Prelude to the Apocalypse

[BulletMagnet]

Trump is not "broken", nor is he cheating or subverting anything. He's just following the rules, which is something we haven't seen in a very long time.

I'll say it one more time, in case you're genuinely not following what I'm getting at: He has not made a single policy proposal whose numbers make sense, or that otherwise stands up to even a passing degree of scrutiny. For some reason others disagree, but I find that to be a clear disqualification when seeking consideration for the nation's highest office, and do not believe that any degree of boorishness, "genuine" or not, excuses it.

[quash]

For some reason others disagree, but I find that to be a clear disqualification when seeking consideration for the nation's highest office

It's as if you still don't understand that you, and by extension your party, are your own undoing in this battle.

[quash]

The problem is people like you, BulletMagnet. You don't pay any attention to the other side simply because you don't agree with them, which is why you thought Trump was an establishment-backed candidate until I pointed out that he is anything but (and you only reluctantly came to terms with that). It's why you don't understand the frustration of anyone who hasn't consumed enough left wing Kool-Aid to cause water poisoning; we're tired of the carefully worded, non-incriminating responses to questions, the semantic bullying of the left, and the overall disingenuous narrative that America is some sort of fascist state when in reality we are simply dysfunctional.

"You don't support Black Lives Matter? Well then you must think that black lives DON'T matter!"

"You don't want to absolve student loan debt overnight? Well you must be some shill for the 1%!"

"You don't want to close Gitmo? Well then you're a sadistic, fascist imbecile!"

You paint every issue as if there's some sort of duality at play when the truth is far more nuanced than you give it credit for, and you don't even consider the viewpoints of the other sides. Them or us. Heaven or hell.

So you know what, keep on doing what you're doing. Just don't be surprised when the US looks a lot more red in a decade.

[BulletMagnet]

It's as if you still don't understand that you, and by extension your party, are your own undoing in this battle.

First: my sensibilities are certainly liberal in most respects, but I'm registered as an Independent. Second: any candidate or party which does not rely first and foremost on provable, quantifiable facts to determine and drive its policies deserves to die a gurgling, bloody death at the polls, and in a sane world would do so, every time. That's the way civilized society is supposed to work, and what's allowed us to move on (to a notable extent) from the plutocratic indentured servitude (or worse) that most of humanity has suffered and died under for the duration of our species; the Trumps of the world have made it their mission to bring it roaring back, and for the past several decades have had considerable success in doing so, thanks to the self-effacing inclinations of voters like yourself.

Assuming, once again, that you, like Trump, aren't just trolling the hell out of all of us.

You don't pay any attention to the other side simply because you don't agree with them, which is why you thought Trump was an establishment-backed candidate until I pointed out that he is anything but (and you only reluctantly came to terms with that).

First of all, don't put words in my mouth or conflate me with some hyper-liberal bogeyman: if there's one person on here who's been VERY much in favor of reaching out to self-identifying conservatives instead of dismissing them as "lost causes", it's me. Red-staters get screwed over even harder than blue-staters do thanks to their leaders' endless capitulations to a very tiny and very wealthy minority, and are ripe for an opportunity to see - and act upon - how tax and health care reform will improve their lives infinitely more than freaking out over a holiday coffee cup design; if and when that ever happens, the American right as we know it will flat-out cease to exist, because when it comes down to brass tacks it speaks for fewer people than anybody.

As for your second "point", I haven't even remotely "come to terms" with it, because it's still a load of garbage; the vast majority of Trump's bloviations are standard RNC boilerplate (albeit sometimes even more extreme than the usual), and if he does by some sick chance become the candidate everyone else will unfailingly line up behind him, palms out for their big, fat tax break at everyone else's expense. Again.

[Mischief Maker]

The problem is people like you, BulletMagnet. You don't pay any attention to the other side simply because you don't agree with them, which is why you thought Trump was an establishment-backed candidate until I pointed out that he is anything but (and you only reluctantly came to terms with that). It's why you don't understand the frustration of anyone who hasn't consumed enough left wing Kool-Aid to cause water poisoning; we're tired of the carefully worded, non-incriminating responses to questions, the semantic bullying of the left, and the overall disingenuous narrative that America is some sort of fascist state when in reality we are simply dysfunctional.

Yeah, we know, he's Brodie from Mallrats in the Truth or Date gameshow scene. That's entertaining to watch on the big screen because nobody is seriously considering giving Brodie CONTROL OF A NUCLEAR ARSENAL CAPABLE OF ANNIHILATING THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE! I think I can forgive Bulletmagnet for not having much of a sense of humor about this whole situation.

[quash]

any candidate or party which does not rely first and foremost on provable, quantifiable facts to determine and drive its policies deserves to die a gurgling, bloody death at the polls, and in a sane world would do so, every time.

For your own sake, I hope you didn't vote for *insert post-Clinton Democrat here*.

First of all, don't put words in my mouth or conflate me with some hyper-liberal bogeyman: if there's one person on here who's been VERY much in favor of reaching out to self-identifying conservatives instead of dismissing them as "lost causes", it's me.

I have seen zero evidence in this thread to suggest otherwise. Maybe you've posted elsewhere, but I'm not going through thousands of posts to get your view of things when you can just as easily make it clear here.

Red-staters get screwed over even harder than blue-staters do thanks to their leaders' endless capitulations to a very tiny and very wealthy minority

This happens in blue states too, and arguably to a greater extent. I'm from California: we're experts at bending over backwards to accommodate the rich, as long as they represent industries we like. If you're in tech, California is your oyster. If you're trying to bring manufacturing, oil, or anything else to the state, not so much.

As for your second "point", I haven't even remotely "come to terms" with it, because it's still a load of garbage; the vast majority of Trump's bloviations are standard RNC boilerplate (albeit sometimes even more extreme than the usual)

You still don't get why he's not backed by the establishment. Putting aside the positions of his that are not particularly conservative (and the fact that he is liable to turn face at any moment), he is completely outside of their influence. He does not have to step in line with the party if he doesn't want to. The reason he can do this moreso than say Sanders is because Sanders still has to rely on his connections once he's in office, whereas Trump walks in to office with everyone against him albeit to varying extents.

and if he does by some sick chance become the candidate everyone else will unfailingly line up behind him, palms out for their big, fat tax break at everyone else's expense. Again.

I've already explained why that is, too. And frankly, the Democrats would, and likely are going to if Sanders becomes their candidate, do the same.

[quash]

All of that and you still managed to miss my most important point: that the left is in serious danger and they have nobody to blame but themselves. You could argue that the right is also self-destructive in nature, and I'd agree, but not to nearly the same extent, nor are they as volatile.

If you don't like that your party* is drowning out any semblance of discourse and is actually condoning censorship (even if it is only by proxy via supporting BLM and the likes), speak up and change it. Otherwise, you are complicit in your own demise.

*I forgot you're registered as an Independent, which is honestly not that relevant when you are by your own admission overwhelmingly liberal. Even so, you are still most likely to vote for a Democratic candidate, given your disdain for Trump, so their issues are your issues.

[Opus131]

Distancing yourself from the Klan makes you a "cuck" now?

According to progressive dogma, merely being white (or looking out for the interests of white people, whom last i checked are still human beings with rights like anybody else) is to be the "Klan", so this is a meaningless statement.

But yes. To cease to be an actual conservative in order to appease the progressive left and their ideology (even though the progressive left cannot be appeased and will hate you no matter what you do) is to be a cuck.

[ED-057]

we're tired of the carefully worded, non-incriminating responses to questions

You mean bullshit? Bullshit is our most cherished national pasttime. 120% of the economy and the whole political system are made out of it. It's pervasive. There's no blaming it on "the left."

the semantic bullying of the left, and the overall disingenuous narrative that America is some sort of fascist state when in reality we are simply dysfunctional.

You're not making sense here. According to you, the same people that are trying to censor non-PC speech (for some unstated purpose) are also telling you that we are falling to fascism, but you don't believe them???

PC bullshit certainly gets more air time than it deserves. And it turns out that a shocking number of Americans really don't give a shit about the idea of free speech. Check out this article and the list of advocacy groups that jumped on board http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/28/ ... ive-speech

It's a real problem. But censorship is just a tool, not an ideology. As another poster here likes to remind us, back when the corporate media was dutifully selling GWB's Iraq war, they used similar tactics to shut down speech that was in opposition to the war. They painted people as weak, unpatriotic, aiding the "enemy," dangerous, anti-troop, etc.

That was nothing new then, and it continues today. Or did you think the corporate media all decided one day to get out of the war promotion business and focus on SJWism instead? No. They are just trying to dictate what is acceptable speech. That's how fascism rolls.

"You don't want to close Gitmo? Well then you're a sadistic, fascist imbecile!"

Please explain how supporters of an illegal torture camp are misunderstood victims.

You paint every issue as if there's some sort of duality at play when the truth is far more nuanced than you give it credit for

Says the person who keeps referring to The Left and The Right, and in typical American fashion using them as synonyms for Democrats, Republicans.

a lot more red

What color is fascism?

[ED-057]

if there's one person on here who's been VERY much in favor of reaching out to self-identifying conservatives instead of dismissing them as "lost causes", it's me. Red-staters get screwed over even harder than blue-staters do thanks to their leaders' endless capitulations to a very tiny and very wealthy minority, and are ripe for an opportunity to see - and act upon - how tax and health care reform will improve their lives infinitely more than freaking out over a holiday coffee cup design

So this is your rebuttal. "I do so pay attention to the other side. I feel sorry for them being the victims of their own wrongness!"

[Mischief Maker]

[quash]

You mean bullshit? Bullshit is our most cherished national pasttime. 120% of the economy and the whole political system are made out of it. It's pervasive. There's no blaming it on "the left."

True enough, but they're the ones controlling the narrative and have been for at least a decade.

You're not making sense here. According to you, the same people that are trying to censor non-PC speech (for some unstated purpose) are also telling you that we are falling to fascism, but you don't believe them???

They censor non-PC speech to promote the narrative that everyone is being oppressed by the government in some way, shape or form. Specifically they like to prey on people who are prone to give in to conspiracy and/or harbor ressentiment towards successful whites.

And it turns out that a shocking number of Americans really don't give a shit about the idea of free speech.

Millennials are by far the worst about this, too. And they overwhelmingly lean left.

As another poster here likes to remind us, back when the corporate media was dutifully selling GWB's Iraq war, they used similar tactics to shut down speech that was in opposition to the war. They painted people as weak, unpatriotic, aiding the "enemy," dangerous, anti-troop, etc.

Sure, that did happen for a short period of time. But even in the time leading up to the war there was a lot of vocal opposition, even if it was marginalized. Once the wind shifted sharply enough, the media followed suit.

That was nothing new then, and it continues today. Or did you think the corporate media all decided one day to get out of the war promotion business and focus on SJWism instead? No. They are just trying to dictate what is acceptable speech. That's how fascism rolls.

Okay, seriously? We're not even at book burning yet. This isn't fascism or anything close to it lol. This is just the culmination of decades of systematic demoralization catching up to itself.

Please explain how supporters of an illegal torture camp are misunderstood victims.

Gitmo is a necessary stronghold for our national interests and it's not even because of the detainees we have there (who are often times not as innocent as you'd like to believe, anyways). Ask Obama about it when you get the chance. Note that I'm not condoning our overall ineffective torture program, but again, there's more to this issue than most are led to believe.

Says the person who keeps referring to The Left and The Right, and in typical American fashion using them as synonyms for Democrats, Republicans.

I'm using terms we presumably all understand as meaning exactly what you're saying they are. If we want to expand to the full-scale political axis of including authoritarianism and libertarianism, then we can, but that's covering a whole spectrum of interests that are not even beginning to be adequately represented in the US.

What color is fascism?

We've seen plenty of wonderful places give in to the lies of economic equality for all as well as the lies of homogeneity leading to utopia. I guess at the end of the day it depends on the flavor of Kool-Aid you prefer (not to say you can't mix flavors, though).

[quash]

Comparing the pre-Iraq war media bonanza to the current campaign against anything deemed offensive or oppressive is a false equivalency is there ever was one.

For starters, the scale of the former absolutely pales in comparison to the latter. The media may have been pushing for the war hard, but you could still vocally oppose it and remain politically relevant (in fact, it later became a valuable card to hold up your sleeve). Whereas today you are hard pressed to find anyone who vocally opposes the various brands of left wing insanity gripping the US, because for anyone who isn't Trump it is basically political suicide (which is why we keep hearing "This'll be the end of Trump!", though people don't understand that it actually makes him stronger lol). The disdain for "cuckservatives" is born of this inability to stand up to semantic bullying, among other things.

Then of course we have the difference in impact. Sure, the Iraq war did have an impact on our soil, albeit an indirect one for many years, but for the most part we were all able to live our lives exactly as we did before. Whereas the current nonsense being pushed by both the radical left media (Salon, Jacobin and their ilk) and the less radical outlets is manifesting itself in the minds of impressionable, reactive people of all ages. It's something that is designed to play to people's deepest held insecurities and it's being more and more accepted as something that should be aired out. It has become a centerpiece of the public arena, and unlike the war, it attacks not necessarily your views, but you, as a person. Because people are finally "aware" that people are treated differently based on race, they need to have a convenient target to blame for not "realizing" this sooner. So naturally they gravitate towards white males, but if you give in to the inane narrative of white guilt and atone for your ancestor's sins, you'll at least be "one of the good ones".

It may not be that big an issue where you live, but every time I visit California this shit only gets worse. I feel more like a foreigner in my home state than I do in fucking Japan lol.

I now fully expect accusations of being an alt-right. Even though I have a lot of issues with them, they at least see through the nonsense the GOP has been selling as conservatism since Reagan. The problem with those guys is that they betray their pragmatism by giving in to their sense of conspiracy and they falsely associate various ideas as being inherent to white nationalism. Past that though, arguably the best thing to have happened to the GOP in a long time.

[BryanM]

The people who pushed to murder 1.5 million people are sad because they're being "bullied" by skinny college kids who don't want to live in a country where you can choke a black person to death on tv and get away with it.

Ok Jeffrey. Sounds pretty whinny and PC to me though.

[quash]

Skinny college kids? Try members of congress.

I don't like the Iraq war any more than you do, but it's our mess and we're going to have to live with it. Again, last I checked, both parties voted for it...

I really was okay with you until now, Bryan, but you're giving in to one of the things I despise most. I hope this doesn't stand to ruin our relationship.

[Mischief Maker]

I can't speak for Bullet Magnet, but I will outline my own prejudice about the right wing, so that you may cure my ignorance.

Once upon a time I thought I would find work as a laboratory scientist fulfilling and got a Bachelor's degree in Genetics. During this time right-wing attempts to get Biblical creation myths equal time in High School science classrooms as the theory of evolution failed, so they trotted out their new and improved concept Intelligent Design! Also known as, "creationism in a cheap suit." Seeing as the Theory of Evolution is central to the science of Genetics, I paid close attention.

Now the door is open for Intelligent Design to become a legitimate scientific theory so integral to the field of Biology that it's included in High School textbooks. What's more, if someone did manage to disprove the Theory of Evolution in a manner that could survive scrutiny, that person would win the Nobel Prize for Science and become a millionaire overnight, no question. But there's a lot of work that needs to be done to reach that goal, and that work can only be fruitful if backed up by verifiable fact. Thus far Intelligent Design proponents have proven unwilling or incapable of doing that work.

Instead they immediately went public in full-blown martyr mode, claiming that there was some vast conspiracy among academic scientists to silence their movement. But when you actually examined the CVs of "blacklisted" ID proponents you inevitably found they were being deceptive, usually conflating the end of a temporary assignment to being blackballed. When you actually examined the arguments made by intelligent design, it was always predicated on this "irreducible complexity" argument, which is a fancy way of saying, "If I can't imagine it, it cannot be!"

Now if you take a step back and look at the motivation for both sides in that debate, there is no incentive for a tenured science professor to back up a flawed but popular theory, that's the whole point of tenure! Meanwhile, there's a powerful religious motivation for ID proponents to espouse their chosen belief, the facts be damned!

So call me prejudiced, but I see similar patterns with right-wing thought again and again. Tenured climatologists say we're causing man-made climate change, deniers with powerful profit motive from the fossil fuel industries say it's just an academic conspiracy. Deniers are unwilling or unable to produce scientific proof of their claims while the evidence continues to pile up in favor of academic science. Eventually the right-wing is dragged kicking and screaming into admitting the reality of the situation, but not before their obstructionism causes serious damage.

I'm not an expert in the humanities, but I assume they have peer-reviewed standards, the same as the sciences. Is there really a vast academic conspiracy to keep right-wing issues out of academia, or have these ideas failed on their own merits just like Intelligent Design and Climate Change Denial? Trickle-down economics has a long and storied history of failure ever since Herbert Hoover first rolled it out to America, but there's a powerful profit motive to keep on carrying the torch for that failed idea.

So when people come up to me and say there's a vast academic Social Justice Warrior conspiracy, can you blame me for automatically rolling my eyes?

[Opus131]

Meanwhile, let's talk about the left a bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e2KJ7tpQ88

What's the difference between intelligent design and Bruce Jenner being hailed as a woman?

[BryanM]

Nobody actually believes Bruce has a uterus, a double X chromosome, or a female skeletal system.

Next?

[BryanM]

Next?

Next we talk about trans people who are actually attractive. Clear the air so to speak.



Thanks, buddy.

Does Donald Trump think somik-chan is hot y/n.

[Opus131]

Nobody actually believes Bruce has a uterus, a double X chromosome, or a female skeletal system.

That sounds pretty trans-phobic to me.

[Opus131]

Next we talk about trans people who are actually attractive.

Which still doesn't make them women in any way or form.

Notice how the right is bad because of "ideologically" driven, anti-scientific notions such as intelligent design (strawman much?). But when it comes to the left and their ideologically driven, anti-scientific notions, were are suddenly on no true Scotsman territory.

[Obscura]

I can't imagine anyone finding that attractive who doesn't also find 12 year old boys attractive.

[Ed Oscuro]

12 year old boys

and what is this?

Nice post ED-057.

Also, Mischief Maker is right on the money about the supposed "left wing academia." Just look at Wheaton College firing a professor for not going along with their particular Christian doctrine (literally, they said this is the reason why she got the boot). Closer to the mainstream of public universities, I've got it on good authority that at least recently you could definitely find a shift towards conservativism when you went to universities in the deep south.

I know of a professor philosophy teacher nearby who is also a minister, and whose courses are littered with the whole spectrum of conservative material, some of it okay, but some long since addressed by other sources (i.e. anti-evolution content, the usual and long discredited "747 built in a junkyard by wind" analogy). And one of my last professors, a guy I really liked, is also a bit fuzzy on global warming (and also a couple other issues which are mostly not so important).

I don't think anybody expects that academics should be perfect, but generally speaking, I find that the only outspoken liberals are old Marxists, maybe outspoken feminists too, and they don't try to insinute that they're teaching something that's in the mainstream. The rest of the "liberals" are generally just your old-fashioned centrists - if we were talking about historians you could probably make a good case that most so-called "liberals" have the most in common with the Consensus school, whose approach is often called whitewashing history.

tl;dr - Which party has people saying that religious affiliation should be a criteria for selecting public representatives in a secular society? What would Thomas Jefferson think about that, or even any of the other founders?

[BulletMagnet]

So this is your rebuttal. "I do so pay attention to the other side. I feel sorry for them being the victims of their own wrongness!"

It's beyond dispute that, at least in purely economic terms, unless you're very rich voting for conservative candidates is voting against your own interests; their taxes will go down and limits on what constitutes "legitimate business practices" will be loosened, while your social services and workers' rights will be cut back or eliminated. It's as simple as that. (Feel free to make the "mollycoddling the poor just makes them lazy" argument if you like, but after nearly 40 years of near-constant lurching to the right the wealth and earnings gaps keep growing, so "tough love" doesn't seem to be doing the job...and IMO was never intended to.)

That said, loads of non-rich people still vote conservative; the only possible causes for this are 1) They don't know enough about the subject (i.e. can be led to believe that upper-end tax cuts magically make revenue appear from thin air), or 2) Don't believe that those are the truly important issues to determine one's vote (i.e. "The SJWs are going to force us to say that Bruce Jenner's a woman!").

This being the case, what perspective would you suggest be taken, aside from "Liberals need to quit taking the facts for granted and actually get off their butts and talk to people about them, because a big percentage of the voting populace isn't voting based on quantifiable factors, and when that happens the most shameless carnival barker is always the one who wins?" Are there people who won't be interested in this sort of thing no matter what you tell them? Sure. Does that mean we should default to the "if they lean right they're dead to us" perspective that's made the left an afterthought for decades on end? I hope not.

Saying that what you believe is right, and being willing to talk about why with someone who disagrees, doesn't automatically mean you're attempting to be condescending; if that was the case then nobody in this thread in particular could say anything without being a scold. There will always be differences we won't be able to overcome, but I like to think that enough of America is willing to sit back and chat like adults to at least overcome an odious, intellectually bankrupt plutocrat like Trump.

[Obscura]

So this is your rebuttal. "I do so pay attention to the other side. I feel sorry for them being the victims of their own wrongness!"

It's beyond dispute that, at least in purely economic terms, unless you're very rich voting for conservative candidates is voting against your own interests; their taxes will go down and limits on what constitutes "legitimate business practices" will be loosened, while your social services and workers' rights will be cut back or eliminated. It's as simple as that. (Feel free to make the "mollycoddling the poor just makes them lazy" argument if you like, but after nearly 40 years of near-constant lurching to the right the wealth and earnings gaps keep growing, so "tough love" doesn't seem to be doing the job...and IMO was never intended to.)

The left still needs to demonstrate that there's something wrong with wealth inequality.

If you like living in a world that has the fruits of the industrial revolution, thank wealth inequality.

2) Don't believe that those are the truly important issues to determine one's vote (i.e. "The SJWs are going to force us to say that Bruce Jenner's a woman!").

Culture will always be more important than money.

[Hagane]

There's nothing wrong with wealth inequality. It's wrong to to have miserable workers while the capitalists are filthy rich, though. Not only from a moral standpoint; if the working classes have money to spend the rich will benefit from that too, because workers will have money for buying their products (and will be less inclined to violent theft) and services.

Culture will always be more important than money.

Without money you can't properly access culture. Or food.

[Obscura]

There's nothing wrong with wealth inequality. It's wrong to to have miserable workers while the capitalists are filthy rich, though. Not only from a moral standpoint; if the working classes have money to spend the rich will benefit from that too, because workers will have money for buying their products (and will be less inclined to violent theft) and services.

In the U.S., even the "poor" have money for expensive consumer electronics.

Without money you can't properly access culture. Or food.

Why should I care about the fact that some poor people are starving when I cast my vote?

A small tax cut or tax boost on the rich won't change my financial status enough to mean jack shit. But culture will affect my life every day.

[Hagane]

So, you want to have access to culture for yourself and screw the rest? Wouldn't it be better if everyone had good access to culture, which in turn would raise the amount of people capable of producing the culture you would end up consuming?

[Obscura]

So, you want to have access to culture for yourself and screw the rest? Wouldn't it be better if everyone had good access to culture, which in turn would raise the amount of people capable of producing the culture you would end up consuming?

Not if the cost of this is "everything has to be 'safe' and 'PC-approved'".

[Hagane]

I don't think that will ever happen. The relevance of PC idiots is greatly overstated. I wouldn't let that bogeyman make me vote someone who will be implementing far worse things than that.