|
Nevvy Z posted:Every now and then the leftists are wrong and JC is right. I refuse to let blind hatred make me dishonest. You didn't even say JC was right, you just said that they were both bad. But I mean, just look at your post history: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3835741&userid=46853 How is it that you're always on the side of the establishment/centrists? It's not like you have some sort of duty to post in their defense.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Protesting Northam for racist actions is a good thing. Protesting Northam voters for their complicity in white supremacy is not, because the unavoidable conclusion is that the right way to fight white supremacy is to let the Republicans win elections. Thankfully the wave of POC voters that propelled Northam to victory did not subscribe to that view. And I want you to make sure it's being filmed when you do it, because I want to watch what happens next.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:I love watching goons argue about black people without the presence of actual black posters. Hell  NewForumSoftware posted:You didn't even say JC was right, you just said that they were both bad. I said the later JC post was bad. As far as I can tell the post that set condiv off was fine, which is why the wild bashing allegedly on behalf of black people seemed inappropriate. NewForumSoftware posted:How is it that you're always on the side of the establishment/centrists? It's not like you have some sort of duty to post in their defense. I put the bad posts here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Like if you think some of those protesters didn't also shame Northam voters at some other point, then you're probably really dumb JC (you're really dumb, JC).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:My point was that I would like you to go have a chat with the group of POC who protested his victory speech, and say to them the exact same things you're saying to Condiv, i.e. lecturing them about who is and isn't complicit in white supremacy, and who they should and shouldn't protest or shame off the back of that. I know what your point was—it’s just not responsive to mine. I don’t have a problem with the POC protesting Northam, more power to them. Unlike Condiv, they weren’t calling democratic voters complicit in white supremacy. They weren’t trying to shame the electorate that rejected Trumpism. And lol at the racist implications of that last line. You’re not expecting those POC protestors to have a reasoned, polite discussion, that’s loving clear as day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I know this is the bad thread but god drat people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I know what your point was—it’s just not responsive to mine. I don’t have a problem with the POC protesting Northam, more power to them. Unlike Condiv, they weren’t calling democratic voters complicit in white supremacy. They weren’t trying to shame the electorate that rejected Trumpism. we have hit full-on I Speak For The Lesser Races In Saying I Am Not Complicit In White Supremacy JC, i did not think you were going to be able to top "slavery is okay as long as they have the wrong kind of brain" but congratulations, you've done it
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:we have hit full-on I Speak For The Lesser Races In Saying I Am Not Complicit In White Supremacy You can’t not post context for that last part. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You can’t not post context for that last part. It's Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You can’t not post context for that last part. somebody raised the issue that Hillary's justification for employing slave labor was "it's alright, they've got lesser emotional intelligence than us" JC, having reached peak Not Mad, offered this sterling rebuttal quote:Haha that nefarious racist Hillary KKKlinton agrees with those establishment researchers that deficits in emotional intelligence are correlated with violence. How can that idiot racist not recognize the deficits are cultural, not emotional?!? (But the cultural deficits aren't their fault! The white man just hasn't provided them the right environment to develop a non-criminal culture!) it's okay, though, he is very confident that nobody could possibly view him as complicit in white supremacy
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:somebody raised the issue that Hillary's justification for employing slave labor was "it's alright, they've got lesser emotional intelligence than us" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And lol at the racist implications of that last line. You’re not expecting those POC protestors to have a reasoned, polite discussion, that’s loving clear as day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:somebody raised the issue that Hillary's justification for employing slave labor was "it's alright, they've got lesser emotional intelligence than us" In an extremely Christopher Walken voice: wow what a fuckin moron
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:In an extremely Christopher Walken voice: wow what a fuckin moron I prefer “dis guy is untucking believable “. The Muppets On PCP posted:scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds Well, duh. Look at liberal champion Hillary and her slaves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:somebody raised the issue that Hillary's justification for employing slave labor was "it's alright, they've got lesser emotional intelligence than us" Oh wow; while I already knew JC was really lovely, that is just indefensibly awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, that doesn’t imply higher turnout, it implies people stopped protest voting and started voting for the lesser evil. This was a phenomenon across the democratic spectrum— moderate democrats were also more likely to vote for Northam. No, there is no rational reason to come to the conclusion that the increased turnout is due to people stopping "protest voting" and deciding to vote for the lesser evil. As I mentioned, the far more plausible explanation is just that people were more enthusiastic to go to the polls due to backlash against Trump. Like, I'm pretty sure most other liberal D&D posters would agree with me on this, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to twist it into some weird dig at peoples' (or in this case specifically leftists') reasons for not voting (or voting third party) in the general election. edit: Just as a side note, another problem with your reasoning is that you conflate "self-identified liberals" with "leftists." While I'm sure there's a big overlap there, you can't take a statistic about self-identified liberals and assume it also applies to self-identified leftists (because the latter are probably a small subset of the former). JeffersonClay posted:And that’s the minority of the left I have no problem making GBS threads on—the ones who’d throw elections to Republicans to try and extract concessions from the democrats. I’m happy that the Virginia election indicates this group of lovely leftists is shrinking. But why? There is no reason to think that ignorant people on the left are any more of a problem than ignorant people in any other political subgroup (and there are reasons to think they're less of a problem; at least they generally have the right values and policy ideas). It is transparently obvious you have an issue specifically with the left, because quite possibly 100% of your D&D posts in some way involve attacking people from the left. I can't think of any reason someone would feel an urge to constantly poo poo on the left unless they were either ideologically opposed to them or an amoral person ambivalent towards political outcomes. I can preemptively anticipate you saying something along the lines of "it's important to weed out leftists who make other leftists look bad" (because that's the excuse I used to give when I did the same thing back in college), but that's nonsense; not only is it impossible to magically silence everyone who isn't the best at articulating their ideas, but there's no reason to think the existence of such people has a negative effect electorally (if anything it might be the opposite; the average person probably responds more to emotional/passionate claims than logical explanations that cite statistics or whatever). Nevvy Z posted:It's not racism to share his opinion with a black person. He wasn't dictating how they should behave. You using black people as a cudgel to bash posters you don't like is gross and you do it all the time. Yeah, it's hard for me to articulate exactly what makes certain posts give this impression, but you can tell when someone is trying to use it as a cudgel like that. That being said, things do enter a grey area in the sense that "you're bad if you don't vote for Manchin (or some similar politician) to prevent the Republican from winning" arguments always seem to assume they're being aimed at white males. Such a judgement call becomes more than a little problematic when it's being aimed at a member of one of the minority groups the politician in question has either rhetorically or politically been hostile towards. Saying that black people have an obligation to vote for someone who is has acted against their interests - even if voting that way is pragmatically the optimal decision - is kinda hosed up. Honestly, you could expand the same argument towards any group harmed by the actions of a politician, including people living in poverty, LGBT people, etc. Which kind of calls into doubt making such an assertion in the first place. edit: But this can also be flipped around, in the sense that it's wrong to condemn people for voting for such a person on the basis of their actions if it can successfully be argued they're the lesser of two evils in the general election (which is the case with someone like Manchin). Condemning Manchin voters for voting for a racist also includes a condemnation of all the PoC who voted for Manchin, and it isn't unreasonable for a person in that position to take active measures to minimize the harm they might face. Nevvy Z posted:Every now and then the leftists are wrong and JC is right. I refuse to let blind hatred make me dishonest. Yeah, in that specific post JC said "If you’re faced with a choice between two white men, you should probably feel justified in voting for the less racist, less sexist one" which isn't the same thing as "you should feel obligated to vote for the less bigoted one"; it just means "it's a justifiable choice for a person to make." Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Oh wow; while I already knew JC was really lovely, that is just indefensibly awful. JC is the kinda guy who will run into a conversation like Kramer and say "Let me tell you about the blacks"
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:JC is the kinda guy who will run into a conversation like Kramer and say "Let me tell you about the blacks" hence why i blew up on him
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:JC is the kinda guy who will run into a conversation like Kramer and say "Let me tell you about the blacks" Oh come now Koala, I know Carter has said a few weird things recently, but surely he can't be that bad 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
All white people are racist: true If it's already election day voting for the lesser racist with the greatest chance to win is the least damaging thing you can do with your vote: true Therefore it's okay to support the biggest racist in the primaries because minorities have to vote for us: whoa hold up, no you done hosed up somewhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
I think the issue is that we are forced to vote for such terrible options in the first place, and that our system doesn't have the flexibility (at least now) to present better options. It is absolutely great that some things are changing at the local/state delegate level, but the real battle for the big ticket races is yet to come and there I think the DNC and other party organizations are going to be flexing their muscle. Also, if Franken doesn't resign, he needs to be priority primary target (for a variety of reasons to be honest). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Nov 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:JC is the kinda guy who will run into a conversation like Kramer and say "Let me tell you about the blacks" If you can find out from R. Guyovich if he wants us to relitigate post histories in this thread, I’ll be happy to give the context ze polack is deliberately excluding. There’s a reason he didn’t link directly to the post. Kilroy posted:I'm not expecting all people to react politely when you lecture them on the conditions under which their protest and political engagement is appropriate or not, no. I think that crosses racial boundaries, in fact, but I can see how you'd feel differently since for you, nothing does. Again, I don’t have any problem with people protesting democratic politicians, so the suggestion I’d be lecturing anyone about when they can protest and how is entirely your invention. Now let’s get back to that video you’re fantasizing about where you watch the POC protestors react with explosive emotion and/or violence to someone suggesting it’s ok to vote for the least racist candidate in a general election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Now let’s get back to that video you’re fantasizing about where you watch the POC protestors react with explosive emotion and/or violence to someone suggesting it’s ok to vote for the least racist candidate in a general election. Kilroy posted:My point was that I would like you to go have a chat with the group of POC who protested his victory speech, and say to them the exact same things you're saying to Condiv, i.e. lecturing them about who is and isn't complicit in white supremacy, and who they should and shouldn't protest or shame off the back of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Wanted to register my deep loving contempt for the people defending Franken in the Trump thread. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
I don't know who yall are talking about so I'm reading this page assuming that JC is the actual jesus christ our lord and savior and it makes this all real funny
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:I don't know who yall are talking about so I'm reading this page assuming that JC is the actual jesus christ our lord and savior and it makes this all real funny Christ was an autocrat 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:Wanted to register my deep loving contempt for the people defending Franken in the Trump thread. Ugh. You should see the folks who got mad at the idea that it's nice to ask for consent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
You never need consent when you can just get the receipt fyi
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Christ was an autocrat King of Kings
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:Wanted to register my deep loving contempt for the people defending Franken in the Trump thread. Ugh. it's almost as if the people for whom this is a team sport, and not an exercise in promoting ideas, are trash
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
This sort of thing is why "purity tests" are important. What Al Franken did wasn't bad because it violated some accepted norms, it was bad for very fundamental reasons that don't require anything more than empathy and having regard for the welfare of others to see. You don't even need the concept of consent to know that something like the kiss was wrong. You just need to have the thought pattern of "I know person does not want me to do thing" -> "I don't want to do to someone something they don't want done, without very good reason" -> "I have no good reason" -> "I won't do thing". How many liberals are really just conservatives whose orthodoxy is liberalism? How many are just cultural liberals going through the motions the way a christian might put stockings above the fireplace at Christmas and hide chocolate eggs in the garden for Easter? How many are just straight up acting in order to further their careers or fit in with their peers? If there's no consistency, no underlying principle at play, then what stops these people from doing horrible things that the orthodoxy hasn't covered yet, or that they think they can get away with? Al Franken should have known better. And he would have known better if his actions were determined by principle instead of what was known to be right and wrong. He's not some 25 year old who did a lot of growing in 10 years. He only knows better now because the orthodoxy advanced. Great. That's what we want to happen to all those people who don't have the necessary internal drive to do the right thing without being told explicitly, and there should be a pathway to redemption for those people too. But those people shouldn't be in positions of leadership. Leaders should drive social morality forward, not be dragged along by it, and we should have our "purity tests" to ensure only the right kind get through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:This sort of thing is why "purity tests" are important. What Al Franken did wasn't bad because it violated some accepted norms, it was bad for very fundamental reasons that don't require anything more than empathy and having regard for the welfare of others to see. You don't even need the concept of consent to know that something like the kiss was wrong. You just need to have the thought pattern of "I know person does not want me to do thing" -> "I don't want to do to someone something they don't want done, without very good reason" -> "I have no good reason" -> "I won't do thing".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Well, a combination of this being the thread that prompted the post and the topic of purity tests being hotly debated made me put it here. It did feel a little weird though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
The reactions to th Franken thing are especially telling because the worry of many of the people defending him is that this poo poo is super common in DC among powerful men of both parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Especially among the journalists defending him, you know people know more than they're letting on
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Zas posted:The reactions to th Franken thing are especially telling because the worry of many of the people defending him is that this poo poo is super common in DC among powerful men of both parties. are people really trying to defend franken for that poo poo? why would you do that, even if you're a spineless centrist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:I love watching goons argue about black people without the presence of actual black posters. White goon's burden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Condiv posted:are people really trying to defend franken for that poo poo? why would you do that, even if you're a spineless centrist? Washington Post posted:PostEverything Perspective
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2017 01:03
|
|