-owned operations.
When a society's Socialist form has reached its ultimate perfection and everyone realizes that doing things such that everything is done for the benefit of the *community* (rather than to feed the greed and empowerment of a few), Marx figured that a formal government structure would no longer be necessary.
He called that condition "Communism".
You were just a bit short on the details, but you did a really good job with the broad strokes.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:43PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:55PM
Hole in one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:27AM
Yeah all those people were so tired of being falsely accused of racism that they decided to elect the most blatantly racist candidate for president in modern history.
That sure showed those mean liberals!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:07AM
Anyone who says an American-born judge of Mexican descent can't be impartial is a racist. Anyone who loses two housing discrimination lawsuits is a racist.
You (well, not "we, the people" but "they, the electoral college") have voted a racist as President. Nice going, Konstitutional Konvention Killers.
We're in for rough times.
Why do the mainstream media act as if Donald Trump isn't a pathological liar with dozens of felony fraud convictions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:24AM
The conservatives are trying to sell their narrative REALLY hard now that they got a win in the white house. It makes them feel like the country suddenly supports their crazy lack of critical thinking. I'm not saying trump shouldn't have won, we had two bad choices.
But the cognitive dissonance, and attempts to downplay or completely ignore trumps racism... Well gee, you crazies are really exposing your true selves now.