The Glade 4.0

I'll be happy to. I'll even make a new thread for it.

please feel free to expound on your positions now.


Yeah I don't read huffpo, Time, etc either. How much time do you spent on conservative outlets? I'll wager I spend more time in centrist news media than you do. My typical news day involves NPR, BBC, Reuters, thehill, WSJ and yes, CNN. (I'm happy to admit CNN is skewed left) but I do certainly hit Reason, and FoxNews, New York Post, Infowars when I want a laugh.

Here's the problem: DiamondEye wants to claim that the left is just making the right out to be, to use his words, caricatures, of real people; that the racism, bigotry is imagined or part of some greater plot to demonize the political opposition.

On the other hand, the left sees actual attempts to roll back rights for people. Be it attempts to purge African Americans from voter registration, gerrymandering, removal of marriage equality laws, or simply rhetoric that targets specific demographics.


Now, the problem with this narrative that DE (and you, and Rynar, and many pundits on the right) want to spin is that it amounts to gaslighting.

You're just trying to tell people who are actually experiencing something, that they're not experiencing it. Its a technique frequently adopted by domestic abusers made into a political weapon and used on the large scale. The problem is that by so doing, (and DE's claim that only the Right can actually call anything racist) is that it makes those guilty of the crime their own judge. "Nuh uhhh. I'm not racist! I said so!"




Yes, the Democratic party is not the party in power right now. That's why they call it an OPPOSITION party. They're supposed to call out the other party on their bullshit.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

dailyKOS is the same as any other idiotic liberal media wannabe, like huffington post, time, etc.[/quote]

I actually take exception to this; each of these outfits engages in very different forms of liberal nonsense, and the kind in Time (or The Atlantic) for example is much more dangerous because it is much more sophisticated and presents a strong veneer of fair consideration of the issue.

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

So in a year or so the hotel will accidentally burn down? Power outage and carbon monoxide because the generator's exhaust was blocked?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Riov, it doesn't really matter where you get your news from as long as it is connected to those who just repeat the talking points they should. So pretty much anything that derives from the AP.

You know there are literally a handful of active investigative journalists anymore and most news sites are simply repeaters and it has been that way for a while now.

The skill that will allow you to identify this spoonfed **** (on the D friendly and R friendly sides) is the ability to know when words are being used to color things as perspective. Of course you need to be able to identify objective versus subjective statements first and understand that you are going to WANT VERY MUCH to agree with things that paint those you currently believe are opposed to you as the enemy.

You'll know you're on a good track when you can listen to something that is attacking someone you dislike and identify when that source is being bad. Once you can learn to disagree with your 'allies' it means youve overcome that first big barrier.

Even with training about 20% of the species is capable of maintaining that kind of standard for more than a few minutes at a time.

Good luck.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The five types of Trump voter

I figured I'd share this because of how accurately it describes the reason for Trump's upset victory and why the left is losing their minds. It's very long but it's extremely well sourced. Basically, it divides Trump voters into five groups based on their overall politics and beliefs. The most interesting group is the so called American Preservationists. They're pro choice and anti gun. They have progressive economic views and think the rich should pay more taxes. They want the government to provide health care, and they believe that climate change is a serious problem. And out of all groups, they supported Trump the most, with 88% having a favorable opinion of him and 74% having a very favorable one.

In any other election they'd be Democrats. So why did they vote Trump?



So, this would be the racists. Former Democrats. Look how low support for racial identity is amongst the other Republican voter groups, it's virtually nonexistent in several. Trump won because he got the Democratic racists to defect from D to R. The polls failed to predict this because they looked at their politics and classified them as Democrats. This also explains why the left is going crazy. For the last 20 years they've been complaining about how racist Republicans are even though there really weren't any racists. But now, for the first time, the Republican bloc has actual racists in it, so holy **** the Nazis are coming.

This article is more naval-gazing drivel from a media desperate to stay relevant, demonstrating that they haven't learned anything from their experiences during the last election cycle.

My evidence for that assertion is, folks in "The Disengaged" category seemed to be insulted by the author - they were identified as being "less politically aware" straight out of the gate. That was immediately defined as an identifying trait of folks in this category, yet never in the article was that assertion addressed nor was any evidence offered as reference for the assertion. That's the major indicator that the author didn't do anything to flesh out her defined categories, and it showed real laziness in her article.

To me, here's the main problem with the "reporting" in that article -

Not "many"...most. 64% even.

The article introduces the results of the voting during the primary then in the very next sentence downplays it. Trump was the lesser of two evils, Hillary screwed the pooch for many reasons, but for many it was because of her response to the Benghazi attack where she demonstrated behavior not appreciated from the POTUS. It's not that complicated, she **** up, demonstrated unacceptably flawed leadership abilities for anyone wanting to be commander in chief, and eliminated herself from consideration. Trump was the only electable candidate on the ballot once Clinton eliminated herself.

Then there's a sub-category of voters that felt "a vote for Trump is a flip of the bird to established political parties" that I think didn't get identified adequately. I gotta say, Trump trolling his detractors is entertaining. I smile whenever any head explodes over something he's said, and I really enjoy the clips where some guy engages with liberal idiots and quotes from Obama or Clinton, insinuating that Trump was the author of the quote, and then a snowflake melts on camera. It's a guilty pleasure.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No. There are literally almost zero actual racists in this country.

There are a couple reasons:
1) Almost all of what is "Racism" these days is actually not; it's a result of constant lowering the bar of what constitutes racism for purposes of detecting it, but then lifting that same bar back to 1970 for purposes of determining what the consequences of being a "racist" should be. You're essentially trying to claim - even if you aren't outright saying it- that Trump actually cheated by appealing to "racists". This isn't unique to Trump either; the left has been whining about the Southern Strategy for years despite the fact that a) racists still have the right to vote and b) the Republicans essentially tricked them into voting Republican but never made a serious effort to reintroduce segregation
2) Racism is racism. If appealing to white "racism" is bad, then the Democrats are just as bad every time they make references to "white males" or anything like that. There is ONE Standard. There is no such thing as "you can only be racist if you have power". That is a naked excuse for a double standard and nothing else, regardless of the academic credentials of the person saying it. An "academic" who does say it should absolutely not be allowed to speak further an faced with nothing but demands to surrender their claim to a degree and go work at McDonalds. There is no excuse for it. It is an indicator that the academic field is not, in fact, actually real and has been accredited under false pretenses.
3) These are people who have been appealed to on economic grounds but attacked on racial grounds and are tired of it. Their supposed "racial identity" is a result of them being assigned, and then attacked for, a racial identity by... people who politically profit from that identity being assigned to them. It isn't that the Republicans have racists; it's that the Democrats falsely accused their own voter of racism and want them to stay Democrat despite wanting to hand out racial preferences to every other race but one and now want to blame the people they alienated for their own mistakes.

Essentially, the Left tried to manufacture bigotry so they could complain about it by appealing to white workers on the economic hand and attacking them racially - even of they are the descendents of people who fought the Confederacy. It is an attempt to manufacture bigotry for political convenience.

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

You're treating the word racist rather religiously. Trump did not cheat, like you said racists still have the right to vote. There's no reason for.the meaning of the word to remain static, other words also change meaning with time. A belief that one must be of European ancestry to count as a true American is quite racist, and I think the vast majority would agree with me.

The issue with "you must have power to be racist" is not the attempt to redefine a word, but that this is a dishonest dodge that is not even really believed by the people who claim it. When someone claims this, ask them if they think whites in South Africa (92% black, and killing the whites) can't be racist. Or ask how rural whites, the most demonized group, can possibly be considered to have greater power when they're the only group of Americans actually getting poorer and dropping in life expectancy.

You're right about liberals essentially conducting a witch hunt for racists, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

lolwut?



But almost no one thinks that last line; that's entirely a caricature. As for a word changing meaning, it hass not changed meaning. What the left is trying to do is claim that the word "racist" has changed meaning to now include mild, even nearly undetectable types of racial predjudice, and even to mean having the gall to argue with the left. But, when it comes to how people designated as "racists" are treated, they want it to have the "this guy burns crosses on people's lawns" meaning. It's not a matter of the word having changed meaning; it's one side trying to intentionally shift the meaning when it is convenient, and then revert to the actual meaning when that's more convenient.



That is correct, but the attempt to partly redefine a word is part of the issue. It is an attempt to disqualify all disagreement by including it all under this umbrella of racism because someone, somewhere might in some way be possibly maybe just a tiny bit offended, but then reverting the word "racism" to mean "lynchings and cross-burnings" when we decide what to do about it.



I am pretty sure there are not any witches.

As for racists, the fact that the number of actual racists is some integer greater than zero does not mean racists are really a meaningful societal problem. Almost all leftist concern with racism is an attempt to alienate white people enough to revive it so they can fight it again. The problem is that they've already tipped their hand with the aforementioned double standard about "only whites can be racist". The "racists" are beginning to figure out that they are not only going to lose their owner-operator one-truck tractor trailer business to self-driving trucks, but when they get mad that their job was taken away by Google executives, the same people making money off the self driving trucks will just turn around and tell them that what they're really mad about is losing their "white male privilege".

It ought to be obvious that whenever white people complain about their economic situation the answer is "well you just resent losing your privilege to minorities (and women)" but then when those same minorities and women make their own complaints they are told "oh well you just live in this incredibly racist/sexist society". If privilege really is being taken away it is unclear where it is going because it is, according to these people, not going to the minorities and women that white males are constantly being told not to resent.

It's really the fact that all this nonsense about "racism" is entirely intended to gin up fear of white people among minorities and resentment of minorities among whites to distract from what's evidently a goal of putting everyone on a permanent, free, minimum wage.

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

If you want to find how many racists are out there conduct a random sampling survey of 5k people and ask 'Do you believe that any membrs of one race is inferior to all other members of any other race - simply based on their race?' and 'Do you believe that any members of one race is superior to all other members of any other race - simply based on their race'

The ones that respond in the affirmative are racist.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Used to be, you'd have to dress in a sheet to qualify as a racist, now all you have to do is be insufficiently liberal in your opinions.

As X said, meanings change over time. Another way to put that though - tell a lie often enough and there are people that will believe it.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Do you think that it is racist to use race as a statistical indicator for other things? Things that are not necessarily genetic? Like if someone says, "This job is at a high risk for crime, and black people are much more likely to commit crime, therefore I don't want to hire a black person for the job," is that person being racist?

That's a display of prejudice, not racism. Not that it's desirable or legal, but its the technically accurate term.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This is exactly the kind of thing Thomas Sowell lays out in his recent book, "Discrimination and Disparities." Ben Shapiro interviews Sowell (in the below, short clip) and gives an excellent example based on Sowell's definitions regarding a similar situation you describe.

Type 1A: Discriminating based on an individual, making comparisons and choosing something accordingly.
Type 1B: Discrimination based on group data due to an absence of individual data. (This is what you are describing.)
Type 2: Discriminating based on category, regardless of an individual's merit.

00:30 - 02:00 goes over exactly what's mentioned above.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Today Robert Mueller referred Tony Podesta and former Obama Special Council Greg Craig for criminal inquiry.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I hope with some seriousness, and that this is not merely a pro forma referral to create the appearance of even-handedness.

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

It's not. You'll note that after the Manafort indictment was released Podesta shuttered his business, scurried down the deepest hole he could find, and hasn't poked his head out since.

You'll also note that these referrals were postponed until after the former NY AG was forced to resign.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Prejudice - to be pre-judgmental.
Discrimination - the state of noting a difference.

Discriminating via race is normal in the same way we discriminate based on clothing. We notice them. We also make pre judgements. The guy in swim trunks is not going to be our valet, the man in the business suit at the atm is not likely the refrigerator repairman. The woman in scrubs heading to the emergency room is not the patient.

None of that is necessarily immoral or socially unwanted. Hell you could even discriminate on race with a negative prejudice and not be immoral (if its personal rights exercise) though it would be socially unwated and likely foolish (denying oneself customers or potential employees or a good friend).

Now discriminating on race with a positive or negative prejudice on the individual to assume that individual is less or more than any other individual from another race - is racism.

Prejudice based on race can be an indicator of racism but they are not equivalent likewise so can discrimination based on race in some areas (not like blacks are at greater risk for sickle cell anemia or whites are less likely to suffer adverse effects of exposure to lactose) but like 'that person cannot dance because they are white, that person cant drive well because they are asian). So they might be insights into an 'ism' but arent definitive by any means.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Discriminating via race is normal in the sense that it is natural behavior, this is true. That doesn't automatically make it acceptable.

You misunderstand who would discriminate if it were allowed. Very, very few businesses would discriminate against black customers. Black person money is just as good as anyone else's money. Discrimination would occur on the back end in employment, and by businesses that essentially run on statistics, like insurance companies. I think I've used this example before but consider that black males aged 18-34 are 19 times as likely to commit a felony as the national average. Any job which requires a security bond for employees would immediately cease hiring black males entirely. You can't hire someone if their insurance premium costs 19 times as much. This wouldn't just happen occasionally, it would be mandatory. Any job category which is legally barred to felons would also become barred to black people. Why would you as an employer spend weeks to months of training and investment in someone that's 19 times as likely to make himself unemployable and squander your investment?

Not only that, but this would be incredibly divisive. If you're going to be judged by your race, that is a major motivator to make common cause only with members of your own race and to make enemies of other races, because as a black person both black success and white failure now reflect positively on you.

So businesses like money therefore they would want to maximize profits?

Color me shocked. You mean maximize profits by not artificially limiting their labor pool?

Oh no, you mean the exact opposite of that. Pick one. I don't misunderstand dear sir, as I am not the one of us making logically incongruent statements.



It's not about if someone is going to be judged by their race. They already are. Just as you're judged instantly by your outward appearance, mannerisms, and posture in the first 2 seconds people meet you. Until people have more information initial opinions will be formed based on whatever limited (and bad) data we have. This is completely how the human mind functions.

I never said such was acceptable you'll note. In fact I believe I quite clearly stated socially acceptable behavior it is not (checks...yes I did).


"Not only that, but this would be incredibly divisive. If you're going to be judged by your race, that is a major motivator to make common cause only with members of your own race and to make enemies of other races, because as a black person both black success and white failure now reflect positively on you."

You do realize we were using that exact position to warn why identity politics was pragmatically a bad idea for the left to use - right? I mean the left had ignored the intellectual and moral arguments against it but they didn't even realize that telling people they should ignore this idea of a unified humanity and focus on RACE RACE RACE RACE was going to make some people focus on race?



At least you're only a dozen years behind the curve now. That is some improvement.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That part is true; it would be the naturalistic fallacy to assert that natural = good.



You are assuming that employers would want to discriminate based on race for some reason. The same reason that they wouldn't turn away customers is why most wouldn't, especially not those offering skilled jobs.

Skill is skill, no matter who has it. Yes, you'd see a drop in black employees - because there are a disproportionate number of uneducated and criminal black people, but that doesn't mean that employers would suddenly start turning them away. For one thing it would remain socially unacceptable; for another it would mean paying more wages to everyone else since labor would be less available.

Furthermore, Hispanics would be in the same situation, to a lesser degree, but aren't we constantly being told how we need them to do the "jobs Americans don't want"? Yes, we are. Those jobs don't go away.

You're vastly, vastly overvaluing the utility of group assumptions in hiring and missing entirely or vastly undervaluing factors against. The problem is that "race as governing factor" and "profit as governing factor" are not compatible viewpoints.

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

Are we all following along yet?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'll be honest, you keep saying "it's coming" and I don't see anything happen. Not trying to hate. I'm just not seeing a huge unraveling.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Look, I'm sorry, but QAnon is extremely **** up and not particularly sane. This **** is starting to have real world consequences when crazy people read this **** and then go to their local coffee shop convinced there's secret child rape victim smuggling tunnels set up between it and the Democrats in city hall. (this actually happened) Are you referring here to the latest insanity where they claim McCain never actually had cancer, and the whole thing was a lie to cover the fact that he was actually secreted off to Gitmo, tried for treason in a secret military tribunal, and executed by firing squad? Why do you think **** like this would be acceptable even if it was true? You're cheering on the military kidnapping sitting members of Congress and murdering them.