|
Mandy Thompson posted:Do you think there is any hope, long term? Helsing made some good points, but they're US centric. If anything, the US has been late to get on the hate train.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
There's a couple things I haven't seen mentioned here - the fervent tone of right-wingers in the U.S. has a lot to do with the fact that whites are becoming a minority population. Settler states under demographic pressure like that typically go extra crazy and use increasingly unparliamentarian tricks until they completely lose power (one way or another) - or the race war is successful. That's why simultaneously right-wingers are going nuts about immigration, BLM, and Muslims. A saner entrenched ethnic elite might try to bring one group into the fold to keep oppressing the other two, but I think people today are too educated to fall for that kind of trick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:There's a couple things I haven't seen mentioned here - the fervent tone of right-wingers in the U.S. has a lot to do with the fact that whites are becoming a minority population. Settler states under demographic pressure like that typically go extra crazy and use increasingly unparliamentarian tricks until they completely lose power (one way or another) - or the race war is successful. That's why simultaneously right-wingers are going nuts about immigration, BLM, and Muslims. A saner entrenched ethnic elite might try to bring one group into the fold to keep oppressing the other two, but I think people today are too educated to fall for that kind of trick. The thing about "Bringing a group into the fold" is that you need a few characteristics, namely: 1. There can't be large amounts of migration of that group at the current time. 2. This group must have some degree of social influence and power. Take the Irish, for example. Their largest period of discrimination is during the 19th Century, when they had a large influx of migrants and relatively low amounts of power (partially because lots of them were recent immigrants). By the 20th Century, you had a vastly reduced amount of migrants, and a solidification of the Irish in middle class power structures (5/6 of police officers in New York City were Irish around the turn of the 20th Century, for example). With these criteria in mind, consider the groups that people typically chicken little about being assimilated - Hispanics, Muslims, and (rarely) African-Americans. While some Hispanics do have some social influence, the vast majority are extremely low class. In addition, the vast majority of Hispanics in the US have Mexican ancestry, which is the largest immigration group at the moment. They're basically the exact worst option to pick for assimilation.* African-Americans by contrast don't have the immigration issues, but are the most poo poo upon minority other than maybe Native Americans. Muslims actually check both boxes well, which is why historically they were Republican reliables. But, then 9/11 happened. *The exception being if you created a rift between "Mexicans" and "Mexican-Americans". Such a rift did exist historically (the first border wall was created in a Mexican-American majority town to keep out the cheaper immigrants) but has mostly disappeared because of  assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:There's a couple things I haven't seen mentioned here - the fervent tone of right-wingers in the U.S. has a lot to do with the fact that whites are becoming a minority population. Settler states under demographic pressure like that typically go extra crazy and use increasingly unparliamentarian tricks until they completely lose power (one way or another) - or the race war is successful. That's why simultaneously right-wingers are going nuts about immigration, BLM, and Muslims. A saner entrenched ethnic elite might try to bring one group into the fold to keep oppressing the other two, but I think people today are too educated to fall for that kind of trick. my only question is why does there have to be a historical precedent for everything? some loving things happening every single day have never had any historical analogy
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:21
|
|
sean price posted:my only question is why does there have to be a historical precedent for everything? some loving things happening every single day have never had any historical analogy I think you'll find that there is nothing new under the sun, that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, and that wishing is never a substitute for thinking. Thus, with these facts in hand, you could offer something trenchant as opposition. But what you've got is, "things might be different", entirely as platitudinous and intellectually empty as the clichéd quotes I started this post off with.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
i think comparing every single loving thing to past conflicts that happened before the advent of cars when a whole loving lot has changed in terms of war technology ALONE is p dumb, yea, is that nuanced or spergygoony or whatever you need it to be enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
I worry at the growth of hate groups because even though Trump's chances are remote, he has changed the conversation, things that would have been unthinkable for a politician to propose are now merely controversial as Republicans try to trump Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
What baffles me the most is whenever right wingers touch on Christians in the Middle East. Not a peep about the slaughter and persecution of untold numbers of Muslims, but did you hear about that time ISIS killed 50 Christians?? This is the last straw, we need to be even shittier to Muslims both domestic and foreign.sean price posted:i think comparing every single loving thing to past conflicts that happened before the advent of cars when a whole loving lot has changed in terms of war technology ALONE is p dumb, yea, is that nuanced or spergygoony or whatever you need it to be enough for you? Well, what do you propose? Should we just collectively shrug our shoulders and refrain from having opinions about Muslim refugees and closed borders, because hey, maybe internment camps would be cushy hotels with wi-fi this time around, and it's not like ISIS is literally shunting Muslims in gas chambers while crowing about the supremacy of the Aryan race, so who's to say the situation won't resolve itself without letting brown people into the US of A?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
At this point even if Trump he may permanently shifted the internal dynamics of the Republican party by opening up a larger space for so called "white nationalist" rhetoric at the national level. If you look at Barry Goldwater, the ultra-right wing conservative who clinched the Republican nomination in 1964, you'll notice that he suffered one of the most devestating defeats in American history to Lyndon Johnson. But despite Goldwater's failure to get elected his supporters had gained a foothold in the party and they were eventually able to nominate Ronald Reagan (who had stumped for Goldwater) and Reagan ultimately carried through many of the same reforms. Meanwhile the liberal wing of the Republican party, which was until then very progressive on race issues and mostly associated with the North East and with guys like Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton and George Romney, became the party of the white backlash, and it's geographical centre shifted to the South and Midwest, where it remains today. Even if Trump losses the damage might already be done. Especially if the Republicans retain control of so many state legislatures and governorships. The Democrats might continue to hold the presidnecy but will that matter if the GOP has the House of Representatives, is competitive in the senate, and controls most state governments? And in the longer term who knows how far some of those state governments will go to suppress minority voters. Things could get very ugly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Even if Trump losses the damage might already be done. Especially if the Republicans retain control of so many state legislatures and governorships. The Democrats might continue to hold the presidnecy but will that matter if the GOP has the House of Representatives, is competitive in the senate, and controls most state governments? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
It doesn't help in passing legislation, but if SCOTUS can be tilted then it's worth it. My secret hope for this election is that trump is nominated, and then loses in the general - it'll turn an interesting election into a referendum on what are American Values or whatever, and Trump's nativism will get decisively crushed. If trump is denied the nomination, and rubio loses, the racist/fascist wing will only go into overdrive. rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Supreme Court nominees is what everyone will tell you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:What baffles me the most is whenever right wingers touch on Christians in the Middle East. Not a peep about the slaughter and persecution of untold numbers of Muslims, but did you hear about that time ISIS killed 50 Christians?? This is the last straw, we need to be even shittier to Muslims both domestic and foreign. well whats funny is they don't even really care about the Christians. most of the GOP candidates want to keep the middle eastern christian refugees out too. santorum basicaly wants them to be martyrs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
sean price posted:my only question is why does there have to be a historical precedent for everything? some loving things happening every single day have never had any historical analogy This is why history has such lovely predictive power, people find things that are vaguely comparable and forget that even slight differences can completely change the outcome. It's also useful for lazy and ignorant people since is much easier to just point to something in the past than to make intelligent arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It doesn't help in passing legislation, but if SCOTUS can be tilted then it's worth it. I kind of feel like they will go into overdrive no matter what happens at this point. I had been inclined to think "let the nuts have their day and get it over with" but I am not sure what the mechanism would be to cause it to be "over with" just because Trump made it to the general and lost. These freaks aren't going away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
sean price posted:i think comparing every single loving thing to past conflicts that happened before the advent of cars when a whole loving lot has changed in terms of war technology ALONE is p dumb, yea, is that nuanced or spergygoony or whatever you need it to be enough for you? It also leads to over-fitting the data which is another reason why the predictive power completely sucks. What people don't realize is that making your theory fit all the data is actually a very dumb thing to do since data is inherently noisy. A good example of this is in sports broadcasts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Supreme Court nominees still require the Democrats to have a presence in the senate, and if the GOP controls state governments then they can employ all kinds of dirty tricks to suppress voter turnout. Who knows how far a demographically shrinking Republican party might go in suppressing voter turnout and redistricting the House... especially if white nationalists take on a larger role in the party. When I said "does it matter" i was being rhetorical. Yes of course it makes a difference who sits in the White House. But my point is that future Democratic presidents will have extremely limited room to maneuvre, and it can't even be taken for granted that Democrats will maintain their lock on the White House if every other major lever of the federal government remains in the hands of the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Supreme Court nominees still require the Democrats to have a presence in the senate, and if the GOP controls state governments then they can employ all kinds of dirty tricks to suppress voter turnout. No, all it requires is for the Republican Supreme Court justices to die first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, all it requires is for the Republican Supreme Court justices to die first. What happens when the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee decides to indefinitely filibuster the Democratic President's nominee for the Supreme Court?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, all it requires is for the Republican Supreme Court justices to die first. Scalia has been due for a rage induced stroke for a long while now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What happens when the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee decides to indefinitely filibuster the Democratic President's nominee for the Supreme Court? Then at worst, no SCOTUS decisions are made. If more than one Republican Justice dies, then the Democrats get control back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I worry at the growth of hate groups because even though Trump's chances are remote, he has changed the conversation, things that would have been unthinkable for a politician to propose are now merely controversial as Republicans try to trump Trump. Yeah, this scares me
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Then at worst, no SCOTUS decisions are made.  I guess the Democrats don't need to worry about losing control of the House, the Senate and many of the State legislatures that will control the redistricting process that is vital to the Democrats ever winning back the House, because hey, Scalia and Thomas might simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
It's what leftists/democrats deserve for abandoning the working class to focus on identity politics. gently caress them. Let the republicans have it all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
I have zero sympathy for the Democratic party but your whole "gently caress the Democrats" shtick will entail a lot of collateral damage among the very groups that you're saying the Democrats abandoned. Also those of us living in the rest of the first world would prefer not to have our world hegemon being run by a weird Christian-Fascist death cult, thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I have zero sympathy for the Democratic party but your whole "gently caress the Democrats" shtick will entail a lot of collateral damage among the very groups that you're saying the Democrats abandoned. Also those of us living in the rest of the first world would prefer not to have our world hegemon being run by a weird Christian-Fascist death cult, thank you very much. There is no stopping or changing it. This is the way it will be. Who are you planning on voting for, Clinton? Good luck with that, because Sanders will NEVER have the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I'm not an American.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not an American. Cool, sorry our sad excuse for a liberal, left, whatever you want to call it is too busy focusing on "Acceptable Art" and identity politics and wants to have drum circles at the protests, and also on top of everything else, bows down to banks and wall street, but don't worry, we have mobilized so that certain videogames get the women to wear more clothes (puritanical society ftw, never thought it would be the left leading that charge haha). Islamophobia is just as rampant on the left as on the right, racism too. Nothing new under the sun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Cool, sorry our sad excuse for a liberal, left, whatever you want to call it is too busy focusing on "Acceptable Art" and identity politics and wants to have drum circles at the protests, and also on top of everything else, bows down to banks and wall street, but don't worry, we have mobilized so that certain videogames get the women to wear more clothes (puritanical society ftw, never thought it would be the left leading that charge haha). Islamophobia is just as rampant on the left as on the right, racism too. Nothing new under the sun. Do you really think that the Democratic party is the left?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Do you really think that the Democratic party is the left? The American Left, yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Cool, sorry our sad excuse for a liberal, left, whatever you want to call it is too busy focusing on "Acceptable Art" and identity politics and wants to have drum circles at the protests, and also on top of everything else, bows down to banks and wall street, but don't worry, we have mobilized so that certain videogames get the women to wear more clothes (puritanical society ftw, never thought it would be the left leading that charge haha). Islamophobia is just as rampant on the left as on the right, racism too. Nothing new under the sun. sad part is your arnt wrong  you also forgot the new violence in media is bad and "triggering" argument that has started up again.
Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Talking Points Memo posted:Armed Texas Mosque Protestor Shares Home Addresses Of Local Muslims
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Honestly the concept of separate laws for separate religions is loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Honestly the concept of separate laws for separate religions is loving retarded. Private arbitration--which is what sharia is in most nations--is a free association exercise. Whether you think their personal values are dumb doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:29
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Private arbitration--which is what sharia is in most nations--is a free association exercise. Whether you think their personal values are dumb doesn't matter. It's not fit for western society. Let it stay in tribal third world hellholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Private arbitration--which is what sharia is in most nations--is a free association exercise. Whether you think their personal values are dumb doesn't matter. Oh, its okay, Christians do it too. And no, in most really harsh Islamic countries, Sharia Law is recognized as the ACTUAL law in court, not via private arbitration. But then again, the Sharia Law poo poo is the favorite go to boogeyman of the Right Wing. Who also then love to declare that all US law is Christian in nature, therefore gay marriage is bad and unlawful etc.etc. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rubio-gods-rules-trump-supreme-court quote:Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in a video posted Tuesday that he believes people of faith should ignore laws that violate their religion. Islamic Fundamentalists and Christian Fundamentalists are on the same page, they just want their religion to get the privilage. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
^^^I understand how it works in extremist interpretations. It's not what's happening in America or if it is it's already illegal. Black Baby Goku posted:It's not fit for western society. Let it stay in tribal third world hellholes. DeusExMachinima posted:Whether you think their personal values are dumb doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with "values"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:sad part is your arnt wrong The left in this country is too concerned with hand-wringing bullshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:It's not fit for western society. Let it stay in tribal third world hellholes. Private arbitration is actually one of the cornerstones the US legal system is built on. The overworked court system would really rather you handle small disputes on your own. It doesn't matter if your private arbitrator is the local priest, a mutual friend, whatever. As long as both parties consent to the arbitrator the courts are just happy to offload those torts onto the arbitrator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:20
|
|
