Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 785 786 [787] 788 789 ... 1249

Author Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0  (Read 1412128 times)

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11790 on: November 11, 2016, 03:04:24 pm »

Ken Blackwell? Talk about Goge Vandire syndrome.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

MasterFancyPants

  • Bay Watcher
  • I LOVE TACOS!
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11791 on: November 11, 2016, 03:05:07 pm »

Also I love it how the same Democrats I was referring to in my previous post have suddenly turned from "gun control"-ers into gun-lovers, and from "less state rights is good" into "more state rights is good" over a single night.

Wait, did I say "love"? I meant "fucking appalled at the sheer hypocrisy".

Also I'd like to join into the FTFE movement, because really, fuck the media, it was complete shit during this entire election season. It's fucking incredible just how little on-the-ground work they've done for the whole election season.

"Journalism"? What even is that? Nah, never heard of it! It's not like it's our sworn duty to spread factually correct information around, and exert all efforts possible in order to obtain such!

No, let's just focus on getting easy ratings by spreading scandals around, it's not like it would unevenly affect the election with one person whose entire past career revolved around practically bathing in scandals and emerging with a winning attitude, and with other person looking like a low-energy boring unpalatable loser, SAD!

Tremendous! Yes, this will make us win big league! Make Media Great Again!

* Sergarr spits

To be fair some Republicans have done the same. More state rights is always a plus.
Logged
Quote from: Frumple
Flailing people to death with empty socks, though, that takes a lot of effort. Less so if the sock's made out of something interesting, but generally quite difficult.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11792 on: November 11, 2016, 03:13:26 pm »

How about stats, from the US GAO? http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

Did you read the statistics?

The one in the GAO is from 1955-2010

The one in the FBI was 2014 alone.

So Let me see... of ALL the assault cases in 6 decades equal 500k of Immigrants. And The number of assaults White people alone did in 2014? 800k

So... Lets just ignore doing it year by year and multiply ALL of the immigrant murders by 10% which is around the percent of the population they represent. So it is the equivilant of 5 million assaults ASSUMING the US was populated entirely by immigrants.

Divide 5 million by 60... 83k

Hmm my numbers must be wrong.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 03:23:23 pm by Neonivek »
Logged

Dozebôm Lolumzalìs

  • Bay Watcher
  • what even is truth
    • View Profile
    • test
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11793 on: November 11, 2016, 03:13:57 pm »

This is really fricking big. I'm sorry, guys.

Let's review.

Quote from: MSH
Up until now, we've as a country been politely ignoring that a great deal of people are still so incensed by the thought of illegal immigrants, or ghetto crime, or abortion rights, that someone could get up and break the paradigm of acceptable angles on the whole thing by being directly hostile. We'll put the illegals in trucks and dump them back in Mexico. We'll empower police to clean out the ghettos. We'll punish women who get abortions.

The fact that saying all that helped him is the truly fucked reality of it all. There's no more room for ignoring that shit. The people who believe it have stood up and gotten their man in the White House whether they were the Secret Key To Victory or not. We have to do better than that.
MSH is saying that:

1. Trump is racist.
2. He still won.
(3). Being racist helped him win.
4. Therefore, many voters are racist.

I could see a possible error in there, but quite frankly the fact that he won despite being racist as fuck is horrifying.

MSH also notes that racism is unacceptable and wrong. This is probably agreed upon by everybody. Hopefully.

(he means unacceptable, presumably, as "something which is wrong and which we should work against and attempt to prevent or remove")
Quote from: IronyOwl
The middle paragraph especially disturbs me, because it really just feels like a blanket condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. What, if you disagree with illegal immigration, would you feel is within the "paradigm of acceptable angles" to do about it? Or is the problem simply that anyone who gets to the disagreeing part is already hideously wrong to begin with?
And IO misinterprets MSH as saying "everybody who disagrees with me is unacceptable and wrong".

Quote from: MSH
If you think we should try to round Hispanic people up and throw them over the border, imprison women exercising their reproductive rights, or refuse to address police executions so we can be all tough on crime, then yes, you are a bad person. If we think that believing things can make you a bad person, that is. I suppose one could take the view that you can believe America should ethnically cleanse the streets in a hail of gunfire and beat gay children until they decide to be normal without acting on it and so you're absolutely neutral because you don't do anything.

There is plenty of room to be reasonable about illegal immigration without agreeing with me. I'm not even absolutely certain what we should do about it. Donald Trump's expressed views are not within that range.

Also, the paradigm of angles is not about what should or should not be tolerated, it's about how politics has worked in the past vs. what Trump did. Some of the GOP advocated for deportation, but they did so from say, the idea that we have to have a fair immigration process and support our own laws. Compare to Trump's rather direct version of the underlying idea: Mexicans are rapists, BUILD WALL.
MSH notes that he's fine if people disagree, it's just that he doesn't accept overt, blatant racism.

Quote from: IO
I'd argue believing this makes you a far worse person than someone who's pro-life. I'd argue something else, in fact, but I suspect it'd enrage you well beyond the utility it'd provide.

Which is exactly the kind of concession I have in mind when I say this makes you a bad person. If you have questionable beliefs, you can still, in theory, productively work with others. On the most basic level this means just not causing a scene with people you don't like, but it ramps up to all sorts of fun things. Including, at the very best case, exchanging information productively enough to shift those beliefs.

The most problematic beliefs, then, are those that drown out those possibilities. If you want all Mexicans hurled back to Mexico, you can still, in theory, have productive conversations and come to compromises with those that want something different. If you believe everyone who doesn't want all Mexicans hurled back over the wall is a traitor hippie, that potential rapidly vanishes.

You can potentially come back from anything if your mechanisms are still working. If they're not, you start gumming up and shrinking down. The end result is a literal, not-a-euphemism-for-racist bigot- someone who's vehemently stuck in their ways and will entertain no notions to the contrary, because they decided long ago that all notions to the contrary were the product of imbeciles and crooks.

So yes, I'll absolutely take someone who wants more police authority but is willing to understand why some might not over someone who wants to clean up the police and feels anyone who feels differently is an animal.
IO uses Strawman! It's very effective!

IO basically says:

A. Your post shows that you are a true bigot (in the actual, non-euphemistic sense).
(B. Bigoted = bad)
C. Therefore, you are bad.

But MSH's post wasn't bigoted! He even pointed out that he's fine with disagreement. He only was unaccepting of blatant racism. Which is okay. This makes IO's logical statement into

A. You say that racism is bad and unacceptable.
C. Therefore, you are bad.

Anybody notice the problem with this statement? (Hint: it's self-referential if you tweak it a bit.)

I, at this point, am very pissed. I got a bit defensive, I will admit. Here's my post again.

It's not. A "shock jock" is somebody who says outrageous things because they're outrageous. You don't have to be a bad person to enjoy them- in fact, being offended by them is literally a primary reason to enjoy them.
So he's either a bigot, an intentional bigot-courter, or a bigot-courter by happenchance. That doesn't change the fact that people voted for him despite his bigoted language. That's horrifying.
No attacks on forumites here. I say that some people are bigots. (No shit, Sherlock!) This is an attack, sort of, but only in the sense of "saying something that offends people." It's logically derived from true statements. Note that I don't say "half" or "most" Trump-voters are bigots.
Quote
Quote
More relevantly in this case, it's a great way to get attention and suggest a lack of social restraint or conformity.
Hey, look at me! I have no self-restraint! I say whatever the hell I want to say, no matter the consequences! You should totally vote me in as President! [emphasis mine]
Note the last sentence. I was mocking Trump and his supposed pro of "no restraint." I was mocking IO, in a sense, but it was not an attack on IO, nor was it "nothing but an attack." I was pissed off and made my point angrily. There is still a point.
Quote
Quote
The former is useful for obvious reasons, while the latter is an excellent quality to display when the usual rules are terrible, as in the case of lying shills who never do what they say they will, don't actually care about their constituents, and other mean things people say about "normal" politicians.
Lol, how is a lack of restraint a good thing?
Good question, Doz! By the way, this isn't an attack.
Quote
Quote
Quote
To the whole thing: Alright, gimme some numbers.
Sure, send me the mindreading laser satellite and I'll get right on that.
So you have no idea. Could be five of them in a remote cabin in Alaska, could be everyone south of Jersey. But you're utterly convinced that they compose vast hordes causing massive damage to... something. "Us," I suppose.
There are no numbers, so it cannot be known. Suuuuuuure.
Sarcasm. Not an attack. Also, it's true - we can know, fairly certainly, that people are bigots. Trump got as many votes as the previous Republicans, despite being a bigot. How many people are bigots? Harder to know, but I've shown that it's possible to know something without numbers.
Quote
Quote
You know who else thinks and talks like that? Literally everyone, but most notably the people concerned about, you know, Mexican rapists and such. The ones convinced there's enemies out there, and Trump is going to make everyone safe by fixing that little problem. The issue being that they're too far into their ideology and related bullshit to care overmuch about reality.
Yeah, since there are no numbers, we're basically the same as Trump supporters. Reeks of a false equivalency, methinks.
I'm noting a fallacy. That is not a direct attack. Furthermore, here's the fallacy:
A. You are saying that there are enemies, and that wrongness is unacceptable.
B. Trump supporters say that there are enemies, and that we should "disappear" those enemies.
C. Therefore, you are like a Trump supporter.
D. Trump supporters don't care about reality.
E. Therefore, since you say that there are enemies, you don't care about reality.

This is a false equivalency, guys, it's pretty obvious.
Quote
Quote
I mean, do you not think Imported Rape is a problem? You're probably not a fan of rape or letting it continue unabated. But you're probably also pretty sure the numbers on that are pretty negligible, and that anyone trying to push it as a major problem is a jackass. And if I asked one of them what the numbers were, what do you think they'd say? "Sure, here's the latest figures"? Or "Geez, I dunno, I don't have a mind reading laser, but it's a serious problem!"?
I think that there is a problem because people voted for a blatant bigot. That implies that either people don't give a shit about his bigotry, or they like his bigotry, or they think that bigotry's not that important. Either possibility is bad.
Good point, Doz. Also note the distinct lack of insults, and the distinct presence of a point.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Because this really just sounds like the same tribal shield-thumping you see with every political zealot, talking about The Other whose crimes and influence have grown so great that they Can No Longer Be Ignored.
Why do I even bother? I spend all of my actual strategist time talking about how the left needs unity and understanding, and then I get this.
Right, the left. Your People. You spend all your time talking about how your group needs to unite and stand strong against the enemy group, then you're surprised when I call you partisan? Why would that be surprising?
Partisan =/= tribal shield-thumping. Thinking that people are wrong =/= tribal shield-thumping. Come on, this is stupid.
Good point, Doz. Note the existence of a point. I meant that the point was stupid, the topic of discussion was stupid. Not IO themselves. This could be interpreted as an insult, but only by an idiot. I mean, come on! I said that "this", not "you", is stupid! Do you even understand the concept of subjects
Quote
Quote
Quote
The middle paragraph especially disturbs me, because it really just feels like a blanket condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. What, if you disagree with illegal immigration, would you feel is within the "paradigm of acceptable angles" to do about it? Or is the problem simply that anyone who gets to the disagreeing part is already hideously wrong to begin with?
If you think we should try to round Hispanic people up and throw them over the border, imprison women exercising their reproductive rights, or refuse to address police executions so we can be all tough on crime, then yes, you are a bad person. If we think that believing things can make you a bad person, that is. I suppose one could take the view that you can believe America should ethnically cleanse the streets in a hail of gunfire and beat gay children until they decide to be normal without acting on it and so you're absolutely neutral because you don't do anything.
I'd argue believing this makes you a far worse person than someone who's pro-life. I'd argue something else, in fact, but I suspect it'd enrage you well beyond the utility it'd provide.
"You think that things are wrong! And that believing in wrongness makes you a bad person!" ...yes, I think that.

"YOU ARE THE AWFULEST PERSON EVER" what the hell
Okay, exaggerated a little, but still a good point. And certainly not a strawman.
Quote
Quote
Which is exactly the kind of concession I have in mind when I say this makes you a bad person. If you have questionable beliefs, you can still, in theory, productively work with others. On the most basic level this means just not causing a scene with people you don't like, but it ramps up to all sorts of fun things. Including, at the very best case, exchanging information productively enough to shift those beliefs.

The most problematic beliefs, then, are those that drown out those possibilities. If you want all Mexicans hurled back to Mexico, you can still, in theory, have productive conversations and come to compromises with those that want something different. If you believe everyone who doesn't want all Mexicans hurled back over the wall is a traitor hippie, that potential rapidly vanishes.

You can potentially come back from anything if your mechanisms are still working. If they're not, you start gumming up and shrinking down. The end result is a literal, not-a-euphemism-for-racist bigot- someone who's vehemently stuck in their ways and will entertain no notions to the contrary, because they decided long ago that all notions to the contrary were the product of imbeciles and crooks.

So yes, I'll absolutely take someone who wants more police authority but is willing to understand why some might not over someone who wants to clean up the police and feels anyone who feels differently is an animal.
Oh bloody hell, show me where anybody called bigots animals. I am utterly flabbergasted. We have called things wrong. Nobody has said that wrong people shouldn't be listened to, or compromised with. And yet you call us worse than the Trump supporters, just because we call bigotry wrong.
Hey, good point! You're noting how MSH has been strawmanned into a position of bigotry, even though he said nothing bigoted. Note the existence of a point.
Quote
Okaaaaaaaaaaay, have fun in your own pocket-universe of insanity, because we obviously aren't living in the same universe.
The "insanity" wasn't necessary, I will admit. I meant "what the hell, it's like we're reading different posts, but it's the same post, how the hell was MSH bigoted".
Quote
Quote
There is plenty of room to be reasonable about illegal immigration without agreeing with me. I'm not even absolutely certain what we should do about it. Donald Trump's expressed views are not within that range.

Also, the paradigm of angles is not about what should or should not be tolerated, it's about how politics has worked in the past vs. what Trump did. Some of the GOP advocated for deportation, but they did so from say, the idea that we have to have a fair immigration process and support our own laws. Compare to Trump's rather direct version of the underlying idea: Mexicans are rapists, BUILD WALL.
So name some. Or are you saying it's the underlying tone that matters? In which case, same question for tone. What tones are acceptable yet differ from yours?
Define "acceptable". I think that the BUILD WALL people, as well as the "deportation [which actually means throw them out]", are wrong. Does that mean that I think their statements are unacceptable?
Hey, I'm asking for clarification! That's good! It's also not an insult.
Quote
I will listen to people who I think are wrong. I will not shut them up. I can engage in rational debate with wrong people. This is what separates me from the EVIL BAD TRUMP SUPPORTER PEOPLE who you are comparing us to.
Let's focus on reading comprehension for a second.

I am distinguishing between me and bigots by basically defining the absence of bigotry.

I am not distinguishing between me and IO by calling IO a bigot.

Are we good here?
Quote
(Wait a fucking second, you're using the Other as a comparison to say "you're even worse." How interesting.)
In retrospect, IO might have been using TEH ENEMY because that's what MSH thinks is bad. This is not a good point. This is not an insult.

t. smug liberal jackass

I've never seen anyone hide behind so many strawmen. Everything you say is a gross exaggeration of a gross exaggeration. Even the Hillary campaign was more honest than you.

Okay, so we see a bunch of insults.

t. smug liberal jackass

I've never seen anyone hide behind so many strawmen. Everything you say is a gross exaggeration of a gross exaggeration. Even the Hillary campaign was more honest than you.

Chill dude. Don't resort to name calling. Not cool.
His entire response was nothing BUT name calling!

"He started it!" Besides, where the hell is there name calling? Notably, I never once name-called IO, or any other forumite! You crossed a line, bro.

t. smug liberal jackass

I've never seen anyone hide behind so many strawmen. Everything you say is a gross exaggeration of a gross exaggeration. Even the Hillary campaign was more honest than you.

Chill dude. Don't resort to name calling. Not cool.
His entire response was nothing BUT name calling!
Show me where in his his response he was name calling, because I sure as hell can't see any.
In this order. Please excuse the paraphrasing.
"You're a bigot!"
First, that was MSH. Second, he was talking about a large proportion of Trump supporters, not a specific one. Second, accusations of bigotry are not necessarily name-calling - if they have reasoning and logic to back them up.
Quote
"You have no self restraint!"
"You have no self restraint!"
I was talking about Trump. IO admitted that he had minimal restraint. I was pointing out how that is a fucking bad thing. No name-calling.
Quote
"I don't have to back up my wild claims!"
First, those were MSH's wild claims. Second, I was noting how reality exists outside of studies, and that we don't need statistical analysis to wonder how a bigot becoming president might reflect upon the population. Third, that's not a name-calling, wtf?
Quote
"Since I can't back up my wild claims, you are just as bad as you say I am!"
Strawman, you hypocrite. I never called any forumite bad. I did point out, in another part of my post, how IO's "calling people bad is bad" statement could easily be turned onto themselves, but that was only noting a flaw. It wasn't name-calling.
Quote
"You're a bigot that voted for a bigot!"
First, I didn't even know who IO voted for. Second, I was noting how many Trump-supporters were bigots. Not all.
Quote
"Nuh-uh! You!"
IO: "You are bad, because you are a bigot!"
Doz: "Hey, that's wrong! >:( *gives some logic to back self up*"

You're really bad at this "paraphrasing thing."
Quote
"I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you would insinuate I'm not the saint I portray myself as! You're crazy!"
1. I never said I was a saint.
2. I was defending MSH, not myself.
3. Also, I never said that MSH was a saint. Refuting false accusations of bigotry = calling MSH a saint, apparently. The more you know. /s
4. The "crazy" was referring to how IO saw bigotry in the statement "racism is bad and unacceptable". It was somewhat uncalled for; perhaps the only instance of name-calling.
Quote
"YES! You are bad people that want to throw innocent people out on the streets, but when did I ever say that? You see, unlike you, I sit down, listen to, and discuss things rationally, and without name-calling. This is why when you say I'm Satan, you're actually talking about yourself."
1. I never said that any forumite was a bigot.
2. I was noting how bigoted are defined by how they react to people who disagree.
3. I was noting how neither MSH nor myself fit that definition.
4. I was thus drawing a distinction between MSH+me and Trump-supporters, and invalidating the false comparison.
5. I never said that all Trump-supporters were bigots, so there's basically no way I could have attacked anybody with this.
6. What the hell? That last sentence is not what I said, at all. I made no claims to the effect that IO was engaging in displacement of their own evilness onto MSH.

You going to call them sexist too? Even the girls who also make sexist jokes?
*sighs*

Some black people have re-appropriated "n******". This does not mean that you get to call them n*****s.

Some women are sexist toward women. Yes, this is possible. This does not mean that you get to be sexist too.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 03:19:28 pm by Dozebôm Lolumzalìs »
Logged
Quote from: King James Programming
...Simplification leaves us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes...
Quote from: Salvané Descocrates
The only difference between me and a fool is that I know that I know only that I think, therefore I am.
Sigtext!

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11794 on: November 11, 2016, 03:18:05 pm »

To be fair some Republicans have done the same. More state rights is always a plus.
Well, before the election day, I've been hearing statements like "state rights are a codename for wanting to oppress LGBT people and disenfranchise racial minorities" almost every goddamn week.

But obviously, now that the Feds are Republicans, suddenly state rights are the last bastion for the safety of LGBT people and racial minorities.

There's waaaay too many people who believe in reaching their desired result by any means possible, on both sides, and spread their bullshit radicalism all over the place.

Seriously, just look at this one particular post:
Quote from: bold mine
You don't get it. That was the anti-SJW leftist position until now. The hope that the working class american can be reasoned with.

And then he voted for an unambigously evil candidate, proving for everyone who might have been wondering about it, that yes, most white male voters ARE racist and sexist, that they are not allies to be convinced but mortal enemies to be destroyed.

At this point we are not talking about future DNC election tactics, but about online culture and polarization.
Those self-proclaimed-"liberals" have seriously called to genocide "racist" people in USA based on their race, with zero trace of self-reflection to see that such policy is itself incredibly fucking racist as all hell.

And they didn't even get muted.
Logged
._.

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11795 on: November 11, 2016, 03:22:32 pm »

Thread detonation in 3...2...
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11796 on: November 11, 2016, 03:22:40 pm »

Also, as far as I can tell, that GAO thing doesn't discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants, it's just the overall number of non-citizen criminals.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Lagslayer

  • Bay Watcher
  • stand-up philosopher
    • View Profile

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11798 on: November 11, 2016, 03:25:04 pm »

Also, as far as I can tell, that GAO thing doesn't discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants, it's just the overall number of non-citizen criminals.

It doesn't but it doesn't reach the conclusion MasterFancyPants suggests which is they murder, rape, assault more people.

In fact it suggests they do it less.

Because the FBI statistic is for a single year and the GAO is for multiple years.
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11799 on: November 11, 2016, 03:25:11 pm »

Thread detonation in 3...2...
-big image snip-

I don't get what meme that image is supposed to be, but the thread does need to chill the hell out.
Logged

PTTG??

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kringrus! Babak crulurg tingra!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nowherepublishing.com
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11800 on: November 11, 2016, 03:25:22 pm »

Civil war? Really? Guys, fellow Americans, for shame. Seriously, that's a fucking massive overreaction. Calm your fucking tits people. It's not the end of the world. That's the real fucking problem with the aftermath of this election, people fucking going off their rockers. Yes, the retarded bigots, "fundamentalists", uneducated racists, and homophobes thinking they have new license is fucking insane, but so are people literally crying, rioting, shutting down highways with protests and what have you. It's all fucking embarrassing, as a self-proclaimed moderate I fucking shake my head in disgust at how most people have reacted to this in one way or another.

Open your fucking eyes, give yourselves a hard slap. It's really fuck all. I want to fucking grab people by the collar tell them to get back to their meaningless existences. Donald Trump is hardly the first controversial president, and as of right now, he's not even the most extreme. Do I have to remind you oh-look-how-sweet-and-progressive-america-is idealists of the relocations and gradual genocide of the Native American peoples? How about American Imperialism? How about the Robber-Barons and the Gilded Age? How about large scale invasions, interventions, and meddling in the Middle East that have effectively radicalized an entire region and destroyed the only powers keeping those radical elements in check, all stemming from once wanting to get one over on the USSR?

AND ON THE OTHER END: Let's remind ourselves that Trump was not only the most liberal potential Republican candidate this year, but also that POTUS ain't shit. You have a Congress full of Far-left Socialists and Far-right Religious Extremists, one group that want's to turn the US into a welfare state and the other that wants to turn us into a christian nation of uneducated retards. Groups whose only redeeming qualities are not being hateful and being kinda okay with money, but not even really, respectfully. The President is the LEAST of the US's problems.

This isn't the 19th century. This isn't even the 20th century. Trump is morally reprehensible by the contemporary morals of his time. He is a self-admitted serial sexual molester. His campaign promises included abandoning our allies while simultaneously stepping up the war in the middle east. The cornerstone of his campaign has been racial hatred. His election has emboldened the worst Americans.

He enters office with both houses behind him and an open seat on the supreme court; in other words, he has full command of all three of the branches of government. His electoral college win is strong enough that he can claim a mandate, despite his popular loss. If they achieve nothing else, this government will dismantle ACA as much as possible. While I would want ACA reformed into single-payer health, Trump's party will simply demolish it.

He openly opposes science in vaccines and climatology, and in the second case has made strong promises to advance coal and destroy the EPA.

His campaign was one of transparent bigotry and pathological lies, lies about his lies, lies about things he'd said moments before. His electorate consisted of three classes of people: Those that agreed with his malignancy, those who consider political clannishness over actual governance, and those who disagree with Trump, but failed to put in even the tiny effort it would take to discover just how bad Trump is. All three classes I regard with equal disdain and shame.

This is a historic disaster for the United States, and speaks to a deep moral failure in the functioning of the nation. More than protests are needed to overcome this.
Logged
A thousand million pool balls made from precious metals, covered in beef stock.

Dozebôm Lolumzalìs

  • Bay Watcher
  • what even is truth
    • View Profile
    • test
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11801 on: November 11, 2016, 03:28:06 pm »

To be fair some Republicans have done the same. More state rights is always a plus.
Well, before the election day, I've been hearing statements like "state rights are a codename for wanting to oppress LGBT people and disenfranchise racial minorities" almost every goddamn week.
Err, they kind of are. You'll notice how the Republicans only care about state rights when the "state's right" is the "right" to discriminate or do other Republican shit.

It's mostly a dog-whistle phrase at this point.
Quote
But obviously, now that the Feds are Republicans, suddenly state rights are the last bastion for the safety of LGBT people and racial minorities.
...Who the hell says that?

Besides, the two statements:

"When most Republicans talk about 'state's rights', it's a dog-whistle term."

and

"Now that the President is an awful person, and we can expect anti-LGBT laws to be coming down from Congress, we should focus on allowing states to determine their own LGBT laws - that way, at least California etc. will have LGBT-friendly laws."

...aren't really contradictory. It shows that they're just-as-bad-as anti-gay people... in that they will stoop to the same level.

Quote
There's waaaay too many people who believe in reaching their desired result by any means possible, on both sides, and spread their bullshit radicalism all over the place.

Well, I hope not-being-anti-gay isn't that radical...

Here's the problem - we're at a disadvantage if we don't stoop to their level. Is it worth having the moral high ground if you don't do anything? I really can't say, and I certainly won't say that the other side is just bullshit.

Civil war? Really? Guys, fellow Americans, for shame. Seriously, that's a fucking massive overreaction. Calm your fucking tits people. It's not the end of the world. That's the real fucking problem with the aftermath of this election, people fucking going off their rockers. Yes, the retarded bigots, "fundamentalists", uneducated racists, and homophobes thinking they have new license is fucking insane, but so are people literally crying, rioting, shutting down highways with protests and what have you. It's all fucking embarrassing, as a self-proclaimed moderate I fucking shake my head in disgust at how most people have reacted to this in one way or another.

Open your fucking eyes, give yourselves a hard slap. It's really fuck all. I want to fucking grab people by the collar tell them to get back to their meaningless existences. Donald Trump is hardly the first controversial president, and as of right now, he's not even the most extreme. Do I have to remind you oh-look-how-sweet-and-progressive-america-is idealists of the relocations and gradual genocide of the Native American peoples? How about American Imperialism? How about the Robber-Barons and the Gilded Age? How about large scale invasions, interventions, and meddling in the Middle East that have effectively radicalized an entire region and destroyed the only powers keeping those radical elements in check, all stemming from once wanting to get one over on the USSR?

AND ON THE OTHER END: Let's remind ourselves that Trump was not only the most liberal potential Republican candidate this year, but also that POTUS ain't shit. You have a Congress full of Far-left Socialists and Far-right Religious Extremists, one group that want's to turn the US into a welfare state and the other that wants to turn us into a christian nation of uneducated retards. Groups whose only redeeming qualities are not being hateful and being kinda okay with money, but not even really, respectfully. The President is the LEAST of the US's problems.

This isn't the 19th century. This isn't even the 20th century. Trump is morally reprehensible by the contemporary morals of his time. He is a self-admitted serial sexual molester. His campaign promises included abandoning our allies while simultaneously stepping up the war in the middle east. The cornerstone of his campaign has been racial hatred. His election has emboldened the worst Americans.

He enters office with both houses behind him and an open seat on the supreme court; in other words, he has full command of all three of the branches of government. His electoral college win is strong enough that he can claim a mandate, despite his popular loss. If they achieve nothing else, this government will dismantle ACA as much as possible. While I would want ACA reformed into single-payer health, Trump's party will simply demolish it.

He openly opposes science in vaccines and climatology, and in the second case has made strong promises to advance coal and destroy the EPA.

His campaign was one of transparent bigotry and pathological lies, lies about his lies, lies about things he'd said moments before. His electorate consisted of three classes of people: Those that agreed with his malignancy, those who consider political clannishness over actual governance, and those who disagree with Trump, but failed to put in even the tiny effort it would take to discover just how bad Trump is. All three classes I regard with equal disdain and shame.

This is a historic disaster for the United States, and speaks to a deep moral failure in the functioning of the nation. More than protests are needed to overcome this.

Climate change alone makes me freak out. That's not just Trump, though, admittedly.
Logged
Quote from: King James Programming
...Simplification leaves us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes...
Quote from: Salvané Descocrates
The only difference between me and a fool is that I know that I know only that I think, therefore I am.
Sigtext!

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Inscrubtable Exhortations of the Soul
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11802 on: November 11, 2016, 03:35:38 pm »

Thread detonation in 3...2...
-big image snip-

I don't get what meme that image is supposed to be, but the thread does need to chill the hell out.

It's Feels Man.
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11803 on: November 11, 2016, 03:38:31 pm »


The unfortunate thing is we aren't "just saying", seeing as he has said a lot of pretty racist and sexist things over the past year, including saying that Mexico is sending all its rapists and drug dealers and murderers to America, that Megyn Kelly can't perform her duties as a moderator because she was on her period, and saying he can get away with sexually abusing women because he's famous.

We could provide links if you want?
"including saying that Mexico is sending all its rapists and drug dealers and murderers to America"
Not all and it isn't some Mexican conspiracy, illegal immigrants do have significantly higher violent crime rates than US citizens. Saying that make me racist too?

You are if you believe that without having looked into it, or providing numbers.

You did provide numbers! Awesome.

How about stats, from the US GAO? http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
Now, take the rates and compare them to these (which does not separate Illegals/nonillegals): https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43

So, assuming that crime rates have been relatively constant (they have been in a slow decline, since forever):
Divide the GAO numbers by the number of years covered in the report (this varies) and divide them against the FBI numbers to get the rate of US crime committed by illegals.
Give about a 10 point margin of error because none of us aren't going to do a full statically analysis.

Tell me about how stats are racist too.

... what?

You do realise that the statistics you used in the first thing were for all criminal aliens in prison? And that they bear no relation at all to the second, seeing as that's the prison population for everyone? Particularly considering that the first set is from 09/10, and the FBI ones are from 2014...

Looking at just the numbers for the first one, there were 55k aliens in federal prison in 2010, and 296,000 in state/local prisons in '09. Add them together, get 347,000. It says in the GAO study the alien population in the US was 25.3m  in '09. That gives as an incarceration rate of 1.37%. This allows me to move onto a rebuttal for you to peruse.

"Megyn Kelly can't perform her duties as a moderator because she was on her period"
He was making fun of her. Makes him an ass, not a sexist. I didn't care the Bill got a BJ, I don't care that Trump makes fun of people. I care about policy.

He was joking so much he tried to have her removed as a moderator for another debate, and then decided not to appear on said debate.

Sounds like he was taking it very seriously.

"When you are a star you can do it, they'll let you do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. They'll let you do anything."
Crude and bragging sure, but correct social commentary. Funny enough, in the same tape, right after a woman comes up and encourages him to man handle her.

Maybe we have different views of right and wrong. If girl is totally ok you what you are doing, even if it's just because you are rich, that is fine.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Because a handful of women wouldn't mind being manhandled by a celebrity, it's alright he thinks he can do anything to all women?

Not to mention the many cases of sexual assault of which he's been accused.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: Post-Apocalypse
« Reply #11804 on: November 11, 2016, 03:42:30 pm »

Look just because Trump insults women because they are women, demonstrably doesn't show them respect when he talk to them, has been quoted numerous times (on the record) saying some pretty abysmal things to women, sexually harasses women on the record, has made comments on how women in the workplace owe their boss and should suck up sexual harassment, believes that women are subservient to men... It doesn't mean Trump is a sexist.

Has he ever punched one in the face? No.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 03:48:01 pm by Neonivek »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 785 786 [787] 788 789 ... 1249