General US Politics

[Shoblongoo]

A friend of mine active in the Philadelphia chapter of BLM explained the attitude being expressed by Lushen thusly: "Racism is more subtle than people think it is. Racism in 2017 isn't calling a black man a n*****. It's looking for reasons why he deserved to die." If you look at a case like Tamir Rice, and you think to yourself: 'what should we expect the 12 year old playing with a toy to have done differently to avoid getting shot by police?' Not 'What should we expect the police to have done differently to avoid shooting a 12 year old with a toy?" You need to stop and take a moment to seriously reflect upon how you arrived at that paradigm.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Time the Crestfallen]

12 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

"Racism is more subtle than people think it is. Racism in 2017 isn't calling a black man a n*****. It's looking for reasons why he deserved to die."

As much as I agree with what you said, I've spent enough time in the larger video-gaming community to know that even calling someone a n*****, derogatorily, hard-r at the end and all will still have people tripping over themselves to justify it *cough cough* PewDiePie *cough cough*. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Shoblongoo]

6 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

As much as I agree with what you said, I've spent enough time in the larger video-gaming community to know that even calling someone a n*****, derogatorily, hard-r at the end and all will still have people tripping over themselves to justify it *cough cough* PewDiePie *cough cough*. 

Not suggesting that the name calling isn't racist; suggesting that it's almost never going to be that blatant. (And it's a quirk of those subtely influenced by it to believe that in all but those most rare of blatant expressions, it doesn't exist)

[Tryhard]

It might be worth seeing in its own topic but there has been 50 people killed and 400 injured in Vegas in worst mass shooting in modern US history.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-police-investigating-shooting-mandalay-bay-n806461

Edited October 2, 2017 by Tryhard

[largebus]

Ooh boy, how many "thoughts and prayers" does POTUS and the NRA need to soothe this one over

Not even shocking any more.

[Lushen]

Look obviously there could be less accidental shootings and that would be great.  But better training means less police officers which means more inner city crime which means more deaths.  It's not that simple.  And the Ferguson effect caused by activism is now pretty hard to deny acc't the FBI.  Making police officers afraid to do their job doesn't make any rational sense.  We don't live in a utopia, you can't just stop police accidents without hindering crime prevention which is already a huge problem in America. 

[Time the Crestfallen]

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

Look obviously there could be less accidental shootings and that would be great.  But better training means less police officers which means more inner city crime which means more deaths.  It's not that simple.  And the Ferguson effect caused by activism is now pretty hard to deny acc't the FBI.  Making police officers afraid to do their job doesn't make any rational sense.  We don't live in a utopia, you can't just stop police accidents without hindering crime prevention which is already a huge problem in America. 

Do you not think that having a more experienced police force would lead to less deaths? You say it's not that simple, but apparently giving police officers proper training will lead to more deaths, because there will be less of them, which is easily the most simple and reductive view expressed on the matter in this thread.

[The Geek]

I'll take 10 well-trained police officers who know how to properly handle themselves over 20 Dirty Harry wannabes who shoot first and ask questions later.

[Tryhard]

The main problem with police is that they have almost no oversight in the US - or fellow officers will often cover up for them should they be suspected of acting in a negligent or corrupt way. There's numerous stories and videos of police destroying evidence (or phones of people filming them, which isn't illegal). So on top of pretty much no de-escalation tactic training they can be corrupt as hell too and most of the time get away with it.

Also, there's this thing called civil asset forfeiture where police are just allowed to take your stuff - actually, in recent years they have taken more value from citizens than burglars have.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.411b4a0773a4

I am willing to admit that police do a difficult job when they do it right, but police are not held accountable in America. What do you think is going to happen when you announce you need positions filled for a job that grants a lot of power but most of the time doesn't attempt to uphold the responsibilities required?

Edited October 3, 2017 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

51 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

The main problem with police is that they have almost no oversight in the US - or fellow officers will often cover up for them should they be suspected of acting in a negligent or corrupt way. There's numerous stories and videos of police destroying evidence (or phones of people filming them, which isn't illegal). So on top of pretty much no de-escalation tactic training they can be corrupt as hell too and most of the time get away with it.

Also, there's this thing called civil asset forfeiture where police are just allowed to take your stuff - actually, in recent years they have taken more value from citizens than burglars have.

I am willing to admit that police do a difficult job when they do it right, but police are not held accountable in America. What do you think is going to happen when you announce you need positions filled for a job that grants a lot of power but most of the time doesn't attempt to uphold the responsibilities required?

America is a large country that is habitable in its entirety. The logistical requirements for a federal police a la Scotland Yard are magnified several times that of any country in Europe, even Russia west of the Ural Mountains. If it were to come about, neither the FBI or even the DoJ have the capabilities to manage a force that large, not without money that won't be so freely given. 

[Zkirsche]

On 02/10/2017 at 3:23 PM, Magus of Flowers said:

As much as I agree with what you said, I've spent enough time in the larger video-gaming community to know that even calling someone a n*****, derogatorily, hard-r at the end and all will still have people tripping over themselves to justify it *cough cough* PewDiePie *cough cough*. 

Pewdiepie didn't try to justify it, he denounced it and said that he made a horrible mistake and he hates himself for it. He made no excuses for what he did.

[Lord Raven]

12 minutes ago, kirsche said:

Pewdiepie didn't try to justify it, he denounced it and said that he made a horrible mistake and he hates himself for it. He made no excuses for what he did.

he said that after he lost a disney sponsorship for giving five dollars to people on fiver to hold up a sign saying KILL ALL THE JEWS and laughed at it

without that, he wouldn't get nearly as much backlash. instead it's "guy who can't control himself" and throws out n bombs because he's mad.

[Time the Crestfallen]

39 minutes ago, kirsche said:

Pewdiepie didn't try to justify it, he denounced it and said that he made a horrible mistake and he hates himself for it. He made no excuses for what he did.

I don't want to go too off-topic, so I'm just gonna get it all out in one go.

1. It was less of a dig at PewDiePie (although I think he is absolutely a garbage human being), it was a dig at how people defended him as not really being a racist during the sign controversy, and yet they trip over themselves in order justify him using racial slurs.

2. His apology means nothing. The only people who use slurs the way he did are people who do so regularly, so this is just another 'I'm sorry I got caught' apology from him.

3. Considering everything that happened in the wake of the sign controversy, from this, to buddying up with Alex Jones, PJW, and Lauren Southern, and his bullshit video on Global Warming, I'm feeling very comfortable putting him in the same category as Carlgon/Jontron and you're gonna need a lot more than this post to convince me otherwise.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Magus of Flowers

[Lushen]

I don't like PewDiePie, but I think he's evidence of how ridiculous SJWs can be.  The attack on PewDiePie was going on long before the "N" word slip when the media took clips out of context to try and prove that he is a white supremacist Nazi when the videos were intended to make fun of Nazis.  SJWs have a habit of criminalizing the wrong people.  The fact is, by the first amendment, he is allowed to say whatever he wants.

And calling PewDiePie a garbage human being when he donates more charity than any YouTube star I'm aware of is kind of a hard sell.  It's not just that he donates a large portion of his income to charity, but he also chooses to make a large portion of his videos directing at encouraging his viewers to donate money.  You can say that he just does it for the views, but you can't know that unless you're a mind reader.  What ever happened to judging people based on what they do not what they say?

 

edit:  Well Clinton just went over the top and said NRA backers and Republicans are complicit in the mass shooting.  First she called half of Trump supporters Racist, Homophobic, etc. deplorables, now she says Republicans are complicit.  #WhatHappened?  What happened, Hillary, is the office of the President of the United States is supposed to bring about unity. We see this with Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and George Bush.  Only Hilary decided to pin sexism, racism, etc. along with mass murder on an entire political party.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lushen

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

I don't like PewDiePie, but I think he's evidence of how ridiculous SJWs can be.  The attack on PewDiePie was going on long before the "N" word slip when the media took clips out of context to try and prove that he is a white supremacist Nazi when the videos were intended to make fun of Nazis.  SJWs have a habit of criminalizing the wrong people.  The fact is, by the first amendment, he is allowed to say whatever he wants.

And calling PewDiePie a garbage human being when he donates more charity than any YouTube star I'm aware of is kind of a hard sell.  It's not just that he donates a large portion of his income to charity, but he also chooses to make a large portion of his videos directing at encouraging his viewers to donate money.  You can say that he just does it for the views, but you can't know that unless you're a mind reader.  What ever happened to judging people based on what they do not what they say?

 

edit:  Well Clinton just went over the top and said NRA backers and Republicans are complicit in the mass shooting.  First she called half of Trump supporters Racist, Homophobic, etc. deplorables, now she says Republicans are complicit.  #WhatHappened?  What happened, Hillary, is the office of the President of the United States is supposed to bring about unity. We see this with Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and George Bush.  Only Hilary decided to pin sexism, racism, etc. along with mass murder on an entire political party.

Bunch of things:

1. PewDiePie (which I'm shortening to PDP) is in the spotlight, of COURSE he's going to have flak aimed at him.

2. If PDP's defense for saying this is "well the First Amendment", then you're saying that his arguments are so bad that their only redeeming quality is that he can't be arrested for it.  That's a really low bar.

3. Anyone that speaks out against PDP is a SJW?

4. Donating to charity is wonderful.  But so is NOT making weird global warming videos.  Those too are actions, and will be judged as such.

5. BTW, which charities is he donating to?

6. What does Clinton and sexism have to do with this?

[Res]

Making his first appearance in hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico since Maria’s landfall, President Trump offered a hearty round of congratulations to federal relief efforts and thanked the island’s governor. But the president also suggested Maria was not a “real catastrophe,” made an odd and misleading comparison to the death toll from Hurricane Katrina, and joked about how the hurricane would affect the federal budget.

Considering this was Trump's chance to show a little compassion after his outburst on twitter over the weekend, he failed spectacularly.

PewDiePie is also a Swede living in the UK so what on earth does the First Amendment have to do with him?

 

[Lushen]

14 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Bunch of things:

1. PewDiePie (which I'm shortening to PDP) is in the spotlight, of COURSE he's going to have flak aimed at him.

2. If PDP's defense for saying this is "well the First Amendment", then you're saying that his arguments are so bad that their only redeeming quality is that he can't be arrested for it.  That's a really low bar.

3. Anyone that speaks out against PDP is a SJW?

4. Donating to charity is wonderful.  But so is NOT making weird global warming videos.  Those too are actions, and will be judged as such.

5. BTW, which charities is he donating to?

6. What does Clinton and sexism have to do with this?

2.  I don't think that's PDP's defense, it's just something I said.
3.  Absolutely not.  But people who claim he is a white supremacist by taking his videos out of context are.
4.  I haven't seen the global warming videos myself so I am not sure exactly what the context is but if he is just stating that he doesn't believe in Global Warming, how is this immoral? Maybe I don't understand part of this story.
5.  I am not a PDP expert, I don't even like him.  But just from google "a million dollars over the past year for a host of charities including the World Wildlife Fund , St. Jude, Save the Children, and Charity: Water, who personally thanked the PewDiePie army for directly providing water to 10,000 Rwandans."
6.  It was an unrelated comment related to politics in general.  Generally when I give two lines after a statement it means that I am pushing this statement outside of the context of the quote.  Jimmy Kimmel and other democrats are doing the same thing - suggesting that they feel more about Las Vegas than Republicans instead of actually discussing policy.  If Democrats continue to trend down this road of trying to take the moral highground on every issue instead of discussing policies, I think they are going to give Trump the next election.

 

@ResLol, good question on the first amendment.  As I said, I don't watch a ton of his videos so I forget things like this.  I still think a lot of the hatred against him is misplaced.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lushen

[ping]

It may or may not be worth noting that the first amendment does not apply to a Swede. I, for once, am not allowed to call anyone an asshole or to suggest that the holocaust didn't happen. I do not know how exactly the legal situation in the US is in that case (@Shoblongoomight be able to enlighten me ;) ), but free speech isn't The One Human Right that every other right has to bow to.

[eclipse]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

2.  I don't think that's PDP's defense, it's just something I said.
3.  Absolutely not.  But people who claim he is a white supremacist by taking his videos out of context are.
4.  I haven't seen the global warming videos myself so I am not sure exactly what the context is but if he is just stating that he doesn't believe in Global Warming, how is this immoral? Maybe I don't understand part of this story.
5.  I am not a PDP expert, I don't even like him.  But just from google "a million dollars over the past year for a host of charities including the World Wildlife Fund , St. Jude, Save the Children, and Charity: Water, who personally thanked the PewDiePie army for directly providing water to 10,000 Rwandans."
6.  It was an unrelated comment related to politics in general.  Generally when I give two lines after a statement it means that I am pushing this statement outside of the context of the quote.  Jimmy Kimmel and other democrats are doing the same thing - suggesting that they feel more about Las Vegas than Republicans instead of actually discussing policy.  If Democrats continue to trend down this road of trying to take the moral highground on every issue instead of discussing policies, I think they are going to give Trump the next election.

Dude, be REALLY careful about that "First Amendment" argument.  Just because you can't be arrested for it doesn't mean that it needs to be said.  That would be like going to the funeral of someone who was overweight, and yelling. "THAT FAT PIG DESERVED TO DIE!"  Totally legal, but completely unnecessary.

When you're big and famous, your stances regarding. . .well, everything that's even the slightest bit controversial will be picked apart by detractors.  Just like that funeral hypothetical I mentioned earlier, there was no reason to state his views on global warming.  He's a YouTube guy, not some sort of political leader.  By doing so, he thrust himself into the political side of things.  Immoral?  Who cares.  Stupid?  Yep.  Great for short-term attention, but at the cost of his long-term reputation.  I refuse to watch him on principle.

I mean, there was a shooting, the guy's girlfriend is under investigation, Clinton probably said something in response to the shooting, so where does sexism play a role in all of this?  Was Clinton demanding some sort of special compensation for women?

[Lushen]

18 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I mean, there was a shooting, the guy's girlfriend is under investigation, Clinton probably said something in response to the shooting, so where does sexism play a role in all of this?  Was Clinton demanding some sort of special compensation for women?

The racist, sexist, and homophobic were related to her basket of deplorables that she had claimed half of Trump voters (25% of the US) are in.  The mass shooting comments were more recent, where she is now saying that republicans and the NRA in general are complicit in the mass murder.  I just have a problem when politicians and late night talk show hosts try to claim that they somehow 'feel more' than most people and suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with them on politics is complicit.

I think it's fairly obvious that one of the reasons Trump won was a crowd of people that were annoyed with dems constantly trying to claim the moral highground.  Instead of dems recognizing that the majority (from an election standpoint) of people don't want this, they have doubled down on the idea by saying that Republicans are complicit in mass shootings and at least half of them are racist, homophobic, etc.  The majority of 'red pill' stories I've heard come from people who say they left the left because of their constant demoralizing  behavior.  You can actually see some of these by searching for "red pill" on YouTube (or google).   While I think the dems would have a really easy time winning against Trump given his approval rating, I don't think they're going to win if they end up pushing out another candidate that continues to do crap like this.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lushen

[eclipse]

9 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The racist, sexist, and homophobic were related to her basket of deplorables that she had claimed half of Trump voters (25% of the US) are in.  The mass shooting comments were more recent, where she is now saying that republicans and the NRA in general are complicit in the mass murder.  I just have a problem when politicians and late night talk show hosts try to claim that they somehow 'feel more' than most people and suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with them on politics is complicit.

I think it's fairly obvious that one of the reasons Trump won was a crowd of people that were annoyed with dems constantly trying to claim the moral highground.  Instead of dems recognizing that the majority (from an election standpoint) of people don't want this, they have doubled down on the idea by saying that Republicans are complicit in mass shootings and at least half of them are racist, homophobic, etc.  The majority of 'red pill' stories I've heard come from people who say they left the left because of their constant demoralizing  behavior.  You can actually see some of these by searching for "red pill" on YouTube (or google). 

Do you think Trump brooks disagreement regarding his policies/stances very well?

And you HAD to bring up the red pill. . .please do me a favor and never mention it again.

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, eclipse said:

Do you think Trump brooks disagreement regarding his policies/stances very well?

And you HAD to bring up the red pill. . .please do me a favor and never mention it again.

Let me put it this way.  When Fox News viewers see bias into their arguments supporting a travel ban by saying it's not a muslim ban, I think the viewers don't have a problem.  When CNN viewers show dems saying that all their viewer's friends and family who own guns are complicit, they might question their political affiliation.  I think this can be proven when you look at ratings for these media outlets.  People don't want to watch media outlets and politicians demonizing an entire half of America.  Some of whom are viewer's friends and family.  This strategy is just not working.

As for the Red Pill...I am willing to comply but I'd first like to mention that there are specific cases of voters switching due to a red pill effect.  I am not saying it is a valid reason to switch, but it is causing people to switch and I think that's important when you're analyzing why republicans have taken over all three branches of gov't and continue to win governor positions in battlefield states.  (edit:  If you were talking about the controversial red pil movie, that is absolutely not what I was talking about.  I didn't even know that was a thing until now) 

It's also important to note that Trump is highly overrated when you look at the Republican takeover when you consider that other branches won Republicans at a much greater margin than Trump did.  Trump did not carry his party to victory, his party carried him to victory.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Lushen

[Time the Crestfallen]

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

I don't like PewDiePie, but I think he's evidence of how ridiculous SJWs can be.  The attack on PewDiePie was going on long before the "N" word slip when the media took clips out of context to try and prove that he is a white supremacist Nazi when the videos were intended to make fun of Nazis.  SJWs have a habit of criminalizing the wrong people.  The fact is, by the first amendment, he is allowed to say whatever he wants.

You know, I used to watch PewDiePie's videos a long time ago and before the shit-show that was the 2016 election drove me way over to the left, I too used to wonder why the 'SJWs' went after him? Surely it wouldn't be his throwing around rape jokes like the word itself was funny? Or could it be him using 'gay', 'retarded', and 'autistic' as insults? His punching down by using blatantly misogynistic, anti-LGBT, and racist statements as a source of humour? PewDiePie has a long, long history of doing shit like this and then backpedaling by calling it a 'joke' or 'just a mistake' that it can no longer be a coincidence.

Also, I love how you position all criticism of him as SJWs. Classy.

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

And calling PewDiePie a garbage human being when he donates more charity than any YouTube star I'm aware of is kind of a hard sell.  It's not just that he donates a large portion of his income to charity, but he also chooses to make a large portion of his videos directing at encouraging his viewers to donate money.  You can say that he just does it for the views, but you can't know that unless you're a mind reader.  What ever happened to judging people based on what they do not what they say?

Words are also actions, and garbage human beings can also donate to charity to, and I don't know what to call someone hurling racial slurs at others as a derogatory insult other than racist. I'm pretty sure Alex Jones, David Duke, and Tony Abbot have donated to charity in the past, does that make them good people?

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

You know, I used to watch PewDiePie's videos a long time ago and before the shit-show that was the 2016 election drove me way over to the left, I too used to wonder why the 'SJWs' went after him? Surely it wouldn't be his throwing around rape jokes like the word itself was funny? Or could it be him using 'gay', 'retarded', and 'autistic' as insults? His punching down by using blatantly misogynistic, anti-LGBT, and racist statements as a source of humour? PewDiePie has a long, long history of doing shit like this and then backpedaling by calling it a 'joke' or 'just a mistake' that it can no longer be a coincidence.

Also, I love how you position all criticism of him as SJWs. Classy.

Words are also actions, and garbage human beings can also donate to charity to, and I don't know what to call someone hurling racial slurs at others as a derogatory insult other than racist. I'm pretty sure Alex Jones, David Duke, and Tony Abbot have donated to charity in the past, does that make them good people?

The people you mentioned use their words to make people angry and push political agendas.  PDP uses his words to make people laugh/happy.  I don't think the words matter as much as the intention and result of the words used.  I don't think PDP has any interest in being considered a hero or an overall good person.  I just think he wants people outside of the gaming community to leave him alone and let him and his supporters do what they want.

[Time the Crestfallen]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The people you mentioned use their words to make people angry and push political agendas.  PDP uses his words to make people laugh/happy.

How do you explain his climate change video then?

Also, you missed the point, which was how using charity as an excuse for shitty behaviour doesn't work. So I'll ask again; should I forgive the words and actions of people like Alex Jones and Tony Abbot because they've donated to charity in the past?

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I don't think the words matter as much as the intention and result of the words used.

Then explain to me the intentions and results behind PewDiePie using a word meaning 'black, and therefore am inferior being' as a derogatory insult, and doing so in a way that can only mean he does so regularly?