I'm starting to loathe the actions of President Trump

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
And we should probably move the discussion to the other thread so you won't have to keep using this fascinating argument to distract from Trump's inevitable impeachment.
Jul 17, 2017 9:59 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9954
Yes, because I was just about to complain about how stupid this argument is. This thread is frustrating as fuck.
Jul 17, 2017 10:19 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Janson Jinnistan
YAWNThere it is. You cannot forge a coalition with racists, becuz racists!

And who decides if they are racist?

I think that they have some role to play in the matter.

Or are you rather suggesting that "racism" is some kind of uncertain thing when it comes to any of the examples I've offered? ?Do you really need a baseline definition to understand this? ?As in the belief that any strata of homo sapien being congenitally inferior to others, but most especially in intimate areas of intellect, moral agency, or emotional capacity. ?Is this helpful to you at all, Yarn?


YAWNSo instead, you balk about their cooperation with and toleration of their own racists.

OK, so I guess moral cowardice is also a content-of-character issue that makes me apprehensive about aligning with certain people. ?I'm terribly sorry about that.


YAWNwe should note that you have not described why your generalization is warranted.

Which one is that? ?The "racism is bad" generalization, or the "enabling racism in your company is also bad" one?


YAWNSomeone sent some racist emails that went unreported somewhere? OK? And?

You're presumably an adult, so I shouldn't have to explain this more than I already have. ?It reflects a culture that tolerates racism first of all, and more relevantly these are public officials who are responsible for providing the clean drinking water to these "wild animals". ?We also saw this racism in Flint. ?It seems that you remain one of the few who isn't alarmed at how many of these roaches are under your floorboard, and the few caught scurrying from the light in the kitchen are only the tip of an iceberg.


YAWNPurity tests will only establish that there are no virgins at the party.

Aw, so I don't have to pop my racist cherry?


YAWNI'd rather see line-crossing. Lions laying with lambs. People setting aside, for a moment, other disagreements, to concentrate on a problem that needs to be solved.

I'll be damned if you haven't spent 1% of these posts explaining what this problem is or how to solve it, while spending 99% trying to blame the existence and practice of racism on liberal intolerance.


YAWNThose to the left and the right of you are becoming impatient.

Who's stopping them? ?If their inability to be racists is holding them back from getting some work done, I can't see how this is my responsibility either.

Who is stopping them? Presently, the establishment. We are still safely divided into warring camps.

And we should note that in all this prissy morally superior bullshit you have still yet to articulate the justification of your sweeping generalization.

You've argued that racism is bad. No shit.

You've been generous enough to note that not all of "them" are racists. Again, no shit.

You offered an example of racism. Again, no shit.

But this leaves things on the lurch for your purity test. One example is not enough to indict conservatives one standard deviation out. Your only warrant, so far, is that there are racists in their ranks, and that's enough! This, however, is just a reassertion of the "single drop" theory. This leaves you vulnerable to the charge of "Kevin Baconism."

And what is most telling is your insistent continuous insistence that there is simply so way to work with your imagined basket of deplorables. Who needs to prove anything when you have moral certainty.

And this too shall be recorded as a day that Trump was President of the United States. We are still waiting for the impeachment. So are the fishes.

Jul 17, 2017 10:28 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
YAWNWho is stopping them? Presently, the establishment. We are still safely divided into warring camps.

I'll ask another way: what's stopping these groups from reaching out to these liberal groups? Like I said, the door is open, so why is this lecture so one-sided?

For example, the criminal justice reform issue. What current Republican politicians are attempting to work across the aisle on the issue? Not Rand Paul, despite his previously expressed interest in the matter. Now he's too busy not investigating his own party. Which anti-Wall Street conservatives are working to preserve the under-seiged Dodd-Frank, or working to strengthen its regulations? Where's the Trump supporters who applauded his once upon a time promise to tax hedge funds and capital gains on stock trades?

Luckily we have seen organized work on both sides against the current health care bill, with many self-identified conservatives and even some of Trump's voters putting pressure on Congress to maintain the promise of universal coverage and lower premiums (which was pie in the sky, of course, but still further away from this promise than the current Obamacare set-up). So if you want an example of such a coalition, this works about as well as any right now.

YAWNprissy morally superior bullshit

It must sting a little, doesn't it?

YAWNYou've been generous enough to note that not all of "them" are racists. Again, no shit.

I'll go you one further - I never said most of them were.

YAWNOne example is not enough to indict conservatives one standard deviation out. Your only warrant, so far, is that there are racists in their ranks, and that's enough!

The fact that you can't tax your mind to recognize more than a single example of modern-day racism is, again, not really my or any other liberal's problem. The problem of tolerating racism amongst yourselves is a more pressing concern, and a lot of this seems like trying to find reasons not to feel responsible to speak up about it and establish very clear lines around racism being unacceptable.

YAWNAnd what is most telling is your insistent continuous insistence that there is simply so way to work with your imagined basket of deplorables.

What this tells me is that you still believe that this deplorable segment of Trump's base is a fantasy, which is exactly the kind of denialism that I'm referring to.

YAWNAnd this too shall be recorded as a day that Trump was President of the United States.

And you're not. That's fine, I'm a fan of vintage SNL too!

YAWN?

Indeed.
Jul 17, 2017 11:05 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Janson Jinnistan
YAWNWho is stopping them? Presently, the establishment. We are still safely divided into warring camps.

I'll ask another way: what's stopping these groups from reaching out to these liberal groups? ?Like I said, the door is open, so why is this lecture so one-sided?

For example, the criminal justice reform issue. ?What current Republican politicians are attempting to work across the aisle on the issue? ?Not Rand Paul, despite his previously expressed interest in the matter. ?Now he's too busy not investigating his own party. ?Which anti-Wall Street conservatives are working to preserve the under-seiged Dodd-Frank, or working to strengthen it's regulations? ?Where's the Trump supporters who applauded his once upon a time promise to tax hedge funds and stock trades?

Luckily we have seen organized work on both sides against the current health care bill, with many self-identified conservatives and even some of Trump's voters putting pressure on Congress to maintain the promise of universal coverage and lower premiums (which was pie in the sky, of course, but still further away from this promise than the current Obamacare set-up). ?So if you want an example of such a coalition, this works about as well as any right now.


YAWNprissy morally superior bullshit

It must sting a little, doesn't it?


YAWNYou've been generous enough to note that not all of "them" are racists. Again, no shit.

I'll go you one further - I never said most of them were.


YAWNOne example is not enough to indict conservatives one standard deviation out. Your only warrant, so far, is that there are racists in their ranks, and that's enough!

The fact that you can't tax your mind to recognize more than a single example of modern-day racism is, again, not really my or any other liberal's problem. ?The problem of tolerating racism among you is a more pressing concern, and a lot of this seems like trying to find reasons not to feel responsible to speak up about it and establish very clear lines around racism being unacceptable.


YAWNAnd what is most telling is your insistent continuous insistence that there is simply so way to work with your imagined basket of deplorables.

What that tells me is that you still believe that this deplorable segment of Trump's base is a fantasy, which is exactly the kind of denialism that I'm referring to.


YAWNAnd this too shall be recorded as a day that Trump was President of the United States.

And you're not. ?That's fine, I'm a fan of vintage SNL too!


YAWN?

Indeed.

I can recognize more than one example of racism. I am waiting for you to justify your generalization. You can't work with people to the right because they're racist. OK, you explain what that means. In what sense are they racist?

At most, you've got the contamination argument. They've witches in their midst! Suffer not a racist to cooperation!

You claim that this is a pressing problem, but you haven't established how many racists there are. You have not indicated how many are mildly racist and how many are gravely racist. No, it is just a pressing existential threat that ANY are there at all. Which is a goofy argument. You stick to it with your claim that I am somehow committed to denying that ANY Trump supporters are deplorable, simply because I reject the generalization that they're all deplorable.

This lecture is one-sided because this is the anti-Trump circle jerk thread in which people get carried away with pinning the ills of the world on Trump.

It's time to set aside Republican and Democrat. Those are the labels that the present system offers us and they're overlimiting.

When I speak with conservatives at other venues, I make the same arguments to them coming from the other direction.

You're a free speech guy. We can work together on that.

I am not big on IP, so it is harder for us to work together on that.

And you, personally, can cooperate with racists. You do it everyday. They police your neighborhoods. They make your food. They wait for the light to turn green before pulling out. You can accept the assistance of racist cops. You can conduct transactions with racist clerks. You can cooperate in the great dance of driving with racists. You already do.
The question, therefore, is why you think that you somehow cannot form coalitions with groups that contain and even tolerate racists.

I think we need to be a bit more careful about how we characterize each other. If we habitually refer to other groups as baskets of deplorables, if we "joke" about deep-seeded evils of whites (oh, you up-puncher you!), if we casually dismiss entire groups as racist, then we are left with no redeeming or redeemable image of the other. Keep on telling them they are racist, some will eventually believe you. People will live up or down to your expectations.

That guy who made friends with hundreds of Klansmen and loved them out of hate is the one showing the way. But what do you truly love about that which is white, male, cis, Republican, or Christian? How much love do you have for Joe Plumber?



Jul 17, 2017 11:43 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9954
OK, so you two are arguing about whether leftists can form a coalition with people who hold the belief (explicitly, I take it) that there exists a "strata of homo sapien being congenitally inferior to others, but most especially in intimate areas of intellect, moral agency, or emotional capacity". This seems like a really pointless argument to be having. If Janson has already said that many of the Tea party weren't likely racist, what's the point of even having this argument? I mean seriously. It's ridiculous.

Janson's real complaint, outside of the fundamental and potentially intractable ideological differences between Occupy Wallstreeters and Tea Partiers, is that the Tea Party was too tolerant of racist factions in their group. YARN attempts to draw an equivalency complaint, and I don't see that it works, but at least that argument is one maybe worth having. (But isn't the solution straightforward? Conservatives just need to do better about calling out their racists elements.) But arguing about whether leftists can form coalitions with bonafide racists strikes me as a total red herring. It's only worth having if someone here is committed to the claim that there is this significant political constituency out there full of racists that needs to be countenanced by the left. Maybe someone holds that view, but I haven't seen anyone explicitly defending that here.
Jul 18, 2017 12:09 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11871
YAWN
I think we need to be a bit more careful about how we characterize each other.

That said, if Senator Janson had The Consensus Criminal Justice Reform Bill put before him, and he finds out that Senator McRacist is going to vote for it too, what do you think, that he wouldn't vote for it?
Jul 18, 2017 12:17 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
YAWNI am waiting for you to justify your generalization. You can't work with people to the right because they're racist. OK, you explain what that means.

Well, you know what, Yarn? Since I didn't make that statement, I don't think I will.

YAWNYou claim that this is a pressing problem, but you haven't established how many racists there are.

Yeah, I wish more people were honest about it, and that's what makes tallying them so difficult, but it is a pressing problem, especially for those on the brunt end of the prejudice, and there are clearly too many of them for the 21st Century.

YAWNsimply because I reject the generalization that they're all deplorable.

No, you claimed that I was imagining them.

YAWNThis lecture is one-sided because this is the anti-Trump circle jerk thread in which people get carried away with pinning the ills of the world on Trump.

I appreciate your concern.

YAWNI am not big on IP, so it is harder for us to work together on that.

I don't know where I mentioned an IP issue.

YAWNAnd you, personally, can cooperate with racists. You do it everyday. They police your neighborhoods. They make your food. They wait for the light to turn green before pulling out. You can accept the assistance of racist cops. You can conduct transactions with racist clerks. You can cooperate in the great dance of driving with racists. You already do.

Yes, I manage to refrain from murdering them on a regular basis, but I don't tolerate racist action, no. I speak out and, like you, they tend to get upset when I make it apparent. I don't consider the fact that they're not spitting in my food or searching my colon because I happen to white to be ultimately very comforting, and frankly no one should accept this behavior.

YAWNThe question, therefore, is why you think that you somehow cannot form coalitions with groups that contain and even tolerate racists.

Integrity and credibility?

YAWNBut what do you truly love about that which is white, male, cis, Republican, or Christian?

I dunno, my dad? Of course he isn't a racist though, and I'm always thankful that he raised us to scorn it as a scourge of the soul.
Jul 18, 2017 12:18 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
Izzy BlackIf Janson has already said that many of the Tea party weren't likely racist, what's the point of even having this argument? I mean seriously. It's ridiculous.

Gospel.
Jul 18, 2017 12:20 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
ergill sanchezThat said, if Senator Janson had The Consensus Criminal Justice Reform Bill put before him, and he finds out that Senator McRacist is going to vote for it too, what do you think, that he wouldn't vote for it?

I would just be very careful not to point out how many black people it would put on the street.
Jul 18, 2017 12:24 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 220
the ACA lives to see another day
Jul 18, 2017 4:58 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Janson Jinnistan
YAWNI am waiting for you to justify your generalization. You can't work with people to the right because they're racist. OK, you explain what that means.

Well, you know what, Yarn? ?Since I didn't make that statement, I don't think I will.

Well, let's consider how we got here. Without rewinding the tape all the way, we can pick up with MadMan comment in response to me that he didn't "like" the Tea Party, to which I responded that liking was not a requirement of cooperation.

Ashvirtually then stepped in and played the race card, escalating the charge.

I responded that his claim as it attached to his allegation against the "segment of society" represented by the Tea Party was curiously similar to that of theories of racists (i.e., contamination).

Ash protested, I reminded him of what he said and invited him to clear up his meaning. That's the last we've seen of Ash.

Meantime, you stepped in (tag off!) and argued that toleration is contamination, and we've been at it since. You made yourself responsible for the claims your defending. The local chain begins with Ash.

Now, if you're arguing consistently, you can either throw Ash under the bus (which you appear to have done) and stop justifying the generalization against those to the right, in which case you may indeed flit away from his generalization. This, however, leaves us in the dubious position of unpacking your own "contamination" argument. Just what were you trying to say then, Janson? Were you not generalizing when you dismissed the groups I mentioned on the basis not of the actual proportion of racists, but rather the group's general toleration of racists? This is weak sauce. The proper way to impeach the group is to point at explicit racism in their official platform. But you don't have it. And there is the curious presence of African Americans in the old group. Be careful how you respond to this one. You don't have the smoking gun, you can't establish an overwhelming racist composition and you don't have officially racist platform planks. The lowest hanging fruit has been excluded (well, you have some racists), so you've gone for that which is just in reach. Well, there are racists in the group and they haven't been kicked out, so they're all racists. And as proof you've got the damning emails of the Water Department director in Chicago? Is this an official Tea Party chapter?

Answer the question directly. Can you and are you willing to work with Conservatives just to the right of the establishment or aren't you?






Jul 18, 2017 5:07 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Janson Jinnistan
Yes, I manage to refrain from murdering them on a regular basis, but I don't tolerate racist action, no. ?I speak out and, like you, they tend to get upset when I make it apparent. ?I don't consider the fact that they're not spitting in my food or searching my colon because I happen to white to be ultimately very comforting, and frankly no one should accept this behavior.



YAWNBut what do you truly love about that which is white, male, cis, Republican, or Christian?

I dunno, my dad? ?Of course he isn't a racist though, and I'm always thankful that he raised us to scorn it as a scourge of the soul.

You refrain from murdering them? What the fuck? Is it that hard to integrate yourself in civil society? Since, you admit that whites have not cornered the market on racism and that even black people can be racist, are you admitting that you're just barely keeping yourself from murdering black people too? Or is it just white racists that you barely keep yourself from offing everyday?

Does it make you feel tough to say stuff like this on the internet?

And no you don't get to shift. You argued that groups are hopelessly corrupted by the mere presence of racists, independent of any actions they take. Just "being racist" is enough to write off the group (in the name of integrity, don't you know...).

So, you're thankful that your dad raised you to hate religion? Still want to whine that you were just joking and "punching up" when you talking about those "deep seeded" tendencies?






Jul 18, 2017 5:23 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 20136
Oxnard Montalvothe ACA lives to see another day

For now.

Oh and fuck the Tea Party for being largely racist assholess. Occupy was mostly naive white privilege motherfuckers. Neither was an effective force for change. In a hyper partisan environment compromise is dead and most of the moderates have been run out of government.
Jul 18, 2017 5:26 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 20136
Unless we end gerrymandering, get money out of politics, enact term limits and eliminate voter ID laws the same shitshow will continue on. Also fear based politics has a nasty habit of resulting in shitty leaders like Trump and Pence.
Jul 18, 2017 5:31 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
MadmanOh and fuck the Tea Party for being largely racist assholess.



How do you know that they're "mostly" racist assholes?

MadManOccupy was mostly naive white privilege motherfuckers.



Were they? So, white people cannot authentically protest because of their privilege? Do they all have some direct connection with the 1% who are siphoning all the wealth out of the economy?

MadmanNeither was an effective force for change.


Both were a start. Both represent a growing dissatisfaction. Both were effectively squashed by the establishment. The Tea Party was co-opted by Republicans (at great cost to them). Occupy was ignored and written off by the MSM as disaffected hippies. A lot of occupy energy was behind Bernie, who was railroaded by his own party. Nether reached out to form a larger coalition.

MadmanIn a hyper partisan environment compromise is dead and most of the moderates have been run out of government.



Which is why those just outside the establishment should compromise and form coalitions to challenge the establishment.


Jul 18, 2017 5:53 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
YAWNAshvirtually then stepped in and played the race card, escalating the charge.

No he didn't, and ergill has pointed this out in a post that you never responded to.

YAWNThat's the last we've seen of Ash.

Ash is not a prolific poster, and some days I can't say I blame him.

YAWNThe proper way to impeach the group is to point at explicit racism in their official platform.

Well, let's ignore all of the racism in the signs at the protests, all of the coded "take America back" (from whom?) language, and let's just designate the starting gate as the demand for Obama's birth certificate and college transcripts, both of which were under the pretext that he was unqualified to be president based on racial presumptions.

YAWNAnd as proof you've got the damning emails of the Water Department director in Chicago?

Are you not the least bit alarmed at the casualness with which these public officials broadcast their racial contempt? In a city with a historically significant black population?

YAWNCan you and are you willing to work with Conservatives just to the right of the establishment or aren't you?

Again, I'll be very clear: I am not willing to work with racists. I have no problem working with non-racist conservatives.

YAWNYou refrain from murdering them?

It's good to see that you've retained your ability to detect facetious hyperbole.

YAWNYou argued that groups are hopelessly corrupted by the mere presence of racists, independent of any actions they take.

No I did not. The "hope" is in their willingness to make plain that this racism will not be tolerated in their name. That action makes all of the difference.

YAWNJust "being racist" is enough to write off the group (in the name of integrity, don't you know...).

Is being racist not enough to write off a group?

YAWNSo, you're thankful that your dad raised you to hate religion?

Are you enjoying your drugs this evening, Yarn? I want to make this as comfortable for you as possible.

Clearly, I said that my dad raised me to hate racism. I would say "nice try", except we can all see that it obviously was not, and you've already shown yourself to be pretty dense when it comes to my sarcasm.
Jul 18, 2017 6:04 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
One last thing: I think that it is very serendipitous that exactly such a coalition that Yarn has been pining for has effectively killed the Obamacare repeal bill tonight. There's no way that this would happen in a majority Republican Congress without substantial pushback from Republican voters to derail this highly unpopular legislation.
Jul 18, 2017 6:15 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11871
MadManOh and fuck the Tea Party for being largely racist assholess. Occupy was mostly naive white privilege motherfuckers. Neither was an effective force for change. In a hyper partisan environment compromise is dead and most of the moderates have been run out of government.

The Tea Party was a comparatively more effective force for change. They actually got people elected. This was generally predicated on a purist conservative agenda, however, which traded heavily on anti-establishment rhetoric and had little truck with compromise. This not only intensified reluctance to reach across the aisle, but also widened that aisle to fellow Republicans, creating a schism in the party. I don't think the prominent racist "show me your birth certificate" types are the heart of the problem with the Tea Party. I think it's because it's a direct symptom of the paranoid-style, insulating tendencies in American politics.
Jul 18, 2017 11:32 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11871
Janson JinnistanOne last thing: I think that it is very serendipitous that exactly such a coalition that Yarn has been pining for has effectively killed the Obamacare repeal bill tonight. ?There's no way that this would happen in a majority Republican Congress without substantial pushback from Republican voters to derail this highly unpopular legislation.

Well, I'm not convinced he thinks the Tea Partiers in Congress are real Tea Partiers (TPINO doesn't role off the tongue), but assuming that they were, this wasn't so much a coalition as people pushing from the more hardline and moderate sides of the Republican aisle for deeply conflicting reasons.
Jul 18, 2017 11:40 AM
0 0