• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I dont want to pay for this overwhelming superiority you speak off... If you want to pay for that then by all means go ahead.
    If you don't want to pay for it then by all means move. If you don't move then you're stealing the service provided by the military without paying for it. And no, you don't get to claim you didn't consent to the service. The United States and its military were here long before you were. If you buy property in America you do so knowing full well what American residency entails.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I don't see how a policy of complete neutrality and universal free trade would anger any country thus reducing the risk of conflict.
    And that's kind of the problem. Even before we go into the specific ways this policy might anger other countries, you're resting the security of your country on the assumption that it definitely won't, that everything will always go right. Your planning is based on a best-case scenario, not a worst-case scenario. You're making an investment while ignoring the risk. You're engaging in wishful thinking.

    Now, as for those specific ways other countries might find reason to wage war against you, the first and most obvious is that if everything does go right for you and you get rich off of trade, then you're rich. Attacking rich lands and taking their wealth is one of the oldest reasons for warfare there is. Your invader might just want to plunder you and leave, they might make you a tributary, or they might try to conquer you so they can control and tax this wonderful trade hub directly. That's one reason. Reason two is that your invader is another trading power and wants to shut down your trade, rendering theirs more valuable. States can engage in monopolistic practices just as easily as companies can. Reason three is that in your neutrality you're trading with both sides in a war, and one side decides that your trade is benefiting the other side too much to be allowed to continue unabated. Reason four is that your land is strategically valuable. Reason five is that you're just plain the wrong religion. Reason six... reason seven... I can go on and on. Human beings don't exactly need a lot of excuse to go to war.

    And before you dismiss these scenarios as not likely, remember that, between the two of us, I'm the one drawing his arguments from the historical record, and you're the one repeatedly face-planting into that same record. Not only can I provide examples of all these things actually happening, I can provide examples of all these things actually happening without leaving the freaking Netherlands.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    I forgot to address your argument against my proposed gambling system of funding the minarchic government: if someone wants to ruin their life by gambling, more power to them, it is not my job to tell people what they can or can not do, and I shouldn't be guilty for allowing them to excersise their free will.
    Washing your hands of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions is not a good way to convince us that libertarianism is the morally superior system.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Well, this is kind of why polytheism is fun, no need to choose. Having to pick one individual one to rule everything just seems kind of like a bad idea anyways, the world is too diverse for one "ruler" in that sense.
    It's a god. You can just define it as being capable of handling that much diversity.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Look, if some one ruins their life with lottery or gambling, then it's not my problem and it shouldn't be anyone's problem except that individual's.
    It's your problem if you're directly profiting from their ruin.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    That isn't my point, my point is that we can probably fund a small government whose only role is national defense and courts with gambling as the government can outcompete the private gambling businesses for obvious reasons and monopolize the industry.
    So the government is more efficient than a private industry now?

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    And look, America spends way too much on its military it spends more than the rest of the world combined. We could cut the annual military budget by 75% and still spend more on the military per year than the second highest spender(China). The US could go without spending money on its military for many years and still be the strongest military power in the world.
    The military is not an area in which you want to spend just a bit more than potential rivals. If the best boxer in the world is only a bit stronger than the second-best boxer in the world, then the second-best boxer in the world wants to challenge him for the title. And even if the best boxer in the world wins that fight, he still leaves the ring bloodied. If he doesn't want to have to fight, he needs to invest in overwhelming superiority.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Edit: Also this minarchy I am proposing would be very neutral and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, and would try to pursue a policy of universal free trade.
    "Isolationist" and "universal free trade" are oxymoronic. Either you've got foreign entanglements through free trade agreements, or you don't.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    When you aren't upsetting anyone, there is no point in spending ridiculous amounts on the military.
    If you think trading doesn't upset anyone... argh. England. The Netherlands. Venice. Byzantium. History. Read it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on The Repeal of the ACA
    Quote from Frostdragon4 »
    Write your congressmen.
    Only yours, though. Congressional offices toss non-constituent mail unless you're like Angelina Jolie or somebody. Sometimes even then.

    Quote from Frostdragon4 »
    Voting isn't the biggest thing, it's continual communication and pressure on the largest issues. These people do read their mail and do respond. Pick out the specifics, and use those specifics to your advantage. Not just "angry letter, I want this" rather think through and connect to a narrative and some of the aspects of these people.
    Eh. "Angry letter, I want this" has much the same effect. They definitely pay attention to constituent letters, but obviously they don't read all of them themselves. Staffers read them and enter the take-home point into a database so they can hand their member a summary saying "X people contacted us in favor of this bill and Y people contacted us against it".

    If you have more nuanced policy ideas, the best way to float them is to find out who your member's legislative assistant is for the relevant issue and address your letter to that person rather than to the member.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Oookay. Reality check for the other side now.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    In universaty (300 democratic culture) we learned that usualy the elite in one country will try to work together with the elite in another country to benefit the two smaller groups, usualy at the cost of the once not in the elite. This often would be private firms running infrastructure. If they can corner a monopoly you have no way to get past paying high prices.
    Can you give a historical example of this happening?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    With no goverment you will have no way to protect yourself from cheap competetive labour from the outside. Every itemn will be imported leaving many jobs absolete.
    It's called comparative advantage. If someone overseas can do my job more efficiently than I can, that frees me up to to another job. More work gets done overall, the economy grows, and everyone benefits. With or without a government, this is a good thing. Failing to recognize that fact is why protectionist policies can hamstring economies. You will note that the biggest protectionist voice in the world right now is that of notorious ignoramus Donald J. Trump.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Also a lot of tech companies are working on robots who can replace most menial tasks all the way from taxi, uber self driving card, up to doctor diagnostocian, watson who can diagnose cancer better then humans. Cilicon valey are also learning robots to copy regular body movement meaning all labour like making food, cleaning, doing services can all be gone as jobs in 10 to 100 years. This is a problem even with a state, and a big one without it.
    Wait, are you saying that you think an advantage of a state is that it can impede technological progress? (a) No, it can't; and (b) why would we want it to?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    With no free press (that needs finacial backing) it is hard to get information that is true. False news, or newss badly reported would be everywhere. The elites in the country would start regulating the news, shaping the public narative like in dictatorships run countries.
    Do you think the state runs the free press? Do you not know how the free press works?

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Also with no state none will care for the sick.
    This is just flatly untrue. Private hospitals are a thing and historically have been for far longer than state-run hospitals.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    And there is no money in privatising orpheneges.
    Actually, again, private orphanages predate state-run orphanages. They were horrible, but if your argument is that they didn't exist, you're still wrong.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    We in Norway based our constetution on the French ideas (same as you) and also on the American constetution. But we have kept updating it as time goes by. Americans seem so star struck by their cinstetution. I will grant you the founding fathers where ahead of their time, but they are getting more and more dates as time goes by.
    See, now it seems like you're just not paying attention, because you're directly contradicting two basic historical facts that have already been pointed out in this thread:

    (1) The American Revolution predates the French Revolution by over a decade.

    (2) The American Revolution predates the libertarian movement by over a century.

    You're also ignoring the fact, not yet stated on this thread but nevertheless well known and easily verified, that the U.S. Constitution is updated with some regularity.

    And of course, you provide precisely zero concrete examples of ways in which the Constitution is outdated. It's four pages of plain English. If you know what you're talking about, it shouldn't be hard for you to quote a few choice passages which you think illustrate your point.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    If the founding fathers where alive today, nobody would care what they thought in todays political climate.
    That's pretty manifestly not true. Just ask Lin-Manuel Miranda.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    This is where you counter with a snappy one liner to feel superior in the debate. Something like 'Freedom is not free'. This is true. That is why all of the social democratic scandinavian countries are paying as much taxed as we can. Because freedom is not free.
    "Freedom isn't free" is a reference to the necessity of a military to protect the country and its institutions from hostile forces. As a NATO member, Norway's freedom is overwhelmingly subsidized by American defense spending. Even as a percentage of GDP, Norway (like twenty-two other NATO states out of twenty-eight) is spending less than its treaty obligation requires. In short: you're not paying for your freedom; I'm paying for your freedom. You're welcome, by the way.

    So come on, man. If you're going to do snappy, first do your homework.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    If God does not know the capital of Australia, then there is something he cannot do: answer the question "What is the capital of Australia?" Ergo, he is not omnipotent.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    Quote from Verbal »
    Omnipotent just means you have the ability/power to do anything.
    And knowing a fact is a thing I can do.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 0

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    Quote from Verbal »
    But BS is correct - the various constructions of (typically) the christian god who are actual perfect and loving would be great. Just remove the 'pretending not to exist' fetish and we're golden.
    Nothing in the definition says the Philosophers' God incarnated in Roman Judea or died on a cross. He/she/it could have done so, but only if it would have been the most maximally good thing to do. Which seems unlikely.

    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Also, the idea of a God that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent but knows nothing seems like it would have potential for some amusing results.
    Unfortunately for our amusement, omnipotence implies omniscience.
    Posted in: Religion
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Edit: an idea I recently came up with is that if we could get the government so small that its only purposes would be to provide a court system and national defense, couldn't it be funded voluntarily by the government starting a sort of lottery/online gambling business? I know I would buy lottery tickets if it meant supporting my military...
    Yet again, we need only look to history to see how your idea fares in the real world. There have been numerous attempts at a minimalist, voluntarily funded government. Two with which I am most familiar are the original Icelandic Althing and the United States federal government under the Articles of Confederation. But to avoid turning this into a lecture, let's skip to the end: they don't work too well. It turns out that when people can choose whether to pay or not pay for a service, most of them choose not to pay, at least not in the amounts necessary to fund an effective court system and national defense. This isn't exactly a matter of leaving your waiter an extra $20 in the tip because you're feeling generous, here.

    As for your idea of a lottery, two problems. The first is just a revisitation of the problem from last paragraph: it can offset the cost of some small government programs, but you're not going to make enough selling lottery tickets to pay for stuff like $4.5 billion aircraft carriers. The second is that a lottery is an exploitation of public ignorance and addictive behavior. It's almost like you're saying, "Taxes are bad, so let's get everybody hooked on cocaine instead." And where are public ignorance and addictive behavior most acute? That's right, in the lower socioeconomic classes. Not only do these people not have as much money to give you for their fix (getting back to problem one), but what they do give is going to be a larger proportion of their income and therefore do more damage to their lives and prospects.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    I would not say state regulation is a robbery of personal freedom.
    I didn't say that either. I said it was a limitation on personal freedom. Some limitations on personal freedom are justified. But that doesn't mean they're not limitations on personal freedom. When there's a government regulation saying "You have to do this thing this way", then I have to do that thing that way. I can no longer choose to do the thing some other way, or not to do the thing at all. I have less freedom of action than I did before.

    If a hostile army invades your country, your soldiers are going to start shooting at them. Normally we think that shooting at people is bad, but in this case almost everybody would agree that the shooting is justified: the bad act is serving a greater good. What you're trying to say here is like saying that because it's is justified, the soldiers aren't actually "shooting" at all. This is a misuse of the word "shooting", and a potentially dangerous downplaying of the fact that what's happening is still a bad act in its own right and not to be undertaken lightly.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    free education
    It's not free. Somebody's paying for it. If it's not you, it's somebody else who would otherwise be able to spend that money on themselves and their family. Again, I'm not saying public education isn't justified. Public education is a very good thing. But we shouldn't start pretending it's "free" and lose sight of what actually goes into it. It's a meaningful tradeoff, not magic.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    Blinking Spirit I do not think I mistake freedom with power. In america it does not matter that you can get an edication and have a 'class journey' if you do not have posabilaty to do so.
    The ability to do something is what we call "power".

    Quote from VidarThor »
    Currently that it something very few have. You went as far as to make the metafor with faust, but that just seems unrealistic.
    What, do you not have the Devil in Norway or something? Smile

    Quote from VidarThor »
    If anything, what you seem to be saying is that a liberterians favoret senario would be to be stuck in an island without anything like robinson cruso.
    Not the favorite scenario, but yes, archetypically, the American culture hero would prefer to be poor but independent rather than wealthy but dependent on the government or some other outside entity. Getting rich is nice, but being free is more important. Better to be Crusoe than Faust.

    Quote from VidarThor »
    It seems to me that you are looking for the end goal of as much personal freedom as possible. I think the scandinavian countries have that one nailed down, even though we have very big state regulation.
    These two sentences are directly contradictory. A state regulation is by definition a limitation on personal freedom.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    Edit: To be more precise. Is not the true measure of freedom how much can do? Instead of what your are allowed to do? Being allowed to do something is not the same as being able to do it. Are you not more free if you are able to do something instead of not being able to do it? I would think so.
    A man named Faust made a deal with the Devil. The Devil granted him great power: he was able to do many more things than he could before. But in return, Faust had to do the Devil's bidding. Did this pact make Faust more free, or less?

    What you're talking about isn't freedom, it's power. And, notwithstanding my Mephistophelean metaphor, power is not always a bad thing. But a recurring theme in American culture is that giving up freedom for power is a bad trade. Ben Franklin said it outright, in one of the most popular quotations from any of our Founders: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The iconic American farmer would rather struggle to make a living on land he owned outright than mortgage the farm for a more comfortable life beholden to a bank. We take pride in independence and rankle at having to accept handouts. The American Dream at its purest is making it on your own. If you get a leg-up, whether from a rich family or from the government or from a bank, it doesn't count. This is why Obama's 2012 statement that "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that" caused so much white-hot fury, and why Donald Trump tries to portray himself as raising his business empire from almost nothing, downplaying its origins as "a very, very small loan from my father" (of only a million dollars Rolleyes ).

    So you can argue until you're blue in the face that the "true" definition of freedom is social democracy, but you'll just be playing word games and missing the real point. No matter what you try to call it, what you're talking about is not the freedom of the American Dream. It's actually the opposite of that.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    Well I guess it depends on how you define freedom. Yes you pay less taxes in America, but I would say for the averadge citisent in USA they have little freedom. One thing I value very higly in a sociaty would be social mobilaty, AKA the abilaty to move socialy from where you are born to where you want to be in life. Also known as the american dream, or a huge part of the american dream. This is easier to achive in Norway because we have big social mobilaty.
    This would not be how Americans, or indeed I think most English speakers, would define "freedom". Not that it's a bad thing, but that's not the word we'd use. There are lots of good things that aren't matters of freedom: peace, GDP per capita, literacy, low crime, etc. Freedom is very simple: how much is the government telling me what I can and can't do?

    As for state of the American Dream: it's Silicon Valley, not Silicon Fjord. Just sayin'.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Is it just me or are Republicans hamstringing themselves?
    Quote from Hackworth »
    Trump lost the popular vote by like half of NZ's population (2.2 million and change, for those of you keeping score).
    Which comes to about one US voter out of fifty. Come on, man, you have to know how abusive it is to compare absolute population numbers like that.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Who is the best God to follow?
    The so-called "Philosopher's God", the entity philosophers are normally assumed to be talking about when they ask questions like "Does God exist?" This being has three defining properties: (a) omniscience; (b) omnipotence; and (c) omnibenevolence. So it's pretty clear that this deity is best by definition: it always wishes to do maximal good, knows how to do maximal good, and is capable of --

    oh who am I kidding
    Posted in: Religion
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from VidarThor »
    What I am more interested in is why people, americans mostly, who want personal freedom are so against soscial democrasy?
    Because raising your taxes reduces your freedom to decide how to spend your money, and providing you with state-run services reduces your freedom to shop around for the service you want. Social democracy sure as hell isn't fascism, but it's still unquestionably a relative reduction in personal freedom.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on The Repeal of the ACA
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    This is my understanding of the republican position
    1. The government shouldn't be involved in healthcare because it's bad at it.
    2. The regulations that exist are bad.
    3. Businesses and individuals know best and we should let the market solve the problem.

    Because of this base ideology they support cutting a lot of programs because they truly believe the system will be better if they change it.
    Okay. It's a long way from there to "the poor deserve to die in the gutter". As Jay touched on, we're pretty much all solidly against that at this point in human history. In a way, that's the problem. One of the reasons the ACA is such a Frankensteinian monster is that it's the stitched-up remains of everybody's different plans, Republican as well as Democrat. (Also because it was apparently written in a single sitting, I can only assume over a stormy night in a mountain villa with full access to the liquor cabinet of history's most notorious libertine. But that's neither here nor there.)

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Just know that when I insult the "republican establishment" or "republicans" it's not directed at you.
    When Donald Trump insults women it's not directed at me either, but I still frown on it. My stance is indiscriminately anti-insult. (Unless it's really funny.) Admittedly I didn't say it in the most serious way, but I was serious: it's your credibility that gets hurt here, not my feelings. It turns what you have to say from ideas into tribal posturing.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016

    Hey, look on the bright side: fewer carbon emissions.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    VidarThor, you're on to something, but it's not really that libertarianism is an "American" thing per se. The United States was founded in an era when the discussion of personal rights and how to protect those rights from government overreach was all the rage in political philosophy. We declared independence from the British Empire in response to perceived tyranny -- America can be crudely summed up as the most successful tax revolt in history. So our founding documents are written in a language of inviolable rights and limited government. Libertarianism proper came along a while later, but it grew out of this same philosophical tradition and used this same language. So its ideas may resonate more strongly among Americans than among citizens of many other countries.

    That said, the philosophers who inspired the American founders were European, and they were widely read in Europe as well. And libertarianism, which grew out of these philosophers, is likewise just as much a product of Europe as it is America. The particular strain of libertarianism MTGTCG is attempting to defend is called the "Austrian School", for the sensible reason that it was developed and promulgated mostly by Austrians, particularly a man named Ludwig von Mises. But to bring this discussion full circle, von Mises did emigrate to America, and his ideas are certainly more broadly popular in America than they are in Austria.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    You were willing to make the claim that Roof had turned away from his friends, but the opposite claim requires video evidence? Perhaps instead of video evidence, you'd accept the account of those friends?
    I was making a general claim about how friendships work. You were making a specific claim about how these particular friends interacted.

    Quote from Tiax »
    At what point should I expect this alienation to drive me to murder?
    I don't know. How often are these pundits telling you that you should commit murder?

    Quote from Tiax »
    Somehow the lung cancer-smoking link seems a smidge stronger to me than the tumblr-murder link, don't you think?
    If anything, it's the other way around. Some people really do just get lung cancer out of the blue. But I have yet to find a violent white nationalist who didn't consume violence-advocating white nationalist literature.

    Quote from Tiax »
    That's not what he means by disbelief, and you know it. He means he was shocked at what he found - he didn't go in expecting to find it. He wasn't already convinced when he Googled.
    If he were already convinced, we'd just be asking the tautological question of why violent people are violent again. But he was certainly receptive to it in a way that you and I obviously aren't. White nationalist propaganda may have a frog as its mascot, but it isn't Hypnotoad.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    I take issue with the idea that I somehow betrayed him.
    I put "betraying" in scare-quotes specifically to connote that you weren't actually betraying him, but only doing it in his own mind.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    That's something I think you're not understanding here. There's something inside some people that allows them to live a duplicitive life where they are around people who don't believe like they do, who would never support extremism or who are friends to those sorts of people. But they have a filter on the way they view the world and they can be presented with a ton of contrary information & experience and still ignore it.
    Dude, I get it. Did you notice how I talked repeatedly about how things look from our perspective versus from their perspective? I thought I even used the word "filter", but it looks like that was in an earlier draft of the paragraph or just in my head. In any case, a filter is exactly what they have.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    There's a nuanced argument for why a person who is here without papers is not here illigally and why calling a person "illigal" is a dehuminzation of the individual.
    That argument isn't nuanced. It's a mash-up of disparate legal and ethical principles which is attacking at least three strawmen I can see offhand. Most obviously, it argues against the term 'illegal alien', but the term Jusstice used was 'illegal immigrant' -- and as the article itself acknowledges, "the act of entering the country" (also known as 'immigration') "without inspection is a federal misdemeanor".

    So... we'll chalk that one up as a swing and a miss.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    But the core of the democratic party is introspective, intellectual, and downright full of self doubt.
    I have a hard time believing you were able to type that with a straight face.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    I've yet to see any substantive evidence that this has infiltrated the left's core the way it has on the right. It could happen, but I don't think it has.
    See? That's more reasonable. (Provided by "left" you mean "American Democrats and allies". Because when you get to the hard left... well, y'know.)

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Bias doesn't kill truth. Lies kill truth.
    Bias is what motivates lies (and omissions, which can be just as dangerous).
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    But I entirely reject the idea that his sins are somehow my responsibility because I decided that his actions could no longer be tolerated when he called me a race traitor on the night in 2007 when Obama was elected to POTUS.
    They're not your responsibility. Nobody is saying you have to put up with those kind of people in your life forever -- you have a right to be happy and to choose your friends. But it's a very difficult situation, because the brute psychological fact is that your pushback, however reasonable on your end, probably did feed into his twisted worldview. I mean, "race traitor"? You actually "betraying" him by cutting him out is not exactly going to dissuade him from that narrative.

    It's like how on one level, fighting ISIS terrorists is a perfectly justified response to them trying to kill or conquer everyone else, but on their level, it confirms the belief that America is at war against Islam. It's not America's fault that fighting terrorists often creates more terrorists, we're not responsible for the terrorists' crimes, but it is an effect we should be aware of, and maybe start thinking about how we can counteract.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    The reality is that a lot of people who get trapped in these echo-chambers of extremism, who need a helping hand to get out ARE OFFERED THAT HAND and ARE SURROUNDED BY GOOD PEOPLE (at least some of the time) and REJECT IT. Because who knows why. Either biologically they're out of whack and can't make the right choices or they've been raised in a truly messed up mental system that they can't hack their way out of.
    Nobody said there was a magic bullet solution. In fact, I believe I already said there wasn't.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    His friends didn't attempt to dissuade him, they just brushed his racist remarks off. There was no choosing the internet over them.
    I don't think we can make a claim like that without having video footage of his life and reviewing the interactions he had with his friends. What we can say is that friends generally have a profound influence on one's own worldview. I mean, I'd like to think that I'm anti-racist because the pure light of moral truth shines through that position to be apprehended by my superior rational mind, but the truth is more likely that I'm anti-racist because my friends and family are anti-racist (and that hopefully this network of people is spread wide enough to maybe catch the occasional glimpse of the pure light of moral truth). So when somebody takes a sharp right turn from their peer group, that's significant.

    Quote from Tiax »
    Even if that were the case, does that mean I am alienated from my conservative friends because I put more stock in the opinions of internet pundits I read over theirs?
    Maybe.

    Quote from Tiax »
    If this is your definition of being in an echo chamber, it applies to a huge number of people, not just violent extremists. How then can it be the explanation for violence?
    Lots of people smoke cigarettes without getting lung cancer, but if you want to know why somebody got lung cancer you should still start with the fact that their hobby is inhaling burning tar.

    Quote from Tiax »
    Roof says he googled "black on white crime" and was "in disbelief" over what he found. If he felt white people were under attack prior to googling, why would he be in disbelief?
    Um... he pretty obviously did believe it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on The Repeal of the ACA
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    When you feel like engaging my ideas, let me know; posting standards clearly apply to you.
    Would you feel like engaging the ideas of somebody who ended their post with, "...and Democrats support abortion because it is child sacrifice for the demon Baal Moloch"? Of course not; this is clearly not a person who is interested in anything you have to say.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    1. First of all, the DeBeers market share reached an all time high of 80% and then startes decreasing to its current market share of 50%. Anyways, even if a company monopolizes through the use of violence, governments or private defense agencies could help out and besides they're diamonds, they're rare and not very important, so it isnt a big deal.
    Let me get this straight. Over the course of this thread you've gone from "monopolies are impossible" to "yes, companies can violently monopolize, but a diamond monopoly isn't a big deal"?

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    2. If push comes to shove and the discriminated against group can't find anyone that lets the group buy the things the group wants to buy from them,(this being obviously unlikely)...
    Jesus Christ, do you not even know what a history book is? This happened. Every single thing that you've said is unlikely or impossible in this thread has actually happened! And not only that, but happened frequently and harmfully enough to be the very reason the laws that you're railing against exist in the first place!

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    ...the group can make their own businesses.
    Which have vastly less capital, resources, and skilled labor, and the same old lack-of-competitive-access problem. You are creating a second-class market that has to make do with the leavings of the first market. That's not free-market capitalism. And again, because this is what actually happened, we know for a fact this is how it turns out.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    3. If I steal from you to buy you a car,I have still stolen from you.
    But the government isn't stealing from you to buy you a car. It's buying your parents a car, with their consent, to be paid for on an installment plan, such that when you inherit the car you have to keep up the payments or else the car gets repossessed.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Besides I'd like to object to your statement that the state benefits me as I would think that the some of the things the state does, the free market could do better,and some of the things the state does is useless or harmful to the economy and the people.
    Okay, object away. But "I think this is true" doesn't exactly constitute a dazzling argument in your favor. In any case, even if some other arrangement could theoretically build e.g. the interstate highway system more efficiently than the federal government, that doesn't change the fact that the federal government built the interstate highway system you're actually using. You have to pay for your dinner at the restaurant you're at, even if you think some other restaurant might have prepared it better.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on The Repeal of the ACA
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    It isn't entirely clear exactly what's going to happen, but it certainly looks like worse coverage for the poor and elderly on the whole. Which is pretty standard fair. Republicans still believe that healthcare is something that only the people who "add to our economy" deserve. Anyone who's lazy and doesn't have a job can die in the gutter they sleep in, that's just fine. That's freedom.
    You were doing so well, but then you had to end with a mustache-twirling caricature and your credibility just went *PBBBBBT*.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that the trend is not the way numbers make it appear (perhaps due to reporting bias or otherwise), but I'm not sure it's true that the evidence is purely anecdotal.
    I'm not sure it is either. And my case certainly doesn't rest on what you say not being true. I'm just throwing out a cautionary note.

    Quote from Tiax »
    I don't think it's true that he decided to turn away from his friends and associates. He lived with his friends right up until the murders. He made racist comments from time to time, but they shrugged it off. He wasn't driven away from them, he wasn't berated or made to feel embarrassed or ashamed.
    But he decided to take the opinion of some faceless weirdos on the internet over them.

    Quote from Tiax »
    That seems like a bit of a stretch. Is it really the case that any reading of supremacist literature constitutes an echo chamber, regardless of whether you're also being exposed to other media and voices?
    I'm not exactly unique in calling online communities with strong ideological leanings "echo chambers". It's not just a matter of raw exposure, it's a matter of belonging and trust. Most of the diehards who frequent Stormfront or Tumblr or LessWrong or wherever are almost certainly exposed to other media, they just don't listen to them.

    Quote from Tiax »
    If the previous attempt was a bit of a stretch, then this is a huge leap. He googled that because of the Trayvon Martin incident, not because he felt he was under attack.
    I was around for the Trayvon Martin incident too, but I didn't google "black on white crime" or climb down the rabbit hole of racism. Something within him primed him to be susceptible to this literature. And the phrasing of his Google query is, I think, extremely revealing as to what that was. If nothing else, there's the fact that the Trayvon Martin incident was white on black.

    Quote from Tiax »
    You should challenge it with the perspective that it is illegitimate and unacceptable. Not in the manner one might debate, say, the capital gains tax, in which different perspectives are all potentially valid answers.
    If you're debating the capital gains tax, you don't think different perspectives are all potentially valid -- you think your perspective is the correct one and the others are incorrect. The difference is that "incorrect" in the case of the capital gains tax means "maybe a bit less economic efficiency", whereas "incorrect" in the case of racism means "moral evil".
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    1. Would you buy from a business that steals and kills people?
    History shows that people frequently do exactly that. Businesses are sometimes able to cover up the fact that they steal and kill people, because, y'know, tons of money and no police. But sometimes it seems like they don't even have to bother. As Lithl has pointed out, De Beers' business practices haven't exactly been secret. The buying public just didn't care.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    2. Bad analogy, killing people with poisoned apples is different from not doing business with someone.
    Special pleading. How is it different, and how does the difference break the analogy? The relevant similarity is that in both cases, the public has a reasonable understanding of what is being offered, and you are acting contrary to that understanding.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Also this conspiracy is doomed to fail because most rational businesses want to maximize profits.
    Again, history shows that this is not the case. In the Jim Crow South, enough businesses refused to serve black people for the conspiracy to persist for decades and deal vast economic damage to the black community (which was not exactly rolling in the dough to begin with). Maybe, as FourDogs suggested, this is because they weren't profit-maximizing rational actors. Real-life human beings after all have a lot of motives other than money, and bigotry can certainly be among them. But even if they were profit-maximizing rational actors, in those communities white people were more populous, more wealthy, and more racist, so doing business with black people could easily have resulted in a greater loss of business from white people. (Under such circumstances, an antidiscrimination law would be to the business' benefit: racists can't blame the business owners for serving black people if they are legally required to do so. It is an odd consequence of game theory that sometimes restricting choices can improve profitability.)

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    3. Again why should I have to immigrate to avoid taxes, what if I told you I would steal from you on a regular basis unless you move?
    You should have to emigrate to avoid taxes because otherwise you are collecting on the services the government provides to the community without paying for them. Like how you have to move to avoid rent because otherwise you are collecting on the services your landlord provides to you without paying for them. With a thief? Not so much.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Not fair.
    This isn't grade school.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    1. They got an artificial boost that would not have happened under the free market...
    De Beers formed by the merger of diamond mines under the free market. South African protection of the cartel occurred after the fact. And if the South African state did not exist, De Beers would have been able to protect its ownership of diamond mines through the libertarian-favored means of hiring private security contractors. In fact, they could have been much more aggressive in their monopolistic practices in the region, since there would be no law to prevent these private security contractors from engaging in open violence to acquire the remaining mines. And before you can say "non-aggression principle", why on earth should a diamond cartel with wads of money and a private army give a damn about the non-aggression principle?

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    ...that led to an increase in market share up to 80% which isnt even a problem because that means there is still competition in the market.
    It was enough market share for De Beers to flagrantly manipulate the market. Market forces did not set prices; De Beers set prices.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    2. That would only be fraud if I had a sign on my shop that said: will sell to anyone,or something along those lines.
    That is implicit in offering something for public sale. If I'm selling apples, I don't have to expressly advertise "not poisoned" for it to be fraud if they're poisoned. A reasonable member of the public should be able to expect that food items for sale are not poisoned. A reasonable member of the public should be able to expect that a shop advertising a public sale will sell to them.

    And remember, this is only half the problem -- and the lesser half. Even if you post a sign stating explicitly that you won't sell to black people, which would be despicable but which would at least be truth in advertising, you're still engaged in a conspiracy to deny people access to the market, and thus belying the "free" part of "free market".

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    3. But I never made a contract with tge government that I pay taxes in exchange for their services. My ancestors may have made that decision but I should be able to opt out anytime. The government doesn't allow one to opt out of the contract.
    It absolutely does. You can emigrate and relinquish your citizenship. Some states in history have tried to forbid emigration, and yes, that would be unjust, but neither the United States nor any other modern democratic nation does this.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    The answer you previously gave to this question was, "they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option". That's not really the same as "alienation and an echo chamber", is it?
    It is, actually.

    Quote from Tiax »
    Does either of those answers explain the rise in hate crimes after Trump's election?
    Has there been a rise in hate crimes after Trump's election? Last I saw even Mother Jones was saying the evidence was anecdotal. Let's not fall prey to the same trap of letting anecdotes reinforce a preexisting narrative.

    Quote from Tiax »
    Instead, it seems he was driven to violence through online self-radicalization. He was turned violent by reading supremacist websites, and deciding to take matters into his own hands. He said he googled "black on white crime" and the result that came up was the CCC website.
    So Roof for some reason decided to turn away from his offline non-racist friends and associates, and you say this isn't alienation? He turned to white supremacist websites where he was subjected to an unbroken stream of racist ideology, and you say this isn't an echo chamber? He googled "black on white crime" indicating some worry that white people were under attack by black people, and you say this isn't a siege mentality?

    Quote from Tiax »
    It was the ready availability of unchallenged racist literature that created him, not being attacked by anti-racists.
    So are we supposed to challenge racist literature, or does engaging it in argument legitimize it? I can't figure out where you stand today.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    1. South Africa acted as a boost to DeBeers Diamond Company
    The "boost" being that they got to own a lot of diamond mines. Per libertarianism, there is nothing wrong with a company owning a lot of diamond mines. According to the theories of von Mises and Rothbard, a company that owned a lot of diamond mines should still be vulnerable to competition from other companies with their own diamond mines. This is not what happened.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    2. The reason you dont have the right to drive over someone is because you would ve taking away their right to own their body. By refusing to do business with someone I am not violating their rights because they are not entitled to my goods or services.
    You are offering your goods and services publicly for sale. Everyone in the public has equal right to take you up on that offer. So not following through on your offer when black people walk into your store is at the very least false advertising: fraud. What's more, your denial in concert with the denial of other racists in the community has the net result of stripping black people of equal economic opportunity. You are, in effect, in a conspiracy to run them over socioeconomically. You are creating a market that is not free, but to which some people are systematically refused access.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    3. All governments have a beginning in which they claim a plot of land. Claiming a plot of land is not owning that land. If you own some land, it wont become my land if I claim it.
    False in its own right, in direct contradiction with even libertarian theories of ownership or government (read your Locke), but most importantly, once again failing to address the point. We are not talking about government-owned land. What part of "not the rent for living on a physical property, but the rent for living under a legal system" do you find difficult to parse?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    "South Africa, the major center of world diamond production"
    "The government long ago nationalized all diamond mines, and anyone who finds a diamond mine on his property discovers that the mine immediately becomes government property. The South African government then licenses mine operators who lease the mines from the government and, it so happened, that Io and behold!, the only licensees turned out to be either DeBeers itself or other firms who were willing to play ball with the DeBeers cartel."
    This fundamentally fails to understand or address my point. Which is disappointing, because I thought I was pretty clear: South African law only applies in South Africa. De Beers operates worldwide. South African law cannot be blamed for De Beers dominating the diamond trade in other countries.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Anti-Discrmination laws violate property rights.
    This is still not an argument. Property rights are not absolute. They end where the human rights of others begin. I have the property right to own a car but not the property right to run over another person with my car.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    That's because the landlord owns the apartment, the government doesn't own the land. The government either stole the land or bought the land by stealing taxpayer money. "You have to move" is not an argument against the proposed immorality and hypocrisy of taxation.
    *sigh* Again, I thought I was clear when I wrote that taxation is "not the rent for living on a physical property, but the rent for living under a legal system". The landlord owns the property, the government owns the legal system. The landlord pays for water and electricity, the government pays for roads and bridges. The landlord provides repair services, the government provides police services. (One difference is that the government is democratic and representative, meaning it's actually owned by you jointly with everybody else in the country. So maybe not so much a landlord as a residential co-op.)

    And in any case, you've got a circular argument going with "taxpayer money is stolen because it's used to pay rent on land that's held illegitimately because it was bought with taxpayer money because taxpayer money is stolen". "Taxation is theft" can be a premise or a conclusion, not both.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    Yes, so the question is what makes someone who is an extremist turn to violence. Not what makes someone become an extremist. Do you really think neo-nazis are a peaceful bunch until they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option? Neo-nazis have never struck me as a "violence is the last resort" type.
    Yes, the question is what makes someone who is an extremist turn to violence. That question intrinsically requires looking at nonviolent extremists, to see when and why they drop the "non-" bit. So: what makes a nonviolent white nationalist, or a nonviolent street criminal, or a nonviolent Islamist, turn into a violent one? I've already answered the question: alienation and an echo chamber. If you say, "I don't care about these nonviolent types, tell me about the violent ones", you're moving the goalposts, and nonsensically so. What makes violent people turn violent? They can't turn violent. They're already violent. The matter is tautological.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    All you've done is plop violence on the end of an otherwise non-violent spectrum, and pretended that it constitutes a continuation of that spectrum.
    Now who's moving goalposts?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    Quote from Mockingbird »
    Don't count on Romney making it to Secretary of State.
    Believe me, I'm not.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    BS, I wonder sometimes about the most effective ways to reach people like this. Make more schools show American History X to their 9th graders? Seems to me that as attention spans have 'shrunk' in the modern world that media and such are the ways to show people the dark side of white nationalism in a way that also shows redemption?
    I don't think we've hit on a magic bullet approach for deradicalizing people, and unfortunately there probably isn't one. But we can be pretty sure what doesn't work, and that's telling these people they're monsters and they need to crawl in a deep dark hole.

    (As for American History X... For people who are already receptive to the message, yes, it does show the dark side and redemption. But for skinheads and skinhead wannabes, it does too good a job of making neo-Nazis look badass. Remember in Jarhead when the marines cheered the napalm scene in Apocalypse Now?)

    You're right on the money when it comes to the neo-nazi/gang connection there, but thats largely because the actual Neo-Nazi cells fit the same role that the gangs do in the inner city, right? I almost want to call your comparison cheating :p
    I don't think it's cheating to point out that two very similar things are very similar.

    Quote from Tiax »
    You're just moving the goalposts. Your statement wasn't about what makes people become extremists, it was about what causes people who are extremists to commit violence:


    Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option.
    Not all extremists are violent. The jump from being racist to shooting up black churches is a significant one. Just like the jump from property crime to violent crime, or the jump from aggrieved Islam to suicide bombing.

    Quote from osieorb18 »
    Where's the line between extremist and non-extremist? Because if one (reasonably) says it's a rough spectrum:

    Gandhi Joe Schmoe
    Average Joe Schmoe
    Extremist Sympathizer Joe Schmoe
    Extremist Joe Schmoe
    Violent Extremist Joe Schmoe

    ... then the cause for moving one way or other on said spectrum could be the same.
    And the people on both ends are "extremists". Martin Luther King, Jr.: "So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    McCain's not up for a cabinet position, though.

    Really, the big question mark is to what extent Vice President Pence and hypothetical-Secretary-of-State Romney will be the policy-setters on Russia. If Trump is just an uninterested slacker like he is on so many other issues, things may not be completely messed up. But if he's really in Russia's pocket, either directly or just through business interest, then he has the power to override them.

    The fact that he very specifically changed the GOP platform's statements on Russia is ominous. (Although Manafort was still his campaign chairman then.)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    https://mises.org/library/are-diamonds-really-forever -De Beers diamond monopoly wasn't a natural monopoly.
    De Beers is an international cartel. South African law, however favorable, cannot be responsible for its successful monopolistic practices beyond South Africa's borders. That'd be like saying Coca-Cola is only a beverage behemoth because of favoritism from the city council in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Forcing people to do business with others is immoral.
    Well, you're one to complain about "Not An Argument".

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Rent implies that the government owns your property which it doesnt.
    *sigh* I literally just said it wasn't rent for your property. You can be taxed by the United States even if you own no property in the United States. That said, the state does have sovereignty over property you own within its borders. That's a sort of substratum on which your own ownership is based: it means the state will fight for your land if the dastardly Canadians invade and try to take it. The concept of "private property" is meaningless without such a guarantee of safety. Think of it in terms of land value. Imagine you're an investor looking at two plots of land: one which could be overrun by the Canadian hordes at any moment, and one whose security is backed by the U.S. government. Which one are you going to be willing to pay good money for?

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Also what if I dont want to live under that legal system?
    Then move to a different jurisdiction. The same as if you don't want to live in a particular rental property. You say it's immoral to force people to do business with others? By living in U.S. jurisdiction you're demanding that they do business with you, in the form of providing to you the aforementioned territorial protection, roads and infrastructure, police services, and so on -- and unlike a black guy walking into a store to buy a loaf of bread, you're refusing to pay for any of it. Yeah, yeah, you didn't ask them to give you those things. If you're born into an apartment, you didn't ask for what your landlord provides, either, but if you want to keep living in the apartment as an adult you still have to accept the lease agreement, and if you don't you have to move.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
    I'm asking because I suspect we have the same explanation for this violence: jihad is a reaction to the perception that the Muslim identity is under attack from Western culture. When at-risk Muslims feel this way, they seek out associates and media which validate those feelings and cut themselves off from the rest, consuming jihadist propaganda until they're ready to die for the Caliphate. When Westerners engage in "clash of civilizations" rhetoric or call Islam an evil religion or threaten to burn a Qur'an, they reinforce this siege mentality and serve as grist for the propaganda mill. Such behavior is to be discouraged. The key to deradicalization and to preventing radicalization is engagement, not demonization.

    Gang violence is not all that different. Young men come into socioeconomic circumstances where prosperity through an honest career seems like an impossibility and the pop culture depicts men like them as thugs. If they end up in prison, they're surrounded by other criminals and come out hardened. Again, it's getting cut off from broader engagement and driven into an echo chamber that turns them into dangers to society. And efforts to get them out of gangs focus on things like education and trade skills that can enable them to rejoin that society. Just berating them for being criminals is far less likely to get them to stop.

    But white nationalists... what? They're just born bad? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so either. Neo-Nazis get recruited the same way jihadists and gang members get recruited, and they respond the same way to the same sorts of carrots and sticks.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on libertarianism.
    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Monopolies- Give me 1 example of a natural monopoly(a monopoly that occured without government intervention) that has occured in the history of the industrialized world.
    De Beers. Even Milton Friedman fesses to this one.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Hate the Poor- welfare is bad for the poor, it incentivizes laziness, minimum wage is bad for the poor as it creates unemployment and increase prices on goods, trade restrictions are bad for the poor as they increase prices on goods, child labor laws and maximum working hours per week regulations are bad for the poor as they decrease the amount of money that can be made by the poor, There are many more examples but that's enough for now
    You have yet to give one example of any of this happening. You've just said it does.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Taxation- it is theft, if I steal from you to give to the poor I am a thieve, the government does the same so shouldn't they be theives as well, taxation funds the government which is inefficient with the money,
    Taxation is rent -- not the rent for living on a physical property, but the rent for living under a legal system.

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Anarchy- yes it probably works, no you probably dont need the government to have a functioning legal system, you probably think Im crazy but I can probably answer all of your questions
    You will forgive us if we aren't suddenly convinced of correctness of your position by "yes it probably works".

    Quote from MTGTCG »
    Discrimination- forcing me to serve someone who I dont want to serve sounds a lot like slavery if you ask me...
    By all means, elaborate on how you think a guy walking into your store, exchanging money for goods, and walking out again is equivalent to being chained to an oar to pull until you die of exhaustion.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all along
    This is some scary stuff man Frown Reagan would be spinning in his grave if he knew that the Republican Party just sold out to Russia to win an election. Or even worse, if they got legit played.
    Yeah, it's like we entered the Twilight Zone or something. True, Dubya talked a bit chummy about Putin at the outset, but that was a combination of his general good-naturedness and Putin's initial pro-Western overtures. For a xenophobic isolationist Republican in 2016 to act like the Russian strongman is friendly to America is just... upside-down. That's supposed to be the sort of naïve bleating coming out of the Jill Steins of the world.

    At least Pence and Romney still talk tough about Russia.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    So then it sounds like you agree with me that Blinking Spirit's position is made-up nonsense, and not a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence?
    Give me what you consider to be a fact-based explanation of the causes of violence -- say, jihadist violence, for starters.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from combo player »
    That's your opinion. I'm not saying that to be dismissive, I'm pointing out that this definition of the term "racism" is the one that you want to use. Plenty of for example leftists are mostly unconcerned with the exact motivations of individuals because the systemic incentives and results are more useful to them.
    It should come as no surprise to you that I think these leftists are wrong. Setting aside the shadiness of redefining your way to victory, which DJK3654 has already covered, you'll note that I've been arguing from the beginning of this subconversation that these systemic incentives can only exist when motivated individuals enforce them. "The system" is not magic or a deity or a monster or a machine or anything else that stands external to people while acting on them. It's just people. So talking about systemic racism while dismissing individual motivations is like talking about a disease while dismissing germ theory.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    So, in other words, it's not the case that "feeling like they're under siege" is what drives them to violence - they just like committing violence.
    Is this also your opinion of gang warfare, communist insurgency, and Islamic terrorism? Because normally when you say this sort of thing about violent people, you're asked to turn in your liberal card.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    I'm not sure you understand exactly what happened after each war because "let your country remain in existence but it's all your fault" was surly less humiliating than "it's all your fault and you're four different countries now, oh and this time we're going to occupy you so that you follow the rules of the Treaty"
    That's a grotesque distortion which conveniently omits an examination of what the Treaty vs. the Plan actually did to the country and why. Versailles was supposed to keep Germany down and kick it repeatedly. The humiliation of the Treaty was a recurring theme in Hitler's rhetoric and stoked a furious revanchism. The Marshall Plan in contrast built Germany back up. "All this economic investment is a slap in the face, so let's go take our revenge!" said no German ever. So "surely less humiliating"? History proves otherwise.

    Japan, to this day, still relies on the American military umbrella.
    So do South Korea, Taiwan, and the NATO countries. Did we beat all of them in a war and decide to "humiliate" them, and I just forgot about it?

    The Marshall Plan vs Versailles is like Exhibit A in "why after a global conflict you can't trust the losers to fix themselves".
    Except that Versailles was not written with any intention of letting the losers fix themselves, I agree with this. Nation-building is important. Doesn't get to your point.

    Oh, and Nuremberg kinda supports my "execute them" theory.
    When a racist starts committing genocide, you may execute them with my blessing. But consider how they got to that point. Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option. You've got to offer them another way out. You think we deradicalize at-risk Muslim youth today by telling them, "Screw you, you're a monster, go crawl in a hole"? They want to crawl in a hole -- the hole in question being ISIS. Our job is to keep them out of the hole.

    Russians were fixated in blaming Germany for not only the war but also massacres perpetuated by the Russians. Even the idea of trials was too much for the Russians who asked "why?" as they carved their buffer states.
    Yeah, and look how those states turned out compared to the Marshall Plan countries in the West.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    Right, the PEOPLE who renounced those ideas were given a seat at the table. The ideas themselves were not given any respect. No one danced around calling a Nazi a Nazi, or calling a racist a racist. They were open, honest, and frank about those ideas and the people who held them.
    There is a difference between honesty and abuse. FourDogsInAHorseSuit did not just advocate frankness; he advocated hounding racists underground.

    Quote from Tiax »
    Even those who were merely "followers" were considered culpable in the crimes of the Nazi state - the Allies didn't try to win them over by drawing a bright red line between them and the "real" Nazis.
    A bright red line is exactly what the Nuremberg Trials were. Yes, "followers" in the sense of those who followed orders to commit war crimes were culpable. But "followers" in the sense of those who joined the Nazi Party and espoused Nazi ideology but never participated directly in the crimes of the Third Reich were not. An awful lot of Germans were required to turn in their Nazi cards and renounce those beliefs, but otherwise allowed to keep living normal lives in the postwar state. Even Leni freaking Riefenstahl was never convicted of any crime -- she kept making films up to her death in 2003.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Tiax »
    The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters.
    Yes. If they had been ridiculed, mocked, and berated instead of given this opportunity, how many do you think would have apologized and renounced Apartheid?

    Quote from Tiax »
    What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
    What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Racists need to be called out, they need to be ridiculed and cast down.
    Mocked and berated until they at the very least hide their terrible opinions from the public. It doesn't matter if they stop because they are no longer a bigot but because they're simply embarrassed.
    This is how we destroyed the Klan and now we've fallen into some trap where we stopped ostracising racists.
    What osieorb said. The feeling of humiliation is one of the most effective generators for extremism and rage. The Trump movement is so angry at "political correctness" precisely because of this attitude. As distasteful as it may seem, the way to defuse radicalism is to give the radicals a seat at the table. Look at South Africa. Truth and Reconciliation. You think Mandela never sat down and played nice with people who considered him subhuman?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Liberal Bias in the Media
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    There is a bias here in this forum as well, what FourDogsInAHorseSuit has said is clearly flaming, but won't get done cause he is on the liberal side, which has happened many times in my experience. Two rules which is bias, help the lefties and attack the others.
    As you know, the place for discussion of moderation is the Debate helpdesk, not the threads.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    I also think that the recent studies into implicit bias imply that we can accidentally and subconsciously create a biased system which would discriminate against those we just don't have that much contact with or think about or misunderstand.
    Recall that I was responding to Hackworth's proposal of structural racism as a category distinct from both conscious and subconscious racism. I'm saying it's not; it's a consequence of one or both.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Racism does often come with a belief structure, but racist the description also has a definition that just includes discrimination by race. A system which discriminates by race, even if it's just the collective result of a bunch of laws that don't appear to be explicitly discriminatory, can still be discriminatory as a whole regardless of the intent of the people who wrote those laws.
    Think of society like a computer program processing data. Yes, a complicated program can certainly have unintended results as its functions interact in ways the designers didn't expect. But if the program spits out the data sorted by a certain variable, then at some point some function must have called that variable. In order for society to have a racist result, at some point some function of society has to notice race. And the functions of society are performed by individual people.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Institutional racism goes beyond hiring practices.
    I know that, of course. "White people have problems with hiring, going to school with, renting to, living next to, etc., black people" just wasn't as punchy. And not all the victims are black, and not all the perpetrators are white... it gets complicated. Which is why we use shorthand terms like "systemic racism". But we shouldn't lose sight of what those terms are packaging.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    It's largely a function of segregation being enforced by socio-economic trends and the systemic denial of means which would allow the country to continue to be mixed. There are several vectors to getting there: 1. Gerrymandering School Districts 2. White flight 3. Selective Hiring (probably more)
    That's all still reification of the emergent results of decisions individuals make.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Basically. Institutional racism can occur irrespective of the goals of the people who govern or live under the rules and it's a pretty shallow hard to substantiate opinion to believe otherwise.
    If the goals of the people who govern or live under the rules are not racist, then it's not racism. Racism is a human motive, not a description of anything and everything which hurts a certain race. Let me be clear: I'm not saying that if a racial-minority community were in a bad way somehow caused purely by "the system" without any racist decisions by individuals, we shouldn't try to fix the problem. I'm saying that I'm very skeptical this is how it happens in the real world, but if it truly is, then it would be no more appropriate to call the situation "systemic racism" than we'd call a meteor hitting the community "cosmological racism". It's not like we don't provide help to victims of natural disaster -- we just don't frame it as part of the anti-racist crusade.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    And "racism" is not indefinable or without meaning. It's a nuanced conversation, sure. And the term is loaded particularly heavily with a bunch of historical weight and connotation. But pretending "racism" doesn't mean anything is like the ultimate of white denial.
    Yeah, exactly, "racism" means something.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Liberal Bias in the Media
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Yeah still lots lots more to consider.
    So if you acknowledge that these sources and "lots lots more" are part of the media, does it make any sense to view the media as a singular, monolithic entity with a bias one way or the other?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Still does not mean it was a bad source, the source was Hillary herself.
    And what's the source on all the "anti-Trump propaganda" you're complaining about? Nobody in the news media made up "grab 'em by the pussy" -- it came straight out of Trump's mouth. What ought journalists to have done? Suppress the story because it made Trump look bad? How would that have been conduct becoming a free and unbiased press?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    But still going for the diversion tactic to disprove Wikileaks as reputable source.
    "Diversion tactic" is not a magic phrase you can invoke to dismiss any argument you don't like. Source criticism is a very important element of critical thinking. You're even doing it yourself in a rudimentary fashion. If a real, concrete, and specific admission by a media figure of biased reporting can be dismissed as a "diversion tactic", then your own generalized and unsupported accusations that "the media" are "bought off" must surely be even more so.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    So because Trump doesn't want to prosecute her any more that makes her actions legal and moral?
    No, because Trump doesn't want to prosecute her any more, that makes it rather silly to say that not wanting to prosecute her is evidence of liberal bias. What makes her actions legal and moral to the best of our knowledge is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and the fact that she is one of the most frequently and intensely investigated human beings on the planet and yet has never been convicted or even indicted. Might Clinton still have some skeletons in her closet? Sure. But the onus is on her accusers to prove it.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Like the topic states, there is a liberal/globalist bias in the bought off media.
    Okay. Like I said, Tim Allen doesn't prove that. He doesn't provide any more evidence for his assertion than you've provided for yours. So try again.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Bias: Pro-Hillary, anti-Trump. How to measure... The time the media spends on anti-Trump propaganda compared to pro-Hellary. Or Liberal bias.
    Okay. Define "anti-Trump propaganda" as opposed to "legitimate reporting on things Trump has said and actions he has performed which reflect poorly on him". Then quantify the time spent on that, break it down by news outlet, and come back to us with some numbers.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    P.S. You guys take a lot more of the quote than you are responding to... Like disproving one sentience disproves the whole paragraph without having to respond to it... But I guess it's all recorded on the internet so you can come back and look at it one day..... maybe..... lol....
    You say this like you've been assiduously responding to every objection presented to you, when a brief perusal of this thread (to say nothing of your past performances) will suffice to show this is not the case. So maybe you shouldn't be the one to cast the first stone about selective response.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Liberal Bias in the Media
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    I like to look at things with an open mind and from many sources rather than just the government/media.
    You know that "media" just means "all sources of news and commentary", right? There is no one "media": the word is literally plural. Any source you look at, no matter what dark corner of the internet in which you find it, is by definition "media". Breitbart and Infowars, for instance, are two media outlets that are openly and staunchly pro-Trump.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    How about you guys try and explain how Wikileaks is a bad source and conspiracy instead of resorting to usual character attacks (diversion)!!
    As has already been explained on this thread, Julian Assange, who is the founder and leader of Wikileaks, has stated outright that he is strongly anti-Clinton and was selectively releasing information with the intent of sinking her campaign.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Edit: It's funny how lefties and the media don't want justice for Hillary's actions... This is another Bias!
    If that's a bias, it's one shared by Donald Trump. Or have none of your "many sources" informed you that the President-Elect has ruled out appointing a special prosecutor to (re)investigate Hillary Clinton, and in fact said that the Clintons are "good people" and that he doesn't want to hurt them?

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Some of the media is turning trying to get back in Trumps good books. Tim Allen has came out and sad the media was using bulling tactics on Trump and his supporters.
    What are you trying to prove? Assuming for the sake of argument that what Tim Allen says is correct (not that there is any evidence to be seen here that this is the case), how does the media bullying Trump supporters constitute "trying to get back in Trump's good books"? And what would the media "trying to get back into Trump's good books" prove, except that they're not so biased against the man?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Practicality of calling a racist a racist in a debate
    Quote from Hackworth »
    @Jusstice: you missed #6: racism as a description of structural issues in society
    Society consists of individuals acting according to their beliefs and perceptions. There is no external entity "society" that can be racist irrespective of the individual. "Structural issues in society" is professor-speak for "white people still have problems with hiring black people", and it would be wise not to reify it into anything grander.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    From what I've seen, Neo-Nazi groups tend to hide until they think they can get away with their bull***** and then start acting overtly, so their bosses feeling comfortable enough to say stuff like this is itself a problem, because that feeling of comfort will lead to an up-tick in racial hate crimes and a push to legitimize neo-nazi bull***** in public.
    Oh, yeah. It's not good. But it's not Nazi-in-the-White-House bad. People who are waiting for President Trump to start rounding up the Jews will be waiting for a long time.

    Quote from Hackworth »
    EDIT: can someone get me context on this image? I grabbed it off twitter and idk how legit it is and if it's a quote from the meeting I posted a link about
    At first glance, the banner looks shopped to me, but does it really matter? Assuming "alt-right founder" refers to Richard Spencer, he's said enough other stuff to make it perfectly clear how he thinks. All it would mean is that whichever well-meaning idiot falsified the image is feeding the alt-right's narrative of unjust persecution. It continually amazes me how many people feel the need to lie even when the truth is on their side. Not helping.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Liberal Bias in the Media
    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Can you please explain how Wikileaks is a bad source instead of passing it off as conspiracy. They get information from whistle blowers that worked in the department. There is talk about Trump giving Julian a Pardon.
    Normally at this point I'd go after the utter lack of factual accountability in any statement that begins "There is talk...", but I don't have to here. Even if it's a blue moon and the unsourced "talk" is actually correct about Trump wanting to pardon Assange, the President of the United States has no power of pardon over the Swedish justice system.

    Quote from Typho0nn »
    Did I say Jewish??? I might say Zionist or Satanic.
    QED.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    Are the Alt-Right Nazis? They've gotten to the point of gleefully quoting old Nazi propaganda and going on about the glories of the white race, so it sure looks like it.
    Mr. Spencer’s after-dinner speech began with a polemic against the “mainstream media,” before he briefly paused. “Perhaps we should refer to them in the original German?” he said.

    The audience immediately screamed back, “Lugenpresse,” reviving a Nazi-era word that means “lying press.”

    Mr. Spencer suggested that the news media had been critical of Mr. Trump throughout the campaign in order to protect Jewish interests. He mused about the political commentators who gave Mr. Trump little chance of winning.

    “One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem,” he said, referring to a Jewish fable about the golem, a clay giant that a rabbi brings to life to protect the Jews.
    “Trump and Steve Bannon are not alt-right people,” Mr. Brimelow said, adding that they had opportunistically seized on two issues that the alt-right cares most about — stopping immigration and fighting political correctness — and used them to mobilize white voters.

    Mr. Spencer said that while he did not think the president-elect should be considered alt-right, “I do think we have a psychic connection, or you can say a deeper connection, with Donald Trump in a way that we simply do not have with most Republicans.”

    White identity, he said, is at the core of both the alt-right movement and the Trump movement, even if most voters for Mr. Trump “aren’t willing to articulate it as such.”

    Let me be clear: I'm not happy that neo-Nazis are happy. But what I see here is an extremist group grasping at straws to legitimize itself. When you have to say you've got a "psychic connection" to your preferred president, and attribute your ideology to the greater public while admitting they "aren't willing to articulate it", you're not there yet. If Bernie Sanders had won and the Times found some hardcore Marxists to say, "Yes! This means the public is secretly yearning for the Communist Revolution, they're just not willing to articulate it", would you buy it? Because I wouldn't.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Mockingbird »
    While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans bluffed mentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.
    But you're forgetting that Congress has a Republican majority. The long and the short of it is that to be impeached and convicted, Trump would have to do something not just arguably against the law, but clearly and absolutely indefensible even for stalwart partisans. Remember, Bill Clinton was acquitted of perjury, when there was no doubt that he did it, and that was two decades ago. And Trump has done a lot of shady things in his seventy years, but he has also never been convicted of a felony. He's not just used to getting away with stuff, he's good at it. So basically, I would not put money on a Pence presidency.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Tiax »
    If racism is an idea, then when you're talking about racism, you're "focusing on the ideas". I don't see how this could be any simpler.
    "Focusing on the ideas" isn't always enough to avoid the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is when you dismiss a person's position by invoking irrelevant facts about them, facts which may (and in practice, usually do) include other positions they hold. "Hitler's Autobahn idea is horrible because Hitler is racist" is an ad hominem fallacy, for instance. As is any time a Democrat rejects an idea out of hand because it comes from a Republican or vice versa. I would venture that, if not necessarily in rhetoric than at least in cognition, ad hominem is one of the most endemic fallacies in our political culture.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 6

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Yes, but people like Ellen DeGeneres do not fall under this category.
    What the non sequitur...? Nobody has said that DeGeneres is racist, or deplorable, or a Trump supporter. In fact, I'm pretty confident she isn't any of those things.

    Quote from Ljoss »
    No. She ignored the midwest and all those deplorable hicks that "cling to God and guns." She's paying for it now.
    So let's review. We saw exactly what she meant by "deplorable" in her own words. You agreed with her that these people are indeed deplorable. We also saw what she had to say about those in the Midwest who aren't "deplorable". You agreed that her statement was clearly understandable. And at the end of all that... you just go back to this stock line? One that's directly contradicted by what you just saw and acknowledged?

    You are repeating a cliché. It's a story with a pleasingly simple moral of hubris and karmic justice, one you heard somewhere and liked well enough to substitute for reality. You have no facts to back it up. When we look at the facts, as we did here, the story falls apart. For all the value it adds to this conversation, you might as well be saying that Clinton lost because she gave in to the Dark Side of the Force when Sand People killed her mother. Do better. Think better.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    "Adam, I hereby marry you to Steve. Steve, sorry, but you're not married to Adam."
    Did you just create a situation in which p and not-p are both true?
    No, just a non-commutative function.

    Quote from Tiax »
    Yeah, it'd certainly be great if Trump has capriciously decided to waffle his way on over to supporting equality. But he's already pledged to appoint justices hand-picked by the Heritage Foundation, has Mike Pence as his VP, has Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff and has Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. If there's waffling to be done, it sure seems like he has a lot of forces pushing him away from equality.
    Sure. Nobody is saying we're in a position we should be happy with here. But if Trump is the one setting priorities, I don't see him prioritizing a rollback of gay rights. Repealing marriage equality at this point would be an involved process with slim chance of succeeding and not much payoff for Trump even if it does. He certainly doesn't have any strong moral convictions that would push him towards that effort. And if he needs to curry favor and adulation from his base, he can do that much more easily by cracking down on immigration, since that was a much bigger part of his platform, it apparently resonated with Republican voters more than social-conservative messages, and his office gives him much more power with which to do it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    Quote from Tiax »
    Trump has appointed actual white supremacist Steve Bannon to be his chief strategist. Good thing racism is dead because David Duke didn't win a Senate race.
    Oh yeah, the guy who runs Breitbart, funded the book Clinton Cash, and thinks Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz are too left wing. This guy, who is trying to organize a far-right white nationalist coalition.

    EDIT:
    During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.

    After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.
    this is going to end well, I'm sure.
    Look on the bright side. Obama was able to turn Trump around on the pillars of Obamacare in an hour and a half. Who knows what he'll be able to do with more time?

    And in general, a presidential "apprenticeship" (heh) doesn't sound like a terrible idea. It's a job unlike any other. For the new guy to shadow the old guy for a couple months can only be good, right?

    But yeah, no, we're screwed.


    Quote from Highroller »
    I'm so confused.

    Trump has said that he considers the same-sex marriage question settled with the Supreme Court ruling, will not challenge its legality, and will not appoint justices with the intent of overturning it.

    Did the evangelicals who voted for Trump just get punked?

    If so, doesn't make the situation better, but certainly a little schadenfreude against some genuinely horrible people does bring a bit of a smile.
    I mean, it's been obvious from the get-go that Trump doesn't know or care at all about gay marriage, or abortion, or really any of the social justice issues of which the Supreme Court has become the traditional arbiter. I never expected him to make nominations with an eye towards such things. The problem is that he's still a Republican, with a Republican vice president, Republican advisors, and a Republican Senate. So I don't exactly expect to see him nominating another Sonia Sotomayor either.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Lallo »
    However, if you think something in the way we run elections is wrong, then please, raise your voice about that, because that's something that can be changed.
    It's legally unethical to change the rules in the middle of the process. Key to the rule of law is the understanding that people can enter into a legal process -- whether it's a contract, a trial, or an election -- and trust that it will work the way they expect it to all the way through to the end.

    And sure, we can theoretically get rid of the electoral college in time for the next election. But in the next election for all we know Trump will win the popular vote but lose the college, and then the joke will really be on us. The college isn't the fundamental problem here. There are legitimate reasons to dislike it, but the fact that it threw the election to Trump was basically a matter of blind chance. We need to address the reasons people voted for him in the first place, not tweak the rules so their votes don't count the same.

    Quote from Lallo »
    Also, you didn't use it, but i really hate the term "faithless electors." The institution of the electoral college now does not function remotely the same as it did when it was created,and electors were always intended to be able to vote however they saw fit and they weren't supposed to be a part of any party system.
    The party system only crystallized later, but electors always pledged to vote for a particular candidate. It's not as if the public in 1788-89 didn't know they were voting for Washington and Adams. They voted for Bob Q. Elector with the clear understanding that Bob would be voting that way. So if Bob voted against his pledge, the term "faithless" would apply perfectly well.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Liberal Bias in the Media
    Quote from Rodyle »
    Yeah, I'm sorry, but how is this not standard conspiracy theory BS, especially without any sources?
    That's exactly what it is. Typho0n is our current resident standard conspiracy theorist. Jewish bankers and all.

    Quote from Rodyle »
    To be honest, it doesn't really matter why they're protesting. All that matters is that by doing so they're undermining the foundations on which a democracy is built.
    There's a key distinction to make here. I'm sure some of them really are hoping in their wishful hearts that they can change the results of the election by protesting hard enough. That is anti-democratic, to say nothing of futile. But others acknowledge that Trump won, and are demonstrating to show that they're not happy about it. That's a part of the democratic process, fundamental enough to be our very First Amendment.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Mockingbird »
    Is it a good idea to actually follow through with this? Probably not because while the majority of the population voted for Hillary Clinton, the majority of states did not.
    At this point, it would just further confirm the Trump base's belief that the system is rigged and cause an even bigger backlash in four years. If not earlier. And they wouldn't even be wrong. Hillary Clinton lost the election and Donald Trump is our lawful president-elect. Breaking the system when you don't like the result is the surest way to undermine the principles of orderly transfer of power and rule of law. It's exactly why it was so unconscionable when Trump implied he might do the same thing back when it looked like he'd lose. You can't beat Trump by using his tactics.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Hackworth »
    She's already been found not guilty like three times, and traditionally US presidents don't use the criminal justice system to get revenge on political opponents. So probably never, if his administration has any sense.
    Trump gave an implicit "no" today when asked if he was going to appoint a special prosecutor like he'd threatened.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Highroller »
    You can't go half way on gay marriage, even if you wanted to.
    "Adam, I hereby marry you to Steve. Steve, sorry, but you're not married to Adam."

    Quote from Highroller »
    But you know what would REALLY be nice? If that guy who claimed to be the president of Nigeria turned out to actually be the president of Nigeria, and actually would give me millions of dollars if I sent him several initial payments of various denominations. That'd be awesome.
    Wait, you mean it's not really him? I was so excited when I got that message! I called my mom and was like, "Mom, you'll never believe it! The president of Nigeria is trying to scam me!"
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Doctor Strange
    Strange has never been able to sustain a comic series for long. I think standalone films may actually be the best place for the character.

    To say nothing of the money question. You could not do him justice on an Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. budget.
    Posted in: Movies
  • 1

    posted a message on Doctor Strange
    I liked it. Nothing really inventive in the plot department, but neither was there really anything wrong in its execution. And the real reason you go to this movie is for the visuals. It's simply stunning.

    I respect Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor, but I sometimes get annoyed by his insufferable genius characters. So it was quite enjoyable to watch a movie where he has to learn humility, and ends up getting repeatedly killed in brutal and creative ways. Smile
    Posted in: Movies
  • 0

    posted a message on Debate Helpdesk
    gumOnShoe already knows this, but for the public record, we're having an internal discussion about the suggestion for a dedicated Politics subforum. Feel free to weigh in here.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from NoNoPlease »
    I'm sorry, I do not think deciding between a racist, or a manipulative liar who could be corrupt is a civic responsibility.
    It's the difference between exerting some control over what the government is going to do to you next, and just lying down and taking it. If you care, you vote. If you don't vote, you don't care.

    Quote from NoNoPlease »
    Keep telling yourself that. Ignoring the reasons these people did not vote seems like intellectual laziness to me.
    No, seriously, they didn't vote. Their presence on this earth had absolutely zero influence on the outcome of this election. Every one of them could have been abducted by aliens on November 7 and the thing would have turned out exactly the same.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 3

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from NoNoPlease »
    What if the choice was between not voting or voting for Clinton? This is why "but Trump is worse" was largely ineffective. The people she needed to vote for her were never going to vote for Trump in the first place.
    I could have voted for an ethical and competent Republican over Clinton. She really did get my vote because Trump is worse. Way worse. The choice of not voting is the choice of intellectual laziness and civic irresponsibility. The opinions of nonvoters are irrelevant because they themselves have decided they are.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from NoNoPlease »
    So, you are saying the institution is in the same, or better shape?
    I'm saying: Look at Bill's presidency. Even if every single criminal or unethical thing of which he has been accused is completely true, it is a manifest fact that he did not wreck the country.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from NoNoPlease »
    Clinton was as dangerous to the institution of government as Trump was dangerous for the country.
    How is this even conceivably true? We know exactly what level of danger Hillary Clinton posed. We have eight solid years of empirical evidence on how the administration of an allegedly-corrupt president surnamed "Clinton" turns out. As it happens, the institution of government was still alive and well at the end of it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Politics "Safe" Due to Ineptitude (for now)
    Oookay, four election postmortem threads is a bit much. Pruning it back to one.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.