The Glade 4.0

The stupidest thing about Americans is that we continue allowing people who benefit politically from "proving" things racist to continue doing so.



No one is terribly concerned with Trump's internal feelings. His expressed viewpoints and actions point to crass, boorish, crude, rude, insensitive, and simplistic in racial matters, just as in many other areas. None of those are "racist". Trump's supporters are saying he isn't racist because of what you cited above. It is, at its root, a demand for a return to a definition of racism that calls out actual racial supremacist viewpoints, not merely things the elft doesn't like. By that, I mean actual supremacist viewpoints, not the "white supremacy" that for all intents and purposes does not exist at all and is simply an inflammatory way of pointing out statistical differences.



In a situation like that, the other driver certainly would not escape consequences.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's the thing - they don't even need to pretend they can discern motives. They like to claim that perfectly innocuous behaviors or the citing of uncomfortable fact are racist behaviors and therefore demonstrate motive.

In this way they force other people to dance around in a minefield just to have a discussion. This has had a terrible effect on discussion in this country; like a kid that plays with cheat codes all the time the left has lost the ability to have discussions without appealing to fears of "racism" or "misogyny". Even if the person actually engaging in the conversation doesn't do it, surrogates or breathless reporters looking for a "firestorm" to report on can be counted on to pony up.

On the right, decades of craven collapse into apologies for every ill-phrased comment followed by resignation have produced a craven political class and a horde of inept political advisors that milk campaigns and donors for money, with no intent of victory. Winning might cut the urgency to donate!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I'm saying that someone can support a policy for racist or non-racist reasons.


Fine. Here's a quote from a BLM activist giving a speech to supporters about why police reforms (e.g., more oversight, body cams, harsher penalties for excessive force and failure to report it, new training and tactics focused on deescalation rather than confrontation, anti-racist training, etc.) are necessary:


The policies he's advocating can be motivated by a reasonable concern for civil liberties and a recognition of the need for effective oversight of and some changes in police practices. But it can also be motivated by a gut level antipathy toward cops themselves. What does that quote tell you about this BLM guy's motivations and attitudes toward cops? Do you think he's just dispassionately advocating for a technocratic solution to a specific policy problem, or do you think he's expressing, and appealing to, a deep sense of grievance and blanket condemnation of cops generally?

While the president has more power than the heads of state of most constitutional monarchies, the position is still, in many respects, one of a "figurehead."

The president is the face of America. They represent America to its own people and to the world. They represent the values of the country, the represent its goals, its plans, and its allegiances and friendships. Like it or not, America becomes what its president says. America is as intelligent as its president can appear in his (or her) addresses to the nation and to the world. America is only as dignified as its head of state. And dignity is an exact representation of power, prosperity, and success.


Keep those things in mind when you choose who you are going to put in the oval office.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Its funny, cause the Canadian thinks we actually get to choose.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I don't necessarily discount this, but our current President talks a big game and presents himself in a mostly dignified manner, yet the USA's position in the world theater does not seem to be any better off for all his posturing.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Didn't Justin Trudeau tweet something like that while chugging a Molson at the Hip concert?

If that's how the rest of the world is thinking, it consists entirely of children concerned only with appearances and we should pay no attention whatsoever.


It's even funnier that you actually think we don't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So what? Why would you evaluate a policy on the reasons people support it, rather than its actual merits?



I don't really care. He's basing his entire position on a fabricated crisis that consists entirely of anecdotal events, and in most of those cases the shooting was justified. I can reject his ideas on their own merits (and each of them can be evaluated individually; body cams are a good idea while there is not, in fact, any need for any "anti-racist" training, and the training is nothing of the sort anyhow). I don't really care that the man is an obvious bigot; if all he was saying was "I want body cams" and then ranting on about the cops he'd still be a total shitlord but the body cams would not be any less a good idea.

This is like claiming that someone telling you that drunk driving is a bad idea is wrong because they're rude. They're not - a barrage of profanity does not make drunk driving less of a bad idea.



We've heard this quote over an over, and it's a quote like an average person talks. That does not mean literally every single one of them is a drug smuggler or rapist, or even most of them. It means that we are getting low-quality people from Mexico, and that is indisputably true as they are mostly inadequately skilled and educated whether they're criminals or not. This is how normal people talk sitting around at a bar or something and engaging in a hyper-literal interpretation and then waving your hands in the air about "RACISM!" is rather transparently the sort of looking for an excuse to cry "racism" I'm talking about.

Most politicians would be careful about saying anything even remotely resembling this, and even most of us here would because we've spent years arguing with each other over word parsing. Trump is neither a Glade poster nor a politician. He's Archie Bunker. What you don't seem to get is that his opponent is some combination of Cersei Lannister and Cruella De Ville.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's even funnier that you actually think we don't.[/quote]

We actually don't. We are presented with two horrendous options, one of which will become president no matter what the electorate does. We're bought and sold by the media and moneyed elites in this country.

In any event, Friday's audio made the election pretty moot.

#grabembythepussy. #repugnant.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

We actually don't. We are presented with two horrendous options, one of which will become president no matter what the electorate does. We're bought and sold by the media and moneyed elites in this country.

In any event, Friday's audio made the election pretty moot.

#grabembythepussy. #repugnant.[/quote]

The Democratic party had to engage in a titanic effort to "select" a candidate they wanted over a crotchety socialist with laughable policy ideas, and that was after she got her *** kicked the first time she was supposed to get "selected". They barely succeeded.

The Republicans had a candidate foisted on them by a voter tantrum, and the media was complicit only insofar as they were like a bunch of crack addicts clamoring for the next fix of Trump to generate viewership with.

Nothing is controlled by "media" or "moneyed elites". This is a fantasy of people who confuse cynicism with understanding and analysis. Neither is a coherent group, and they can barely find their asses with both hands. The press is desperately trying to tell people what to think and failing - if this were true she'd be looking at a 1964-style landslide.

As for making the election moot, if you're voting on the basis of that video, you're a **** moron. Hillary wants to start a war with the Russians, and the press is carefully avoiding mentioning it - that's what would happen if she got her "no fly zone". To have any meaning at all, that would mean shooting at Russian aircraft. You saw my other thread; missiles get fired at a U.S. warship and "oh, let's go right on ***** about an 11 year old video about shitty comments about a woman."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I actually don't support her either. But that's cool. Trump and her are both morally repugnant and neither of them should be president. But, since we don't have a "Discard these rolls and do over" button... Yeah. There's nothing good there.

And as for the missiles thing? I can't see Trump handling it any more rationally. I imagine him a lot like this:


He doesn't have a bone in his body that will rationally respond to a threat like that.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I generally don't, but I certainly do evaluate a candidate on both the merits of their policies and their reasons for advocating those policies. Why? Because (i) elected officials represent the people and, at the Presidential level, the country, so their character reflects on the character of the people and country, (ii) their motivations and attitudes indicate how they'll govern and what they'll do on a host of issues beyond the tiny handful that get overtly discussed in a campaign, and (iii) their motivations and attitudes inevitably influence the motivations and attitudes of the broader public, so if I disagree with or disapprove of those motivations and attitudes, I don't want them becoming stronger or more common.


If that's what you think, then you spend way too much time among assholes and bigots. Most people really don't speak about minorities or women the way Trump does.

Yeah, I know I don't have any friends or close family that talk like he does. Mostly because I don't choose to associate with those sort of people.

Much less desire one of them heading our nation.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The problem being that you view those motivations through the lens of assuming ones you don't like are "racist" or whatever. Over the years you've repeatedly claimed that certain situations must have happened a certain way based on your personal suspicions about their motivations. Your evaluations of people's motivations are heavily poisoned by your assumptions about what those motivations must be in the first place.



I was referring to the imprecision and carelessness of terminology rather than the actual nature of the comments, but yes most people do in fact talk that way - including the minorities themselves. While some of Trump's "locker room" talk is really pretty beyond anything I've ever heard, the fact is that man do talk about sex with women among themselves and not in the terms the gasping Victorians would prefer. Women do the same about men too, hate to break it to you. They're just less likely to admit to it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You were one of those people until recently. The only difference between you and Trump before your little "epiphany" was the level of crudeness. You used to regularly claim to be a complete *******, so I'm throwing the bullshit flag here. You do what you need to do for your personal situation, but don't try to pretend you're some paragon of the "tolerance" the left pretends to have.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which is why, in a crisis, he's a lot more likely to listen to advice. Everyone thinks he doesn't listen to anyone. When you're faced with the need to make a decision in 10 minutes or so, and you don't know what to do, you WILL reach out to advice, even if it's only to the Major carrying the briefcase. It isn't like being on The Apprentice when you're staring down the barrel of a proverbial gun and a literally real one.

As for Hillary, you missed the point. Hillary is likely to create the crisis in the first place, because she still thinks that she can just policeman her way into Syria, imposing no-lfy zones, worrying about endstates and exercising "leadership."

Putin, and Russia, won't be led. He already has the initiative and the situation in hand. By the time her inauguration rolls around, her plan will be irrelevant; and whether it is or not imposing it will CREATE the crisis you're so worried about Trump handling.

Hillary Clinton is not actually a competent international statesman, despite occasional bursts of adequacy. She suffers from the illusion that other countries merely react to us, rather than acting in their own perceived interests. That's a cute way to ignore reality with ISIS, with Russia it courts disaster. The only thing I can say for Hillary to be fair is that it is not a unique fault of hers by any means, or limited to the left.

Also, videos of fictional scenes aren't an argument "Oh, look popular culture!" Maybe try reading a book on strategy or crisis management? I've got one I can mail you.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I claimed to be a complete ******* but actually wasn't. And generally, never got to the level of bragging about sexual assault. I've said a lot of dumb **** when I was younger, and in a darker place emotionally and mentally. And that was always online anyway. IRL, I'm actually a nice person.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

This is always the thing I keep coming back to. Just about everybody, at points in their lives, say mean things or harbor bad thoughts about "the other." We seize on the first thing we find that's different and demean them (even if only mentally) on that trait. It has nothing to do with the thing you're actually using as the basis of insult and all to do with the fact that they are not like you, in every capacity. These feelings only surface in anger and have no other impact on how we routinely interact or think of those people.

My problem with the left is many refuse to accept that people can be this way and often themselves are this way. They've capitalized on alienating and silencing people over this.

Interestingly enough, the only people I can think of that I haven't dwelt on their "otherness" are my kids, and that is probably because I see them as the product of me.

_________________
The Dude abides.

So, according to you, a business owner that decided to charge a 10% "service charge for being black" for his services shouldn't be considered racist if he can produce documented evidence that, on average, due to higher rates of fraud/theft/nonpayment, black people incur 10% higher costs? I'm pretty sure even most conservatives would regard this as quite racist, even though it's purely statistical and not rooted in any belief in white supremacy or black genetic inferiority. In fact, discrimination based on statistical differences is considered so racist that accusations of it makes for effective smear campaigns.

The truth is, there aren't consistent standards for what constitutes racism on either the left or right, so whether something is considered racist often comes down to tone and "feelz." As such, when you are brash, abrasive, and insulting like Trump is, you get held to a higher standard.

Finally, as far as the law is concerned, liberals are far closers to being "right" on racism than conservatives. In business, ANY policy with a disparate impact on a protected minority class is illegal racism, regardless of the reasoning behind it. This is an even lower standard for "racism" than rabid SJWs hold public figures to.

4 options. We have (at least) 4 options on every ballot in every state in this country. Just because the majority of people believe that 2 of those people can't win doesn't make it true (or, rather, it's only true because the stupid make it so by going along with the fiction). Since Johnson is polling somewhere between 6 and 10 percent and Stein is somewhere around 3 to 4 percent it seems like the vast majority of people are pretty happy with their choice between two narcissistic sociopaths.

In the end, though, it doesn't much matter which wins from a policy standpoint (the supreme Court is the only place they REALLY matter). Congress and the Senate are far more important. The real downside to the next President is going to be how stupid they make the people of this country look by proxy.

Really? I have never used ethnic slurs in my life. To my knowledge, I've never demeaned women, gays, or any other minorities. If you held my feet to a fire I'd probably have to admit I have used a slur or two against the ultra-religious. But I would also have to admit that I *AM* prejudiced against them.
Thats where my belief comes from that language (even if in anger) reflects what's inside.

I don't share that opinion. Sounds more like you're describing drunkenness. Anger, righteous or otherwise, is not a release of social inhibition. Anger carries with it a sense of hostility toward an object that we will place beneath us when aroused. This doesn't have to be a person. Language can reflect what's inside or it can project what we want it to. Most people have so many walls up, you never get close to what's truly inside.

Never used a racial slur in your life? Heh, okay dude.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Sure, some of the most vocal people in the "social justice" wing of the Left seem to think they can identify even the most subtle, subconscious whiffs of racism in others and then use that as a bludgeon against their opponents. Believe me, I know - I routinely get posts deleted when I comment on social justice oriented sites, and I've been banned from a couple of them for consistently taking a contrary view. That said, I think the more general practice of taking what someone says and how they say it as an indication of what they think, how they feel, and what attitudes they're appealing to in their audience is pretty darn solid. I mean, that's just how communication works. And it's almost never as straightforward and obvious as "I think X, and you should too."

Think about the left and their attitudes toward conservative Christians, for example. There's really only a tiny percentage who outright say that Christianity (or even religion more generally) is inherently delusional and destructive and who kind of define themselves in opposition to it. There's also a somewhat larger percentage who swear up and down that they have nothing against Christians yet use roughly the same denigrating tone and language with respect to conservative Christians as Trump does with respect to minority immigrants and Muslims. And then there's probably a majority who don't speak in those kind of terms themselves (in part because they're Christian themselves) but nevertheless have some pretty obvious underlying disdain for and sense of moral superiority over conservative Christians and thus tolerate the other two categories of lefties and enjoy the kind of "light" stereotyping/mockery of conservative Christians that's fairly common on TV and in movies. Do you have any trouble seeing the contempt and prejudice of the latter two categories, or do you think only the people in that small, first group have negative biases and a sense of disdain toward conservative Christians? I'm guessing you can clearly identify that disdain in pretty much the whole of the left, even when it's not outright stated, and you're correct to do so. Same here with respect to Trump and the race and gender based resentment/prejudice he communicates and appeals to.

Afraid not. (I'm discounting, of course, use of such words to uniquely identify the word itself, but no, I've never used those words to refer to individuals or groups of people) as an adolescent I'm sure I used the word "retard" offensively. But even as a child I never used racist language.