Total posts: 2,799
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Question: why did the stock market jump?
For my answer, I’ll quote you:
If you answered Biden or Democrats you are an idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Gee, that’s such a precise answer
On this site, I reciprocate effort in my posts based on the effort given to me
Not pro-war, fight China over job loss, securing border.
Popular stuff
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The trillion dollar deficit caused by tax cuts for the wealthy?
Pretending to care about deficits now? That rings as hollow as McConnell complaining about it
How so?
By being splitting with the unpopular policies that led to McCain and Romney getting annihilated
Created:
Posted in:
Honestly, Trump being taken out of the picture from natural causes is probably the best hope for the GOP. Because there is no way in hell he would lose the primary and not tell all of his supporters it was rigged by the GOP and that they shouldn’t vote for the winner.
He also couldn’t do anymore damage to the change he started, and he wouldn’t be around to endorse candidates out of some loyalty test
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The senate is more than enough proof of that. I’ve seen a lot of rage directed towards Trump so hopefully his spell is finally breaking. It’s time to move on from him!
Somehow, everyone realizing and rightfully blaming Trump will lead to his ardent followers to supporting him more. It’s like the mere criticism of him is his appeal, like it makes him more of an “outsider” to these people.
Maybe the establishment hates him for the wrong reasons, but they are correct. The mere fact that someone like Mitch McConnell or a similar character dislikes him isn’t an automatic endorsement- at least it shouldn’t be.
Im almost certain Trump will win the primary and will lose the general election barring some monumental failure on the part of democrats.
I think up until about 2 years ago, Trump had a fantastic impact on the party. The policies he supported gave hope to the party. But lately, he has been throwing his positive legacy away and doing far more harm to the direction he pushed things in than good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Perhaps this will finally teach Republicans that they need to dump Trump.
Not everything was in GOP’s favor. The abortion decision was pretty huge
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I disagree. How do you mandate assimilation? Perhaps boost English proficiency requirements, which is fine.
But we need to do what we used to after a large influx of immigration: close the tap. With consistent inflows, there is increased resistance to assimilating. They can create ethnic enclaves. If we reduce immigration, that becomes much harder
Created:
-->
@Avery
Well for starters, Hispanics can be brown (and are mostly brown). I don't think White people can ever be brown (except maybe a crazy fringe case scenario). Hispanics usually only have dark features, whereas White people are far more diverse.Secondly, if you line up a bunch of Hispanics, mixed race and Whites, you'll be able to point out the races most of the time, even when you get some admixtured people:
What you’re doing is boiling race down to simply appearance and skin tone, which is precisely what people that call it a social construct say. I can definitely point out a Hispanic from a White. It might not be utterly meaningless, but it is close to it.
White is a meaningful classification, particularly in America, because of all the interbreeding. Same with blacks, which is why they supposedly deserve a capital B.
And white is still meaningful, yet to a lesser degree, in Europe. But they often think in nationalist terms rather than racial ones, not in a small part due to their relatively non-mixed heritage.
But Hispanic just really means brown. There isn’t even the shared history that Europeans can claim. Argentinians have nothing in common with Mexicans, yet they are thrown into the same category. Hispanic is too broad to be meaningful. Just like African, without distinguishing North African and sub-Saharan African.
When Blacks complain about differences in hiring and university admissions, they're looking to get special privileges for Blacks -- it's about collective bargaining. It doesn't matter whether the story is true or not. That's why feminists still go on about the wage gap, that's why Native Americans still complain about mass genocide of their own, and it's why Blacks complain about underrepresentation -- it gets them benefits and free stuff.It's presence of having differing racial groups that causes the issues. Affirmative action is just one way of many that this racial collective bargaining manifests.
Obviously the presence of different groups leads to a desire to extract benefit for them. But that’s not the point. Barring a “two state solution” or mass deportation of any non-white, I don’t see how you could fix that problem.
We have to work with the situation we are in. That means outlawing the practice of them extracting benefits for their groups on racial grounds. There is far less incentive to racially demonize whites just for the sheer joy of it, if there is no associated financial benefit.
The only feasible way to lessen the race problem is: eliminate affirmative action and reduce immigration
Created:
-->
@Avery
I'm not in agreement with your comment on Hispanics. Hispanics can be classified as a separate race from Whites. They're generally browner and have other phenotypic traits. Clearly, there is a lot more admixture within that group, and the divisions can become tricky, but people's self-identification reflects their race pretty much 100% of the time, so it's not a big deal.
I don’t think that Hispanics can in any meaningful way be its own racial category. It just vaguely means where they come from was run by the Spanish empire for a while. Central and South Americans are quite distinct- But a large percentage of those peoples are mixed race, which isn’t really its own racial group
I don't agree with your concluding paragraph. I don't think eliminating AA will end racial tensions. HBD related issues and race-based politics will always cause racial problems.Also, the "American way of life" is created by certain genetics of certain races, so if you want that way of life, you need those certain races.
Understood, but that is a different race problem. I’m talking about one the average site goer would get behind. My point is that groups would be more or less getting along and not going out of their way to foster anti-White hatred if there was no economic and power incentive to do so and the government actually had the will to tell people: America is better than where you came from. Assimilate or leave
Created:
-->
@Athias
You mean that those whom the government designates as "white" and "Asian" will resent less those whom the government designates as "Black" for receiving privileges and opportunities which do not align with this nation's credo of "equality"?
Close: it’s who the employers and universities designate as white or Asian. The government just allows it.
Equality is illogical. This is the byproduct of a form of government which relies on majoritarian consensus as validation for policy.
Precisely. Based on the state of Europe, I think that egalitarian lunacy is the fate of all democracies. You legitimize power by appealing to the masses- yet the masses don’t turn the wheels of progress.
Created:
-->
@badger
There's no basis for an actually civilised discussion here
I agree, all you do is insult me and claim that any disagreement from what you say is made in ‘bad faith’.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's what HBC's are for.
I’ve heard there is a nice, free virtual course that covers the race card. Think it’s called CNN
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of my students are of color. I don't allow them to use skin as an excuse to fail.
I’m afraid you aren’t preparing them for the real world, where they can play the race card
Created:
-->
@badger
So what? You're still trying for fairness. That's argument in bad faith.
Nothing is ever truly fair. It’s not fair some parents do meth while pregnant and permanently disadvantage their kids. It’s not fair some kids only have one parent.
Striving for actual fairness is a waste of time. But making it illegal for companies and schools to racially discriminate is a step in the right direction. Enough of making a large portion of white and Asian kids second class citizens because others in the same demographic category tend to do well
Resenting someone a lifeline is pure nonsense.
Let’s say you got phenomenal scores on a standardized test and apply to the best medical schools in your country. Turns out, the schools wanted less people that look like you so all your hard work netted you admittance to a mediocre school. I’d say that’s a pretty big reason to be upset. Now when you apply for jobs, you’ll be passed over because you don’t have good enough credentials and will lower your lifelong earnings significantly. All over something you couldn’t control. But your response to these people is basically “tough shit”. Doesn’t matter that people will have worse doctors now because “fairness”
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
All the people in Europe are only allowed to hear Biden talk about how "poor kids are just as smart as white kids."They are not allowed to listen to based black Americans.
They tend to get their information from (literally) CNN, so it is no surprise that they tend to have a negative and limited view of life in America
Created:
-->
@badger
I think AA is a half-assed idea too. It's just farcical to me for you to write about race relations where you're trying to strip a lifeline away from a poorer class.
And we could discuss hypothetical policies for ensuring that bright, poor students can go to college. I like what Barney suggested. But this thread is specifically addressing the way that allowing racially discriminatory policies fosters racial resentment and encourages racial scapegoating
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I have some disagreements on your proposed history of racial policies, but in order to not derail the thread, I won’t dive into those here.
Suffice to say, we can agree that historical policies haven’t been too kind to black Americans, whether the policies have malicious intent or not.
I’ve heard much the same regarding emphasis on education, and in fact, it seems more hostile than you let on. I’ve heard from multiple first-hand accounts of teachers that black students who care about school and that perform well tend to be ostracized and abused by other black students for acting “white”. The school violence and peer pressure to perform poorly creates its own set of issues that will take a lot of effort and time to resolve. And fixing the family unit is at the top of the list, as the rate of unwed mothers giving birth among racial groups follows the same pattern for educational achievement
Created:
-->
@Barney
The differential in high schools is actually a benefit to it. A high school in a rich area, is less likely to use that offer.
I was more worried about the quality of the high school’s education. But if you’re suggesting that we do it only for the very top students, then I don’t think this would be a serious issue.
I like that it avoids issues of grade inflation by only allowing a top few people, rather than the normal incentive to try to make everyone appear to be college ready.
And I don’t really have an issue with automatic acceptance either for state-funded schools because it probably wouldn’t make up a huge portion of incoming classes.
I would support this policy
Created:
-->
@badger
Why should anyone give a damn? Where blacks are poorer on average, why care for the poor white person? There's no fairness where a 0 in your bank account means no healthcare and no education and no chance.Affirmative action might save black lives. You think your shitty little line of rhetoric will make them relinquish that benefit?
I don’t wish to sound rude, but you don’t seem to have much of a grasp on how things work over here. It’s permissible because you don’t live here, but try to tone down the passion on things you don’t understand.
You exposed yourself. “Why care for the poor white person”. You don’t care about poor people getting through college, otherwise you would… well…. care about poor people getting through college. But no, your sole concern is letting in under qualified black students.
If blacks are poorer on average, then guess what- a system that benefits poor students would benefit them more. But you’d rather a black billionaire’s kid go to college than a white kid from a trailer park, apparently.
And no, I don’t expect my rhetoric to make them give it up willingly, although polls show that more than half of blacks oppose AA. It’s quite loony that a white Irishman would support it more than the average US black
Created:
-->
@badger
A foundation of compassion, fairness and equal opportunity
So what you people have to honor is some goofy liberal buzzwords?
Most neo-Western countries say that is their creed
That's what free college and healthcare buys you. Without it all of your arguments are in bad faith.
What does this even mean? Giving out “free” things allows you to argue in good faith?
All you do is reduce everyone’s take home pay and reduce their discretionary spending.
Your OP shites on about relations while trying to deprive a poorer people of a benefit.
This isn’t a question of poor or rich. It is race. A poor white person under this system would be rejected in favor of a rich black person. That’s how Affirmative Action works. If your goal is to help poor people, argue that family wealth levels should be considered for college admissions, not race.
Created:
-->
@badger
The problem with the United States of America is your people have nothing to honour.
How so? If Americans have nothing to honor, what on earth do the Irish have?
Created:
-->
@badger
A nation with no free college or healthcare is an absurdity.
He isn’t proposing free university for everyone, just those that are intelligent. We already have plenty of grants and scholarships for intelligent, poor students. This is just a moderate expansion of that.
Most of you Euro countries don’t seem to realize that you can’t afford those nice benefits for many more generations. That’s why you’re importing and plan to import millions of immigrants, although many of them are public charges that’ll accelerate the downfall of that socialist utopia facade you have going on
Created:
-->
@Barney
Affirmative Action if blindly followed indefinitely, sets itself on the slippery slope towards the very problems it hopes to combat.At the same time, people with generational disadvantages, should be given a leg up to assist them in opportunity to enter various fields. A not so complex way to do this, would be free state college for the top students at any highschool
I think that would be a great policy. It would create more competition to get to those top spots. It would also allow entrance into college based on merit. A small issue I could perceive is that some high schools are much better than others, but as long as it is just an offer to pay for college and not a mandate that they are let in, it wouldn’t matter.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
But I like Kamala!
Sure you do, buddy. Now face the padded wall
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Part of America's problem with institutionalized racism is continuing to teach kids in public schools that their skin matters. That has to stop. No amount of fucking can fix that problem.
Yeah I think a much easier way to fix the problem is just to stop allowing groups to extract benefits on racial grounds and telling people to think of themselves on racial grounds (ie. Anti-racism schooling)
Even the lighter skinned Mexicans can’t get along with the more “indigenous” looking ones. It would require a lot of effort, moreso than just mere chance, to make people all look like a homogenous mass than to just end policies and teach a little differently
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
This country was designed to be and meant to flourish as a meritocracy applied to ALL; it was never designed to be a special needs advancement for minorities.
No world power can hope to stay powerful unless it values the promotion of merit. Giving the brightest people the best education will push us forward much more effectively than giving people with mediocre intelligence an opportunity that they can’t take advantage of
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Your thesis is still trash, though. Racism does not stem from resentments over public policy or any other rational criteria.
Government-enforced segregation was a public policy that clearly caused a lot of resentment by the groups negatively impacted. So why is a thesis trash when some groups are now negatively impacted by a policy to favor other groups with less deserving qualifications? The policy allows use of racial information, so it creates an explicitly racial issue. It is a barrier to improved race relations. So, I think you’d have a hard case to make saying that segregation didn’t make some black people hate white people. In the same fashion, Affirmative Action creates resentment through squashed potential.
And also, how is the thesis that creating a very powerful incentive to claim to be from an oppressed group incorrect either? We live in a country that has fake hate crimes because that can help you get ahead. If you have to make up grievances and attacks from other racial groups to justify valuable rewards, I think that says a lot about your incentive structure. Public policy isn’t everything, but it has a strong top-down effect on how groups interact with each other. Get rid of the incentive to demonize supposed oppressor races and you’ll be well on your way to fixing racial problems
Racism will improve long term because that old-fashioned social construct is rapidly wiped out by sexual mingling with increasingly less regard for phenotype, not because racists are suddenly satisfied by increased equality in medical school acceptance rates. Americans can't discriminate against Irish and Italians anymore because those two groups are now too integrated with the rest of European Americans to make the distinction. The Hispanic distinction is rapidly becoming just as impossible to separate. Americans will fuck the hate away because that's what humans do naturally.
But why did those third and fourth generation Irish, Italians, Germans, etc feel fine with intermarrying? It’s because they didn’t have a deep connection to those cultures anymore. But your appearance/race is much more salient and isn’t reliant on your parents passing their parents’ customs.
Think back to the Rwandan genocide: we probably couldn’t tell a Hutu from a Tutsi, but somehow even those Africans had a genocide
Race relations have changed a lot over the years. Currently today, there is more racial intermarrying and more discriminatory government policies. I wonder which led race relations to drop to the worst level in the past 20 years
Created:
-->
@thett3
@Barney
@whiteflame
@Ramshutu
@oromagi
Any major disagreements with OP?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
A part of the reason why I moved from a mostly all black city to one with 5% blacks is because I couldn't get a job teaching due to the color of my skin there. I would go to the interviews and they would take one look at me and say "thanks but no thanks." The administration believed only same skin colors could work in education...smh...whatevs, I'll just go where I am wanted for double the pay and the folks back in New Orleans can endlessly complain that they cant find any good teachers on the basis of merit.
Double the pay, being respected by (at least some) students, much safer. Sounds like you dodged a bullet
I've worked for 4 different schools up here in the past 10 years and never failed to land those jobs on the 1st interview
Curious why you move schools that often. Need quite a few years to vest in for pension benefits and get tenure.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s for the best, GP. Maybe someday, they won’t lay you off for being White on skin!
Created:
Affirmative Action is one of the biggest barriers to improved relations among different racial groups. There is the obvious reason: AA leads to resentment by the individuals that are discriminated against based on characteristics they are born with in favor of others who have far lower test scores.
Under the current status quo, there is a heavily discriminatory system. Take for instance, the MCAT:
With MCAT scores of 24-26, admittance rates for racial groups to medical school are:
- 6% for Asians
- 8% for Whites
- 56% for Blacks
With MCAT scores of 30-32:
- 58% Asians
- 63% Whites
- 94% Blacks
In other words, where Whites and Asians have a very remote chance of admittance, Blacks have a 50/50 shot. Where Whites and Asians have a 50/50 shot, it is a near guarantee for Blacks. This will obviously lead to increased anger when certain groups with vastly superior scores are discriminated against for admittance and scholarships entirely based on characteristics they cannot control. This same pattern emerges for GPA, SAT score, and other indicators of scholastic and professional merit. But this argument is obvious and has been repeated ad nauseum.
I think that for another reason, abolishing Affirmative Action will improve relations long-term. This is because the government's allowing of a racial basis for beneficial treatment inherently leads to the incentive to exploit that beneficial treatment. This creates an unending incentive to claim that a racial or ethnic group is oppressed simply so that it can reap the rewards of being a supposedly downtrodden group.
Previously, in the 1930s (before Affirmative Action), there was vehement protests when the census created the category of Mexican American instead of including them as White. Previously, LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) was very pro-assimilationist and patriotic. https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/commentary/the-invention-hispanics-what-it-says-about-the-politics-race
Hispanic is in general a meaningless term related to racial/ethnic identity. As a study of the term puts it "The Latino classification is distinct from all other racial or ethnic classifications employed in the United States as it is not based on shared physical appearance or geographical origin, instead Latinos are those who hail from a portion of the territories that once belonged to the Spanish Empire regardless of their ancestry or physical appearance. The diversity within the Latino classification means that it is unclear what is being measured when the Latino classification is used..." https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/soc4.12836
This absurd term that means little in terms of cultural heritage or customs was created because having a racial minority status could reap rewards for such groups. There was a political and economic incentive to create aggrieved classes of people. That is why the term was adopted in the early 1970s, just as this Affirmative Action policy was created, allowing specific benefits based on racial classification. It was a categorization created to achieve power and receive government money.
In order to heal racial divisions, which are now apparently much worse than they have been within the past twenty years, very likely due to recent calls for "equity" meaning equal outcomes, which would require much more vicious discrimination than ever before. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx
In order to heal race relations, we must eliminate the incentive for groups of people to demonize others and manufacture or renew long past grievances in order to receive governmental, scholastic, and professional benefits, while also rewarding assimilation to the American way of life. I'm convinced that, had we continued to will that people assimilate to American culture after the end of segregation and had not created systems of legalized discrimination in favor of minority groups, the race problem would be all but nonexistent today.
Created:
-->
@thett3
can lead to rage-envy.
Might be an uncommon opinion, but I am a firm believer that envy is the primary factor leading to different populations in the US hating each other. Envy leads to feels of inferiority, which leads to hatred of others better than you and desire to bring them down. One of the most natural human emotions and incredibly destructive.
And it really harms people of their group who deserve to be there because nobody can tell who got in by merit and who got in through affirmative action. Progressives make all of this fuss about studies that show “black” sounding names on resumes get fewer callbacks. Personally I think there’s probably a large class issue there beyond race (somehow I doubt Bubba or Billy-Bob would do well either)
Exactly, this is something that I have seen brought up before and has never been addressed by any study that I am aware of. Employers dislike names that are associated with low class people. That means these, shall we say "unique" black names, but it would also apply to Billy Bob, Brandy, and other similar low-class white names as well.
affirmative action and diversity policies make this behavior ECONOMICALLY RATIONAL. A black guy with Harvard and McKinsey on his resume isn’t the same as an asian guy with Harvard and McKinsey on his resume. He just isn’t.
Precisely, when an institution no longer has any inherent merit, you will need to use other means to sort through the hundreds of different job applicants. This creates a very precarious situation for people with parents that chose weird names but the kid is actually very smart. There is always going to be a sneaking suspicion among the college graduate and by the employer that the Ivy league education wasn't really earned. It is just an overall unethical policy against whites and Asians and one that hurts those it intends to help by flunking them out with expensive Ivy league price tag student loans that they'll struggle to pay back because they don't have a college degree.
It’s hard to say. It does seem like the dem worshiping of black people has started to alienate other groups, but some of them either buy into it themselves or use it cynically as a bludgeon against white people, who they view as their only real competition
Yes, we saw a lot of that with the hilarious (in a dark way) blaming of black-on-Asian violence on white supremacy. I have no clue if your average Asian citizen actually buys into that gobbledygook, but their community leaders still push it to keep the Democrat coalition of the fringes together. The attacks on Asians (many of them old and defenseless) are also probably driven by the aforementioned envy because even with intense discrimination, they are still lagging behind Asians by wide margins.
I think ultimately the diversity stuff is something that elites love but the actual people don’t (even black people barely support or oppose affirmative action based on the poll) so on net it will probably be a drag for democrats for a long time.
The polls say that. I'm not entirely sure I believe that because the average voter of all races aren't super informed on the negative impact of such policies. It seems like Hispanics aren't huge fans, even though they do benefit from it to some extent. They seem to be fairly socially conservative, which is why Democrat floundering on economic issues is throwing them into the GOP's arms.
I mean look at the OP. I know I’m more aware of this stuff than most but I would NEVER support the type of people who do this. It’s fucking disgusting and ghoulish, I would hate it no matter what group it targeted and I know there are many good people in every race who would agree
Maybe my exposure to online opinions and pessimism are influencing me too much, but I don't know that this is true, especially among college reeducated people. There have been plenty of white libs pushing for old white people to be (basically) killed with 'equitable' COVID policies, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised if a plurality of benefitting groups followed the same train of thought.
I am infuriated that America is in a place where an ad like this can be run on the air without one lie in it, but I am at least relieved that they are willing to point it out and fight against it. As more whites are overtly attacked for being white, more of them will identify with that- at least the ones that aren't broken by self-hatred.
I honestly think that different racial groups could get along and instinctively do want to get along- and getting rid of Affirmative Action is a good way of speeding that up.
Created:
-->
@thett3
You’ll have true 140+ IQ galaxy brains from certain ethnic groups who may not get into any elite universities and the slots will be filled with people from other ethnic groups who might be 80th percentile or so in intelligence
And that creates its own issues where either you have to fail a lot of students or you have to decrease standards so that the kids who were less intelligent and let in based on ethnicity can pass. NYU just fired a Chemistry teacher that taught decades at Princeton because too many kids were failing his class. I think that when you focus more on diversity than merit in college admissions, you are doomed to have merit and competition deprioritized in all areas of collegiate life. They're treating an arbitrary end as an inherent good for education whereas our sinking global competitiveness in education shows that this cannot be the case.
It’s also really funny (in a fucked up way) to me how in some cases affirmative action harms asian-americans even more than white people.
I wonder how the Court eliminating Affirmative Action will affect voting by demographics in the short-term and long-term. Asians are those most negatively impacted, yet they still are more likely to vote Democrat- perhaps because it is an issue of the Courts. If Democrats keep "equity" at the center of the agenda, they will likely be forced into amending the Civil Rights Acts to allow for discrimination for equal outcomes. I could see that being a big issue when candidates are browbeaten into running on a platform of disadvantaging their own voters- although, I'll never underestimate the effect of a college education on one's critical thinking skills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah the democrats spent tens of millions of dollars supporting “election denier” Republicans in primaries. I don’t want to hear about “threats to democracy” from them ever again
Yeah, the cynicism of modern politics is something truly crazy to behold. For the observant, you're left with the conclusion that either the DNC secretly hates democracy or that they don't believe a word they are saying. Neither option is desirable for anyone with even a modicum of power.
Most people don't know that Dems are funding supposedly dangerous people just to get an easier win. So, they'll just use the money of their oblivious donors to create a boogeyman to point at and scare them for more money.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Equal rights. No man is a king, no man is above the law, no man's voice counts more than any other. Our system of government operates on a system, not via any individual or group of individuals.
There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it isn't twisted to allow things that directly contradict it. Unless I'm mistaken, you support discrimination through Affirmative Action, which is forbidden under the letter of federal law (and is soon to be the interpretation of the Supreme Court if it has any brains). So that isn't equal rights, that is "equity"- that is not "all men were created equal"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I notice quite a few arrogant egos in this thread.
We righties are just a bunch of cantankerous old men. To be expected
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Can’t wait until this site thrives in your absence ^_^
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The site leadership needs to tell him to knock it off
I think that is a bit optimistic. He isn’t breaking rules by flooding the forum with low-effort posts.
He clearly isn’t a reasonable guy. There needs to be a “knock it off, or else”
Barring mod action, we have two strategies:
-first, we need to be the site we want to see. I haven’t made a forum topic since much before your last. We need to be doing everything we can to encourage good posters to create topics
-second, we need to politely ask the more rational people that are responding to his threads to not bother trolling him or engaging with him. A troll gets no dopamine from a one-post topic with zero likes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I predict you will still be a fool next week.
You got so butthurt he called you out lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I just skimmed them. Pretty sad.
Not enough coloring pages and pictures for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
bbmrocks
I appreciate the callout, even if my user is horribly butchered 😂
The politics section is completely unusable right now, it’s pure low effort spam from IWantRooseveltAgain and Greyparrot. I’m also not a fan of Oragami basically copy pasting MSNBC but he doesn’t do it as much as these twoGreyparrot sorry buddy <3 u but the low effort threads are a problem
I have to agree. I don’t know exactly what policy could be reasonably implemented based on the way the forum infrastructure is set up and the desire to not censor as there is no objective measure for the quality of a post to go off of.
But I have to say, the past year or so, I’ve felt very little desire to post anything. When you have low effort hyper-partisan threads being the norm, you’re not even setting the groundwork for a decent discussion. It has become increasingly tedious to find anything worth responding to because I have to dig through those threads hoping that I’ll see someone providing a good-faith, at least moderate-effort post. That basically doesn’t happen because the main post to respond to has nothing of intellectual merit.
I <3 Parrot, and he’ll understand. But others won’t. And I don’t know, I guess we just have to hope that we have some rule breaking among the others. Roosevelt is awfully belligerent, so it’s only a matter of time before his babble isn’t an issue anymore.
But back to the point: I think most people feel the way we do. The percentage of worthwhile posts are dwindling greatly. I remember how it was back ~4 years on this site. So many bright liberals and lefties to converse with. Most of them that remain don’t post even close as much as before (need more WhiteFlame!). Again, I don’t know how we go forward, and the situation might be unsalvagable
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
LOL, you snowflakes are soooo easy :)
Hoes mad!
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh, you mean we could stop the global change in demographics if we’d just build a wall and hang a big sign on it that says no brown people allowed? The Trumper mentality is just stupid as shit, he dumbed down the Republican party so badly you whack jobs don’t have a clue what you are even talking about.Sorry kiddie, you can’t stop the world from changing, you can stomp your feet and throw a tantrum all you want, but the world isn’t going to listen. You are just going to have to adapt, that or you and your walnut sized brain will go extinct.
Well now that you mention it, I do believe that we (being a First World country) can put up a wall, defend our borders, and choose who we let in.
We have no need to stop the world from changing.
Are you really going to try to sell racism to me? Save it, this is no Klan meeting, I’m one of those bad people that talk about racism like it’s a bad thing, that’s not going to change
You really aren’t worth talking to. Somehow you are more belligerent and less intelligent than that Roosevelt guy. The slightest bit of pushback and you descend into intelligible tirade
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Can you define just what “strong and active resistance” to demographic change is, is it violence against ‘others”, is it voter suppression, is it a race war, how exactly do you actively resist demographic change?
You misread what I said. The strong resistance against trajectory is Congress’ refusal to lower immigration quotas or increase qualifications to let people in (ie. Public charge rule)
Most of us only know the term because of the slogan chanted in Charlottesville, and that got big time press coverage,
And once again, that only got attention because of lefties. Until “January 6th”, they were still constantly referencing the Charlottesville protest as some supposed representation of Republicans when it was just a few thousand wackos. Biden said he ran for president because of that little protest. The entire reason we know of any of that is because of left-wing exaggeration and fear mongering.
I don’t know I’d call it “celebrated”, it’s certainly “embraced” by the Democratic Party, as it should be.
It is something that can be changed if we want to. Why must we embrace it if demographic change can be reversed? Is it something worth embracing? Sure, be pleasant to people already here, but there is no need to embrace the idea of further demographic shift in the future when it’s not inevitable.
And when diversity is treated like an undeniable good by all lefties despite evidence to the contrary and the countless news articles bashing anything or place not sufficiently diverse (non-white), I would call it celebrating
The Republican party made resistance and resentment of those demographic change into tactics, exploited fear and resentment, and turned it all into White Identity politics
You couldn’t be more incorrect. The Democrats have been the party of resentment: it is a coalition of the fringes that hate white people and Christians. How else do you have Muslim’s teaming up with feminists? It’s hatred. And Whites are objectively the group with the least identification with their race and the only reason it is increasing is because they are being attacked and demonized for being white. Most Republicans have and still want raceblindness but you idiots threw it away for “equity” and trashing their ancestors
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Replacement theory attributes global demographic changes to a Jewish conspiracy,
Not necessarily. It just states that it is happening and there is intent behind it. There doesn’t have to be a specific or even a single group behind it. It is mainly a system that has been on auto-pilot with strong and active resistance against any change in trajectory. That’s pretty much undeniable at this point
The fact that we both even know what replacement theory is speaks to the fact that these supremacists are overrepresented in politics
That’s a term used by lefties far more often than anyone even remotely right-wing. Noticing the fact that there is a changing demography is something that is both simultaneously celebrated by democrats and also used as a political attack against anyone that mentions it is happening, labeling them “replacement theorists” or any combination of other such insults
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- POST #2: Republicans like Mitt Romney and Adam Kinzinger are not calling Gabbard a traitor because she fails to support Ukraine. They clearly state that Gabbard is a traitor for deliberately spreading QAnon/Russia's false propaganda that the United States Military was developing bioweapons in the Ukraine in violation of many international treaties, which Russia cited as justification for striking US facilities. Since Gabbard is active military in Psy-ops with top secret clearance and has sworn her allegiance to that institution, her enlistment of support against that military is correctly labeled as treasonous. Nobody has said anything about your obligations to anything
Correct me if I misread your initial post, but it seemed like there was a clear distinction that she is calling them "bio labs", which are facilities that can research deadly pathogens. Russia seems to be the ones claiming that the facilities are biological weapons facilities, not her. So, if the US has funded facilities that research biological threats to people, then her statement wouldn't be false nor in any way traitorous.
In fact, she clarified remarks related to these biolabs in March stating that she was concerned that strikes on biolabs could cause the spread of deadly diseases.
No, what makes a position extremist is distance from the poltical center. When the majority of moderates from both both parties agree that a certain position is correct, that is what makes a position "not extremist."
I understand that there is certainly some relativism to this, but if both parties suggested that we should start throwing American citizens in prison without trials, that would be something quite extreme regardless of public support.
The character of proposed policies shed a lot of more light on what is extreme or not much more accurately than whatever the media-run state suggests is extreme to the uninformed masses, whose opinions shift notoriously quickly these days.
By your measure, in the future hate speech laws are likely to be a moderate position. By your standards, current belief of the illegitimacy of the 2020 election is a moderate position because Republicans are roughly half of the country and 2/3 of them think it was illegitimate. Unless of course your arbitrary standard is that your party's moderates are the true "center" that we must stick around lest we be "extremists"
The Russian dictator's stated goal of restoring totalitarian dominance in Europe is a threat to peace, democracy, capitalism, equality and freedom worldwide. Any US poltical candidate who is comfortable enough with Putin's agenda to merit Russian support is disqualified from poltical office on that basis alone. Advocates for democracy and a global economy have a problem with Putin's plans for the world, period.
So if a candidate isn't ready to push us immediately into a war with a foreign country because losing American lives and billions of dollars is a hefty price tag, they should be automatically disqualified from political office? You're way too old to be drafted and presumably you have no kids to lose in that war. Many parents would disagree with the haste at which you would like to engage in a land war with a world power.
You mean unpopular with Putin, the Russian dictator. No rational observer would suppose that Putin's foreign policy represents the interests of the Russian people.
Regardless, it isn't in Putin's interest or the Russian peoples' interest to have a war with any country resembling a superpower.
Since I used the Iraq example, I think it is obvious I meant a no-fly zone as opposed to US ground forces invading just as a no-fly zone in Iraq proved a cheap and efficient means of suppressing Hussien's influence, protecting the Kurdish and Shia groups as US allies, discouraging Iranian incursions when compared to the Republican preference for ground invasion which proved very costly and ultimately destabilized all of those interests. I'm not necessarily defending no-fly as a strategy, I'm just explaining that from the moderate's perspective no-fly zones were a proven stablilization technique
And those no-fly zones can be hypothetically moderate. If we do it to a third world dictator and that's the end of story, it could be something worth supporting. However, if we put no-fly zones over Taiwan and threatened military conflict with China, I think we can both agree that that would become much less of a 'moderate' decision.
Strongly disagree that Russia is winning in any sense of the word. Notice the guys who blew up the Crimean Bridge were Russians The guys who shot up the Russain training base were Russians. A lot of prominent influencers are falling out of windows or dying under unusual circumstances which suggests a large degree of resistance within the Russian elite. A lot of unusual fires and infrastructure failures suggest a large degree of resistence from the proletariat as well. As I've said elsewhere, I think we are in Putin's endgame now and I doubt he will be alive 2 years from now, however thing play out. Just yesterday, Russia evacuated the single major regional capitol they managed to acquire, Kherson, which tells us that Russia thinks they've lost that hub for the winter- along with fresh water and fuel pipelines to Crimea. If Russia has to evacuate Crimea this winter I don't think any Russian can keep pretending that they winning something.
I said "barely winning". It's really a stalemate, which seems to be exactly what American leadership wants. They want this to be long and drawn out, sending Ukrainians to the meat grinder. Granted, I prefer that much more than doing it with our troops, but I don't very much enjoy bankrupting ourselves in the process either.
False. As we've already seen Ukraine is vital to feeding North Africa, the Middle East and Russia. Ukrainian democracy is also vital to protecting democracies in smaller, surrounding states. A democratic Ukraine is the best argument possible for democracy in Russia.
Vital to feeding countries that aren't us or any of our major allies. They are certainly valuable to these countries, and I can appreciate an argument related to the acquisition of Ukraine increasing some Russian influence elsewhere. The extent to which that could substantially harm our relations abroad is speculative, though.
Doesn't have to be that way. If the Russian people were willing to support democracy and territorial integrity (I think they do, generally), there is a very realistic long term path for Russia to join the European community.
Why must democracy be a prerequisite for being part of a military alliance? I see a lot of pro-democracy messaging on NATO's website, but that really shouldn't matter.
I guess the optics might not be optimal, but many of our greatest allies during the Cold War were dictators. I think as long as we hold them to some standards of conduct related to use of their militaries, what should actually matter is their military capabilities: will they be an asset in an armed military conflict or not.
NATO turned down Ukrainian membership twice in 2008 and 2014 precisely to deprive Putin of the justification for this unlawful invasion which he pursued anyway.
It could be that we wanted to prevent the invasion. But, if we thought that turning down membership would prevent the invasion, that means that we thought that letting them into NATO would cause an invasion. Which therefore gets back to the point I've made: letting them in would be a liability. It would greatly heighten our chances of entering into an armed conflict with Russia.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That's exactly the problem, they did mean the same thing we do today in the sense that the whole idea of the government they envisioned is one on which no man was greater than any other.The problem is that they didn't consider black people (or basically anyone who wasn't white) as people.The quote and it's original meaning still holds today, just not who is supposed to be included in it.
But what is meant by "no man is greater than any other"? Is this specifically referring to equal protection of the law? Why can't it simply be referring to their ban on hereditary titles that were widespread in England's government and country? After all the Constitution explicitly stated "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States".
I find it hard to believe that they would have believed in your modern idea of "equity" or anything other than suggesting that everyone have equal protection of the law
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Nah, I listened to it. But 9/11 had really nothing to do with democracy. It was a terror attack from foreigners.
So, it would seem that he thinks that it was worse than 9/11 since he is making that comparison at all.
I know lefties can't hide their joy over the death of a veteran during the "INSURRECTION", yet rage over the death of a pedophile that tried to mortally wound/kill a teenager during a riot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Clearly trespassing with muddy shoes desecrating the walls is worse than burning to death or falling 500 feet onto stone and concrete.
I guess those libs really loved Ashli Babbitt if her death was worse than 2,977 9/11 victims
Created: