General US Politics

[Alertcircuit]

ok before i take my break for afew days from this section i am dying to know what you mean by that, please explain to me either here or in a pm

Preferably here because I'm also interested.

FDR got us out of the depression, but the Japanese internment camps are such a huge stain on his whole career.

[Moblin Major General]

Preferably here because I'm also interested.

FDR got us out of the depression, but the Japanese internment camps are such a huge stain on his whole career.

Unfortunately, it was for their own safety as much as it was to get them away from militaria. And at least the Japanese-Americans got off of their asses and proved to the US government that they harbored no loyalty to Japan by growing food, enlisting from the interment camps, and actively playing America's pastime. I can't excuse it, and Ronald Reagan apologized for it, but it made logical sense, though not ethical or moral sense.

[eclipse]

Unfortunately, it was for their own safety as much as it was to get them away from militaria. And at least the Japanese-Americans got off of their asses and proved to the US government that they harbored no loyalty to Japan by growing food, enlisting from the interment camps, and actively playing America's pastime. I can't excuse it, and Ronald Reagan apologized for it, but it made logical sense, though not ethical or moral sense.

Required reading for you.

The internment camps were NOT okay, and I'm speaking this as someone whose ancestors managed to avoid the camps.

[Tangerine]

He speaks to emotion rather than logic. The stuff he's proposing (like tax cuts all over the place) sound good for those who think of themselves, but not bigger things, like "how is the US going to fund everything"?

I don't typically like to post in these threads, but that doesn't only apply to Trump. The liberal media is no less guilty of manipulating people's emotions than Trump or the conservatives are, the difference is the demographics whose emotions they're trying to manipulate. Journalism doesn't exist anymore, our major networks and news sites are podiums for politicians.

I consider myself very much liberal, I voted for Trudeau just north of you, and what makes the US election a shitshow this year isn't Trump alone.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Tangerine

[eclipse]

I don't typically like to post in these threads, but that doesn't only apply to Trump. The liberal media is no less guilty of manipulating people's emotions than Trump or the conservatives are, the difference is the demographics whose emotions they're trying to manipulate. Journalism doesn't exist anymore, our major networks and news sites are podiums for politicians.

I consider myself very much liberal, I voted for Trudeau just north of you, and what makes the US election a shitshow this year isn't Trump alone.

Why do you think I'm refusing to vote for both Clinton and Trump? I doubt third party will get a lot of support, but it's better than voting for someone I don't believe in.

[Excellen Browning]

I don't typically like to post in these threads, but that doesn't only apply to Trump. The liberal media is no less guilty of manipulating people's emotions than Trump or the conservatives are, the difference is the demographics whose emotions they're trying to manipulate. Journalism doesn't exist anymore, our major networks and news sites are podiums for politicians.

I consider myself very much liberal, I voted for Trudeau just north of you, and what makes the US election a shitshow this year isn't Trump alone.

To be honest journalism as in unbiased reporting of events and information has never been inherent to political journalism. It's one of the inherent flaws of limited free market democracy. Journalism isn't dead, it more or less never existed.

[Phoenix Wright]

Why do you think I'm refusing to vote for both Clinton and Trump? I doubt third party will get a lot of support, but it's better than voting for someone I don't believe in.

i honestly don't think johnson is at all worth voting for.

stein is coo tho

[Moblin Major General]

I would vote for Stein, but she has an affinity for aluminum headwear, or at least it sounds like it, given her stance on GMOs.

[Nobody]

stein is coo tho

she keeps fueling anti vacines crap and she's just as pro russia as trump (while claiming to be anti-war)

i wouldn't consider that cool

Edited August 7, 2016 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

yeah but could she doing anything about vaccines. i don't think so.

i'm not sure why pro-russia is a problem.

[Lord Raven]

I saw this: http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV

It appears Jill requires that people be vaccinated.

[Ansem]

I saw this: http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV

It appears Jill requires that people be vaccinated.

welp johnson lost all his cool points. kinda forgot that libertarians are generally nuts

stein seems okay now

[solrocknroll]

that list actually makes trump even worse

my school handbook doesn't list gender identity in the list of non-discrimination things, and he's the only candidate who doesn't support adding something like that

[eclipse]

From what I can tell on that infographic, Jill's either keeping her insane opinions to herself, or she's a better talker than Clinton.

[Crysta]

jill panders to the anti-gmo, anti-vax, and anti-wifi pseudo-science crowd without always committing to the stance herself (at least when vaccinations are concerned); which in a way i think is worse

i think i like gary more but uh i'm not a libertarian

we need third parties which are actually different if we're not voting trump or clinton, and the vetting window is oh so small now

Edited August 7, 2016 by Crysta

[Person123]

Those graphs are not entirely accurate, I know Johnson is in favor of the Trans-pacific partnership, and I sure as hell don't trust Hillary's words on the TPP considering how strongly she supported it in the past.

[CyborgZeta]

Those graphs are not entirely accurate, I know Johnson is in favor of the Trans-pacific partnership, and I sure as hell don't trust Hillary's words on the TPP considering how strongly she supported it in the past.

It doesn't help that one of the Clintons' best friends has said he thinks Hillary will support TPP if elected.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-tpp-trade-226253

[Nobody]

being a free trade supporter, that is the one issue i wouldn't mind if clinton were lying in order to get public support

well, if it was more relevant to me

Edited August 8, 2016 by Nobody

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

back from my cold bucket, had a good giggle at this gaffe tho

that is also not an image i wanted in my head.

[Time the Crestfallen]

back from my cold bucket, had a good giggle at this gaffe tho

<snip>

Oh god...

Edited August 8, 2016 by Phillius

[Irysa]

I saw this: http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV

It appears Jill requires that people be vaccinated.

She panders to anti vacc concerns by bringing up how "people have concerns about pharmaceutical corporations". There was also that fiasco over speaking favorably of Brexit a while back.

EDIT: Should have kept reading the thread, Crysta put it better than I could.

jill panders to the anti-gmo, anti-vax, and anti-wifi pseudo-science crowd without always committing to the stance herself (at least when vaccinations are concerned); which in a way i think is worse

Edited August 8, 2016 by Irysa

[Life]

Not many pages ago, you criticised the far-left for resorting to ad hominem attacks and using them in lieu of any real argument, and yet this post accuses someone who disagrees with you of having an underdeveloped brain, describing their beliefs as 'filth' and resorting to the 'special snowflake' attack. I don't see any rational attempt to refute their statement i.e. psychology is not more important than biology because X, just a personal attack.

Also, there's a time and a place for being offensive. Example, I have a fondness for black comedy and gallows humour jokes (race, rape, dead babies, the works). But I will not, nor will I ever tell one of those jokes in polite company or around people who I don't consider good friends and I will not make those jokes around people who I feel would take offence to them (I won't make a holocaust joke to a Jewish person, unless I know for certain they won't mind for example). There are times when being offensive can be used to do good i.e. gay pride parades being offensive to homophobes as a sort of 'we exist, deal with it' kind of thing. However, a reasonable, intelligent discussion is not the time to be offensive. You leave that shit at the door. This is the time for rational discussion/intelligent arguments and being offensive in such debates makes you look childish and attempting to look edgy at best and a hateful bigot at worst.

I'm back!

1) Undeveloped frontal lobe has to do with age. Again, biological facts =/= ad hominem.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

2) "Filth" refers to all the bullshit that is part of leftist views that exist in education (we're really talking about university level "woman and ethnic studies" courses but it exists earlier). Like the wage gap (which would only be tru if you used the term earnings rather than wage), racial war by the police (I've already brought a study by the University of Toledo to disprove this) and white privilege (this is actually a lie because the USA is 50 years past segregation and has a black president). But if lies aren't filth, then sure.

3) The "special snowflake" comment refers to the fact that students "need" safe spaces to cope with the world around them. Do you deny this?

Think about it. In what rational world does someone need to be guarded from the opinion of another person? We aren't talking about the incitement of a mob. We're talking about debates that include Christina Hoff Sommers who is a lifelong Democrat and gets shouted down when trying to engage in friendly discourse.

So yes. Special snowflake is accurate.

4) Once again, humour as shock value is still humour. My best friend calls me a "right-wing nut job" and still laughed at that joke because it was funny.

I take no credit for you being a right wing loony (taken from Whatsapp)

The First Ammendment protects the right to both free and offensive speech. If you have a problem with offensive comments, too bad. The only reason I am not allowed to continue with offensive (but accurate) speech is because this board does NOT believe in free speech by restricting offensive comments. If I was in an open forum, I would not change my rhetoric.

In no way have I been hypocritical. In fact, you seem to have missed the point of my argument regarding ad hominems.

An ad hominem is not a personal attack. An ad hominem is the use of a personal attack as proof in an argument. If I say "x, y, and z are wrong because of this and you're an idiot for believing otherwise", that isn't an ad hominem. But saying "you're wrong because you're a bigot" is an ad hominem (I'll quote Pheonix tomorrow who basically said these words).

Thank you and good night.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Pharoahe Monch

[Lord Raven]

1) Undeveloped frontal lobe has to do with age. Again, biological facts =/= ad hominem.

That was not the point. You literally brushed off his point because of this, and you implied he was underdeveloped and stupid.

2) "Filth" refers to all the bullshit that is part of leftist views that exist in education (we're really talking about university level "woman and ethnic studies" courses but it exists earlier). Like the wage gap (which would only be tru if you used the term earnings rather than wage), racial war by the police (I've already brought a study by the University of Toledo to disprove this) and white privilege (this is actually a lie because the USA is 50 years past segregation and has a black president). But if lies aren't filth, then sure.

These are all gross oversimplifications and you are just stating these without really providing any sort of source or proof. You brought up the university of Toledo thing, but the second and third point go hand in hand and you've said nothing to contradict white privilege as it exists.

3) The "special snowflake" comment refers to the fact that students "need" safe spaces to cope with the world around them. Do you deny this?

Think about it. In what rational world does someone need to be guarded from the opinion of another person? We aren't talking about the incitement of a mob. We're talking about debates that include Christina Hoff Sommers who is a lifelong Democrat and gets shouted down when trying to engage in friendly discourse.

So yes. Special snowflake is accurate.

The fuck? Again, you're brushing him off and condescending on him aside form bringing up an actual point.

4) Once again, humour as shock value is still humour. My best friend calls me a "right-wing nut job" and still laughed at that joke because it was funny.

That is incomparable to saying you'd rather your kid have cancer than be a transperson.

The First Ammendment protects the right to both free and offensive speech. If you have a problem with offensive comments, too bad.

I don't see how this is relevant to regular human interaction.

In no way have I been hypocritical. In fact, you seem to have missed the point of my argument regarding ad hominems.

An ad hominem is not a personal attack. An ad hominem is the use of a personal attack as proof in an argument. If I say "x, y, and z are wrong because of this and you're an idiot for believing otherwise", that isn't an ad hominem. But saying "you're wrong because you're a bigot" is an ad hominem (I'll quote Pheonix tomorrow who basically said these words).

You told him that his frontal lobe was underdeveloped and used that to nullify his point. That's ad hominem. You did not bring up any point aside from "you're an uneducated minor so you don't know anything" towards said user.

[Life]

That was not the point. You literally brushed off his point because of this, and you implied he was underdeveloped and stupid.These are all gross oversimplifications and you are just stating these without really providing any sort of source or proof. You brought up the university of Toledo thing, but the second and third point go hand in hand and you've said nothing to contradict white privilege as it exists.The fuck? Again, you're brushing him off and condescending on him aside form bringing up an actual point.That is incomparable to saying you'd rather your kid have cancer than be a transperson.I don't see how this is relevant to regular human interaction.In no way have I been hypocritical. In fact, you seem to have missed the point of my argument regarding ad hominems.You told him that his frontal lobe was underdeveloped and used that to nullify his point. That's ad hominem. You did not bring up any point aside from "you're an uneducated minor so you don't know anything" towards said user.

1) It was against the idea that "feelings" are worth more than proven science and statistics and said user claimed to be 15. Well shit, you can't honestly expect anyone to treat that opinion with any semblance of rationality, especially from someone who has not yet properly developed full cognitive thinking (as per science).

I quite literally stated a fact.

2) Let's go through one by one.

Wage gap: Doesn't exist.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2073804

'nuff said.

Racial war by police: Once again, I point to the University of Toledo study which points out that 90% of crime against blacks is committed by other blacks.

If you want more, watch this.

https://youtu.be/__Vj3DXwOBI

White Privilege: I'm literally going to quote Ben Shapiro on this one and I want you to prove me wrong.

"White Privilege is a leftist term that essentially says 'you are not a person of colour so shut up'. It basically says that when evidence of racism doesn't exist, that person MUST be racist because they are white."

It's not verbatim but it fits.

3) Either you care about free speech or you don't. That includes my right to be offensive. If you want a law that bans "hate speech", that is fine. But you don't support free speech in that case.

It's black or white. Either I get to speak in full even if you find it offensive or I cannot speak freely. You can't have it both ways.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I'm back!

1) Undeveloped frontal lobe has to do with age. Again, biological facts =/= ad hominem.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

I'll give you that one. I'm no expert on the brain. Although I fail to see how inferring that someone is childish/unable to have an opinion for holding that particular belief isn't ad hominem, or how you're in any position to complain about Phoenix saying 'you're a bigot because I say so' and then say 'you're childish and a 'special snowflake' because I say so.

2) "Filth" refers to all the bullshit that is part of leftist views that exist in education (we're really talking about university level "woman and ethnic studies" courses but it exists earlier). Like the wage gap (which would only be tru if you used the term earnings rather than wage), racial war by the police (I've already brought a study by the University of Toledo to disprove this) and white privilege (this is actually a lie because the USA is 50 years past segregation and has a black president). But if lies aren't filth, then sure.

These are pretty major oversimplifications to be honest. The wage gap does exist, albeit with explainable factors making up a total of a few cents in either direction. The wage gap now has to be addressed in terms of why women are making less total earnings i.e. taking less lucrative jobs and what can be done about those issues. Are women not in more lucrative positions because of hiring bias/not as good at interviews? Are they more likely to be passed over for promotion/less likely to want a promotion? How does pregnancy factor into this? One issue I personally think goes unaddressed is the pressure put on men to be the primary breadwinners of families and the media portrayal of men as hopelessly inept at domestic life driving them to spend more effort on work.

Then there's the police issue and while I'm willing to admit that police killings of blacks is a bit exaggerated, there's still the sentencing disparity between blacks and whites for committing the same crime and well-documented racial profiling.

Also, you realise that the idea of white privilege is more than just slavery, yes? There's the aforementioned racial disparity and the overall greater quality of life experienced by white people that still has to be addressed. While the 'white privilege' issue is more nuanced than the far-left tries to portray it (their views are largely American-centric and ignores the long history of Slavic slavery and discrimination for example), what you're doing is like saying 'It's snowing, so I guess global warming isn't a thing'.

3) The "special snowflake" comment refers to the fact that students "need" safe spaces to cope with the world around them. Do you deny this?

Think about it. In what rational world does someone need to be guarded from the opinion of another person? We aren't talking about the incitement of a mob. We're talking about debates that include Christina Hoff Sommers who is a lifelong Democrat and gets shouted down when trying to engage in friendly discourse.

So yes. Special snowflake is accurate.

No, 'special snowflake' refers to the idea that everyone is unique and different and tumblr self-diagnosis of mental issues and other stuff like Otherkin, hence the snowflake. Bringing it up in the context of safe space is more of a triggering thing. I also don't see why you're bringing up 'safe spaces' when the post you responded to simply said, and I quote, "the mental side of humanity is far more important than the physical side", something that is arguably true and then taking issue with you using 'it' to describe transgender people, something that is incredibly dehumanising and bigoted.

3) Either you care about free speech or you don't. That includes my right to be offensive. If you want a law that bans "hate speech", that is fine. But you don't support free speech in that case.

It's black or white. Either I get to speak in full even if you find it offensive or I cannot speak freely. You can't have it both ways.

Now, I am no expert on the US Constitution, so feel free to correct me on this one, but last I checked 'freedom of speech' simply means that you cannot be arrested by the government for your opinion. It doesn't mean we aren't allowed to find what you have to say rude/insensitive/disgusting/otherwise inappropriate nor does it mean that you cannot be excluded from a group for having/expressing an opinion that is against the guidelines of that group. Especially considering that 'freedom of speech' is not a universal thing and several countries have made 'hate speech' illegal.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Phillius