*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Can you please just stay on fucking topic for five god damn seconds?

Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.

He took on the part of the topic that he wanted to take on. The fact he wasn't interested in defending or decrying the name-callers I'm guessing means he found the name-calling and your outrage at the name-callers as uninteresting and/or unproductive as I did.

And now your outrage is compounded by the fact that someone doesn't want to discuss whether your outrage is justified or not lol. Well, it's a free fucking world, so tough titties. He can pick any topic he wants, he doesn't have to speak directly to your personal butthurtedness.

[BananaStand]

Jesus man, get a hold of yourself.

Way to stick up for the nerd. You're the most virtuous kid on the playground

[Poopadoop]

Way to stick up for the nerd. You're the most virtuous kid on the playground

Thanks. And way to lose your shit for no reason.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm just gonna say that poopy is knocking it out of the park on this page, since using sports analogies will surely make me look less nerdy.
I don't feel I need to improve upon any of the times he answered in my stead.

Way to stick up for the nerd.

Not enough superlatives in that sentence, IMO.

[BananaStand]

I'm not seeing how Poop is being very successful here. The challenge put to him was to cite chapter and verse from TC's show that demonstrates overt racism

Is he a shameful bigot for asking "Is Diversity really our strength? What does that even mean?"

Explain your answer

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not seeing how Poop is being very successful here. The challenge put to him was to cite chapter and verse from TC's show that demonstrates overt racism

Is he a shameful bigot for asking "Is Diversity really our strength? What does that even mean?"

Explain your answer

It's because you are not paying attention to what Poopy's said. He's eloquently explained why answering that question is a waste of everyone's time.

TC was playing the fool about what diversity means. The other side played the fool about calling him a racist.
It was fabricated melodrama intended to be entertaining and it worked.

What I find a bit off is that you are clearly a smart person, but you see people arguing ridiculous points and you immediately take a side. Why? Especially when the argument happens in a forum which is designed to fabricate arguments and obscure humanity. Isn't it clear to you that neither side in that show is expressing anything remotely close to a responsible, adult perspective?

Poopy said it well here:
The more general problem I have is the fact that so many people try to make everyone on the other side look like scum and then get butthurt and outraged when the other side does the same to them. It's just getting really old. And it's both sides, the left is as bad as the right.

I'll add that it's you, too, Nanners. You're not really interested in defending anything TC says on television as a defensible, responsible perspective are you?

[BananaStand]

What I find a bit off is that you are clearly a smart person, but you see people arguing ridiculous points and you immediately take a side. Why?

See, you're doing it too. Why is it a "ridiculous point"? TC asked a question. instead of answering it, you're saying "it's ridiculous"! Granted, that's more sensible than saying "That's racist!". But in either case, you've neglected to explain WHY it's such a ridiculous question.

Especially when the argument happens in a forum which is designed to fabricate arguments and obscure humanity. Isn't it clear to you that neither side in that show is expressing anything remotely close to a responsible, adult perspective?

If this is your perception of TC's show, then it's obvious that you've never seen TC's show.

Poopy said it well here:
The more general problem I have is the fact that so many people try to make everyone on the other side look like scum and then get butthurt and outraged when the other side does the same to them. It's just getting really old. And it's both sides, the left is as bad as the right.

This is demagogue bullshit. It's not "both sides". The left and right are not 'just as bad' as one another. When someone on the right disagrees with someone on the left, it's because they think the person on the left is wrong. When someone on the left disagrees with someone on the right, it's because they think the person on the right is evil. Huge difference. And it's a real problem.

To shrug that off and say "nah, both sides are terrible" is to be completely, and DANGEROUSLY, naive.

I'll add that it's you, too, Nanners. You're not really interested in defending anything TC says on television as a defensible, responsible perspective are you?

Completely false. I find TC to be exceptionally intelligent, thought provoking, and compelling. I'm also extremely impressed by his willingness to civilly debate. I'm disappointed that so few people from the opposition take him up on it.

TC was playing the fool about what diversity means.

Again, you've obviously never seen the guys show. If you're trying to tell me that TC is anything other than 'authentic', then I would request that we please continue this conversation after you've left the paint huffing party.

[BananaStand]

MMM, are you living in a cave? Seriously?

TC asked a question. That's all. And no one is even willing to engage in a discussion about it. They'd rather just decry him as racist. And you know that's not enough. If TC doesn't change his act, they'll keep this up until he's de-platformed, like so many other people with conservative viewpoints.

Someone drew a cartoon depiction of Serena William's tantrum. That guy is getting death threats. And still, NO ONE has explained WHY the cartoon is racist!

That's just the news THIS WEEK. And it's only Wednesday!

So that's my problem. You want to know why I'm so miffed about this stuff? It's because there are agencies in academia, journalism, and the judiciary that are dead-set on implementing this post-modern/marxist hybrid philosophy. And to do that, they have to eliminate free speech.

You've certainly heard "Hate speech is not free speech". Whoever you hear saying that needs a slap. I'm serious....find that person, and slap them.

Maybe I'm more sensitive to this stuff than others here because i have children. It actually matters to me what gets taught in schools. It matters to me what the next generation will be like. I'm legitimately concerned that there will be armed conflicts in US cities, perhaps a nationwide civil war, in the next two decades. I put the odds of such a thing as high as 25%.

Therefore, I think it's extremely important to call out the left for their oppressive and intolerant positions with regard to conversations. This attempt to silence TC is a great example. Answer the man's question, and it would go a long way toward harmony and tolerance in this country. Keep throwing around the R-word, and we will have civil war.

[BananaStand]

The problem is that the left doesn't want to answer TC's question

They're afraid of the conversation.

If TC was just doing a stunt, for attention, for entertainment value, then it should be trivially easy to debunk his claims. Why not just do that?

Like, if a pedophile wanted to speak at your college, you'd probably see alot of people trying to get the guy shut down. Whereas I would prefer to give that guy a forum for debate. Because I feel like I could effectively tear apart a pro-pedophilia argument with ease. I would have no trouble conjuring up a counter argument to completely discredit this man. And if he can't defend his views....then his views are done. And that's how we dispense with the bad ideas.

If Tucker is wrong about 'diversity', then just explain why. And he'll probably listen. And if he's wrong, he'll probably admit it. Or, at the very least, stop trying to push his side of things. That's who TC is. That's what his show is about. That's what the the overwhelming majority of people "on the right" think.

Have you noticed that there really isn't anyone designated as being "on the right"? Why is it that everyone to the right of Lenin is considered "alt-right"

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you can't see that TC gets paid to be an entertainer, then it's you whom isn't seeing the reality of the situation.
His job is based on his show's ratings, not on the veracity of his positions.

The rest is you glorifying your own position and vilifying the opposition.
You're looking at total idiots' arguments from the left, and ignoring the total idiots on the right.

And yes, both sides fabricate nonsense to attack the other side, then get all butthurt when fabricated nonsense is thrown at them.
Again, if you're choosing to ignore the reality, that's on you.
The simple fact that you pick and choose which people to listen to, and it's not remotely balanced is what drives your absurd world view that one side is somehow more right than the other.
They're both playing a game of distraction, hyperbole, exaggeration, and vilification.

Pull your head out of the sand and realize that 95% + of the political arguments you've heard in your life had literally no bearing on Congress passing laws, no bearing on your ability to travel about town and do your errands, no bearing on your daily life whatsoever. Very little of what appears in the public forums is a realistic depiction of the actual stakes in the game and the impact of the proposed changes.

[BananaStand]

If you can't see that TC gets paid to be an entertainer, then it's you whom isn't seeing the reality of the situation.

No. This is wrong. There are 1500+ television channels in American Media. People should have no trouble finding entertainment. Some people want something else. Some people want to see factual news reporting, responsible analysis, and compelling commentary. If you're gonna be a cunt about the definition of "entertainment", then maybe you could just say that some people are "entertained" by factual reporting, responsible analysis, and compelling commentary.

His job is based on his show's ratings, not on the veracity of his positions.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The rest is you glorifying your own position and vilifying the opposition.

My position is that discourse is good. Is that not worthy of glorification?

The opposition says "you can't say that, it's offensive". Should that not be villified?

You're looking at total idiots' arguments from the left, and ignoring the total idiots on the right.

No Im not. Just because I may agree with Tucker on this one, is irrelevant right now. The question is.....should we even have this discussion about diversity? Is tucker even asking a legitimate question?

One side says "yes let's talk", the other side says "no, that's racist". They can't BOTH be total idiots!!!!

And yes, both sides fabricate nonsense to attack the other side,

Tucker asked "is diversity our strength?" What about that is fabricated, nonsense, or attacking?

then get all butthurt when fabricated nonsense is thrown at them.

Oooh, maybe we're making progress here. Do you agree that the claims of "racism" then are "fabricated nonsense?"

Again, if you're choosing to ignore the reality, that's on you.

What IS the reality?? What am I ignoring?

The simple fact that you pick and choose which people to listen to, and it's not remotely balanced is what drives your absurd world view that one side is somehow more right than the other.

Again....why are you using words like "sides" and "right". Nothing has been discussed!!!!!!!

And furthermore, I completely reject your claim about me "picking and choosing". If your claim is that I do not consume a diverse enough spectrum of news sources, then you should rightly shut the fuck up. Because you're making shit up and spewing it out of your ass.

They're both playing a game of distraction, hyperbole, exaggeration, and vilification.

What is Tucker distracting from?

Tucker isn't the one saying "Diversity is our strength". If that's hyperbole or exaggeration, then isn't he RIGHT to question it? Wouldn't that be saying "don't be distracted"

Who is Tucker vilifying? No one will debate him on this issue. In order to vilify an opponent....he needs an opponent.

Pull your head out of the sand and realize that 95% + of the political arguments you've heard in your life had literally no bearing on Congress passing laws, no bearing on your ability to travel about town and do your errands, no bearing on your daily life whatsoever.

Oh no, this is patently false. And I mean WAY false. If you don't think that national political discourse has profound implications on which candidates run, which candidates win, which policies are enacted, and what laws affect which people, then you are sadly, and disappointingly mistaken.

And even if you're right and 95% doesn't matter, the 5% that does matter, matters a whole fucking lot. Look at what irresponsible compassion did to our healthcare system!! +$10T in 10 years!!

Very little of what appears in the public forums is a realistic depiction of the actual stakes in the game and the impact of the proposed changes.

All the more reason to challenge ideas and debate critically. Don't you think?

[Poopadoop]

Some people want something else. Some people want to see factual news reporting, responsible analysis, and compelling commentary.

...so they tune into Fox News?

Seriously, some if not most people want to feed their confirmation bias. And whatever channel they choose to watch mostly shows where on the political spectrum they started from, not where they end up.

My position is that discourse is good. Is that not worthy of glorification?

TC does not do "discourse." He invites guests on and doesn't listen to them but just looks at them confusedly before cutting them off.

The opposition says "you can't say that, it's offensive". Should that not be villified?

When you can show TC actually doing something approaching honest discourse, you can come back with that argument.

What the opposition should be vilified for is going waaaay overboard with the outrage, just like your side routinely does.

One side says "yes let's talk",

That's not what he's saying. He's not inviting anyone to have a fair conversation. That's not his thing.

the other side says "no, that's racist". They can't BOTH be total idiots!!!!

Actually, they can and they are. Repeatedly. As are you for trying to make TC out to be this innocent bystander who is objectively seeking the truth rather than trying to push an agenda.

...

I take it the rest is the same repitition of the same argument that TC is some kind of grand thinker and not just a mouthpiece for the right. If you're not even willing to accept that the latter is a better representation of what he is, then there's no point.

Mojo and I have both pointed out that your outrage is tedious and boring and pointless.

Keep raging on though cause it's obviously giving you a reason to get up in the morning.

[BananaStand]

...so they tune into Fox News?.

I think you need to realize that Hannity has a different audience than the rest of Fox News.

TC does not do "discourse." He invites guests on and doesn't listen to them but just looks at them confusedly before cutting them off.

lol, yeah, that "WTF" face that he does probably turns people off. But it happens so much, I'm convinced that is just his natural expression. I've seen him do it plenty when talking to people he agrees with. It's his "listening face". But if all you've got against the guy is his facial expressions....he's probably doing something right.

As far as "cutting them off" goes. That's TV, not Tucker. Everybody's got two minutes to make a point, and then it's on to commercial. Happens on CNN and MSNBC too. So I'm not even getting your point here. TV is not a great forum. We can agree on that I guess. But it is what it is.

Not sure how it's relevant though. Tucker was giving a monologue in this case, not cutting anyone off.

But hey....anything to keep distracting from what TC is actually talking about right? We'll just make up a ghost guest who was treated rudely so we can start ignoring what TC is saying. LOL. that's so fucked up!

When you can show TC actually doing something approaching honest discourse, you can come back with that argument.

You're still doing that thing where you plug your ears and go "la la la la" i'm not listening.

TC is doing segments challenging common myths, tropes, and cliches of leftist political discourse, and is seeking legitimate discussion on it. Congrats on not calling him racist. But saying he's not seeking "honest discourse" is similarly dismissive. It's just a less sensational tactic to avoid the question.

What's wrong with the question?? "Is Diversity our strengh?"

What the opposition should be vilified for is going waaaay overboard with the outrage, just like your side routinely does.

"my side"? Wut????

That's not what he's saying. He's not inviting anyone to have a fair conversation. That's not his thing

.

Try watching his show....just once.

for trying to make TC out to be this innocent bystander who is objectively seeking the truth rather than trying to push an agenda.

He can do both. Truth is an agenda.

I take it the rest is the same repitition of the same argument that TC is some kind of grand thinker and not just a mouthpiece for the right. If you're not even willing to accept that the latter is a better representation of what he is, then there's no point.

LOL, there it is again. Anything to vilify tucker, discredit his statements, and excuse yourself from engaging in an honest debate.

When are you gonna admit that you have no answer to his point? When are you going to admit that the "diversity" narrative is mere demagoguery to illicit irrational compassion from uninformed voters?

If that's not true....then tell me how diversity is a strength.

Mojo and I have both pointed out that your outrage is tedious and boring and pointless.

Then go away. Both of you. I'll just sit here and riff with Ong about innovative ways to get weed smoke into our lungs.

[Poopadoop]

...

I have watched him and I stand by my position that he's a mouthpiece for the right wingers and doesn't have a proper discourse with anyone.

Just because he isn't spewing conspiracy theories like Hannity doesn't mean he's a balanced commentator. Your standards must be pretty low if that's who you're comparing him to.

Then go away. Both of you.

Go away yourself. If you don't like your idiotic views being challenged, don't present them.

I'll just sit here and riff with Ong about innovative ways to get weed smoke into our lungs.

No-one stopping you from having that convo. Have at it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@nanners:
No one here is defending either side of the whole TC/racist thing you're so bent on. Except you claiming that TC was somehow on a show in which he knew he wouldn't be listened to as some magnanimous attempt to educate people. I don't know the guy personally, but that is not how he makes his money, man. Surely you can see that if you claim he's as intelligent as he is, that he could have chosen his words to suit his audience in a manner that wouldn't get him interrupted and shat upon.

Just like you could choose your words to progress intelligent dialogue and invite a robust discussion, but you choose to hide behind your insults and condescention, literally pushing people away with your attitude while simultaneously raging at the fact that people don't take you seriously.

Playing that stupid card while constantly mentioning your IQ is easily as entertaining as watching someone get called a racist for not directly mentioning anything to do with race.
Entertaining, but not intelligent, not compelling, not expressing any of the leadership qualities you subconsciously claim to as one whom is right and wants to convince others to follow you.

You're a clown. It's not surprising that you see another clown like TC and want to defend him.


To the point:
TC was absolutely disingenuous in asking what diversity means and in postulating that it means the more different we are, the better.
The response to call him a racist was equally absurd, just more on the nose for ridiculous jumping to conclusions.
Everyone involved in that exchange was virtue signalling past each other and when the others didn't cowtow to the absurdity, they got all offended.
This is the opposite of intelligent discourse.

Asking a question isn't wrong, but asking a stupid question based on some definition you just made up is not "seeking truth" as you claim.


What you're ignoring is that there are plenty of incredibly intelligent people on both sides of the aisle. There are also a bunch of absolute idiots on both sides. The idiots get plenty of air time, because outrage is entertainment, and ratings equal dollars. The fact that you ignore this or conveniently write it off when someone's message massages your preconceived notions is absolutely beneath your intelligence, but you do it constantly.

That political change you cited as the 5% is not coming from the political virtue signalling you see on TV.

[OngBonga]

Causing division amongst the people is entertainment? And you just accept that?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Causing division amongst the people is entertainment? And you just accept that?

Are you suggesting that getting all riled up about what other people have said and/or done is anything but entertainment?
Are you suggesting that virtue signalling is anything but self-stroking entertainment?

People love to express self-righteous anger. The fact that every news outlet in America has figured that out should at least provide ample evidence of this truth about human nature.

[Poopadoop]

Causing division amongst the people is entertainment?

I wouldn't say they're causing it so much as exploiting it.

And you just accept that?

What should one do, go and burn down CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.? No-one forces anyone to watch them, it's not exactly 1984, at least not yet.

[BananaStand]

I'm not lying when I say that I had seriously consider making a post along the lines of "Watch the liberal media blame Trump for this hurricane". I'm not just saying that after the fact. I swear on any diety you care to name, that I though to myself, "I bet this will happen"

Sometimes I truly do hate being right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...adlines&wpmm=1

Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not lying when I say that I had seriously consider making a post along the lines of "Watch the liberal media blame Trump for this hurricane".

Yeah lol but it's ok 'cause Tucker Carlson will come along to straighten it all out and make sure everyone knows it was really Obama's fault.

[BananaStand]

Yeah lol but it's ok 'cause Tucker Carlson will come along to straighten it all out and make sure everyone knows it was really Obama's fault.

Well do the math.

How long does it take an ocean to warm up enough to make hurricanes noticeably stronger?

Subtract that from 2018. Who was president?

[Poopadoop]

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well do the math.

How long does it take an ocean to warm up enough to make hurricanes noticeably stronger?

Subtract that from 2018. Who was president?

This is almost impossible to answer in a satisfying way.

The problem is that we get fewer than 30 hurricanes per year on the entire planet, and that's a ridiculously small data set for this kind of question.
It is compounded by the wide range of severity among these storms, added with other long-term cycles that compound any predictive power of statistics making a more rigorous statement aside from average number per year and average strength per hurricane-like event.

Basically, you need like a century of observation before you can say with any certinaty that the more recent 50 years worth of storms was greater or lesser than the first 50 years of storms.


Hurricanes are difficult in this regard.

[BananaStand]

This is almost impossible to answer in a satisfying way.

None of your answers are ever satisfying

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not proud, but that got a snort of laughter from me.

[BananaStand]

This is all AFTER the moved the event to a completely different location because angry psychotic leftists would rather shut someone down than engage with his ideas.

This isn't Tucker Carlson. This isn't BananaStand. This is Dave fucking Rubin. Early member of The Young Turks

Then he decided free speech was ok. Now he's a bigot who shouldn't even be allowed to speak.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You are 100% a person whom is unwilling to have their ideas challenged by an intelligent viewpoint. To ensure you don't ever have to do so, you preemptively insult anyone engaging in dialogue with you. You condescend some supposed argument they will make before they've responded. You are the opposite of inviting to a contrary opinion, and you are single-mindedly opposed to the notion that 2 opposing ideas could be equally 'right.' You ignore the fact that almost every large-scale human system is epically flawed, but workable. You think capitalism is good and socialism is bad without nuance, absolutely blind to the many, many examples of how either can work just fine, so long as the populace makes it work.

You're a shitshow of insecurity and yes, you hide behind aggression so that you don't have to converse with a patient, intelligent person, but you attract vitriolic assholes to argue with. You have constructed the echo chamber in which your ideas ferment, and you prepetuate your ignorance by driving away anyone whom could show you that other world-views are absolutely working just fine for other people.

If you can't reflect on your own behavior enough to realize that you're an intellectual coward, then fine. Take some personal responsibility that you are surrounding yourself with idiots, because no actually intelligent person will engage you on your nonsense.


I don't understand how you can read and respond to the answer to your question, then repeatedly ask the question.
For reference, simply scroll up.
Drop the voluntary ignorance act.


I'll point out again that literally no one on FTR saying that interrupting TC and calling him a racist was rational.
I don't see why you can't get that.
You're so hell-bent on arguing about this that you can't see that no one disagrees with the core of your argument.
The only disagreement is that you see TC as an altruist, and no one else here does.


Get over yourself, man. I think ongie is the only one here whom has any respect for you, and I'd have to ask him if that's a personal assessment or simply his stance on free speech and letting people speak their peace. (piece? I always wondered)

Maybe dish out a little respect for the rest of us and drop the insecurity of hiding behind insults and watch everything around you become easier.

[BananaStand]

You are 100% a person whom is unwilling to have their ideas challenged by an intelligent viewpoint.

Just wrong. Bring me an intelligent viewpoint, and then see what happens.

What you're doing, is dumb. If it's intentional, then you're an ass hole. If it's not, then you're dumb. Which is it?

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, then you need to at the very least demonstrate some understanding of the issue.

This right here is completely indefensible

To the point:
TC was absolutely disingenuous in asking what diversity means and in postulating that it means the more different we are, the better

I completely reject the notion that TC was being disingenuous. The left says "Diversity is our strength" all the goddamn time. Tucker didn't make that up. That's not something he wrote. That's not a strawman he invented for entertainment value. That's something that gets said all the goddamn time. And it most obviously means "the more different we are, the better"

TC is asking, "Is that true"

I would LOVE to have an intelligent debate on this, or ANY subject. But it's never going to work if you can't even identify the question.

We're dozens of post into this TC stuff now, and you STILL don't even want to acknowledge the issue. Why is that? Do you not want to answer the question of diversity being our strength? Are you afraid of the answer? I think that's it. I think that you, and even folks in general, are afraid to follow this through logically and factually because the result may be something like "assimilation might be good". And that's something you (or folks in general) would absolutely HATE to acknowledge.

Now honestly Monkey, it's really hard not to insult you when you insist on dying on this retarded hill spouting Sesame Street rhetoric about "both sides" and "equally absurd". That's virtue-signaling at it's WORST. That's saying "I care more about looking moderate than I do about actually solving a problem"

[Poopadoop]

Just wrong.

No, it's absolutely correct.

Let's count the number of times on here you've actually tried to have an intelligent conversation with someone without insults and abuse.

0.

And if you feel it's because no-one else is intelligent enough to discuss the issues, then maybe you'd be happier somewhere else.

You're act is stale, mate.

[BananaStand]

Let's count the number of times on here you've actually tried to have an intelligent conversation with someone without warranted insults and abuse.

Now that the question is worded correctly, the answer stands at 3,618 and counting.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've answered your question at least 2 times, and you disagree with my answer, so you assert that I haven't answered.
Childish, voluntary ignorance.

No one cares about TC. For you to pretend that he was behaving altruistically is nonsense.
Childish, voluntary ignorance.

For you to try to badger me into explaining the obvious to you for a 3rd time when you have not internalized my position yet is
wait for it
you hiding from the reality that you've received an intelligent answer which is in opposition to your assumptions.
(thought I was going to say Childish, voluntary ignorance again, didn't you?)


Why are you even posting on FTR, man? No one here is buying what you're selling. No one here has earned your respect after all this time.
Why are you here?
Other than to placate your own ego by getting yourself all riled up at the libtards, none of whom post on FTR, BTW, and shout at us about it.

Do you think that your inability to see nuance is mature?
We don't.

[BananaStand]

I've answered your question at least 2 times, and you disagree with my answer, so you assert that I haven't answered.

No, you answered a different question that you made up to distract from the real question.
Dumb

No one cares about TC. For you to pretend that he was behaving altruistically is nonsense.

When did I ever use the word "altruistic"? I believe his question is sincere and his desire for an intelligent response is authentic.

That's you making up words and sentiments again.
Dumb.

For you to try to badger me into explaining the obvious to you for a 3rd time when you have not internalized my position yet

YOU DON"T HAVE A POSITION!!! All you have is this immature baby wish that everyone can be right all the time and no one can ever be wrong. God damn it man.....you know you don't have to spend your life sucking post-modernism's dick. You just say fluffy stuff that sounds good. But that's never helped anyone solve anything ever.

It doesn't matter if Tucker's question is dumb, or if the answer is self-evidently obvious. Eliminating his ability to ask it, by threat of character assassination, is fascism at it's worst. It's literally dangerous. Not just absurd. Certainly not "equally absurd" as merely asking the question. I mean it is actually objectively harmful. If you can't acknowledge that without also contriving some rhetoric about 'the other side' then it is YOU who are the obstacle to reasonable discourse. I don't know if it's ignorance, fear, virtue-signaling, or what.

Why are you even posting on FTR, man?

I'm turned on by Oskar's avatar

No one here is buying what you're selling

I would like to bet a lung on the 'over'.

No one here has earned your respect after all this time.

How many times have you complimented my intelligence, just this month?

Other than to placate your own ego by getting yourself all riled up at the libtards, none of whom post on FTR, BTW

wut? Ok, out of curiosity now.....who would you consider a "libtard". Not just on FTR, you can name anyone.

Do you think that your inability to see nuance is mature?

I'm having a hard time reconciling the fact that you're an educator, and you think that the things you post here represent an attempt to explain nuance.

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol

Nice cross-post, poopy

[Jack Sawyer]

Tax "cuts" LOL

Revenue from individual and payroll taxes was up some $105 billion, or 4 percent, while corporate taxes fell $71 billion, or 30 percent.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/40...ercent-to-895b

[oskar]

Tax "cuts" LOL



http://thehill.com/policy/finance/40...ercent-to-895b

I asked Wuf what happens when you lower taxes and increase government spending. I didn't get an answer.

[Poopadoop]

I asked Wuf what happens when you lower taxes and increase government spending. I didn't get an answer.

Wuf once told me the size of the deficit doesn't matter because they can always just print more money. I found that very enlightening, as I had no idea a country could generate wealth using a printing press. Too bad a lot of Africa hasn't figured that out yet, maybe they'd stop being such shithole countries.

[Poopadoop]

^^
I was reminded of this because apparently it was the same answer Trump gave to Cohn when he came up with his tax cut idea. Cohn said "it'll increase the deficit" and Trump's response was "we'll just print more money".

And people say Trump isn't a genius.

[OngBonga]

Wuf once told me the size of the deficit doesn't matter because they can always just print more money. I found that very enlightening, as I had no idea a country could generate wealth using a printing press. Too bad a lot of Africa hasn't figured that out yet, maybe they'd stop being such shithole countries.

Spoken by someone completely ignorant to how the world works. Do you think we still use a set amount of gold as a basis for how much money we have?

We can't print gold. But we can print money. And it's exactly what happens, it's called quantitative easing. It's why we ditched the gold standard in the first place, clever people realised that having a limit is, well, a limit. So we now have fiat currency, which is worth what people are willing to trade it for.

Africa can't just print money like America can. Why is that? Because no one gives a fuck about African currencies. If Eritrea suddenly decided to double the amount of currency in circulation, then the cost of their imports would double, and as such the consumer would pay double for everything that isn't made in Eritrea. Such as oil. Which means even things made in Eritrea would increase in cost, because oil is important. So... there would be no benefit to Eritrea in increasing the money supply, unless their aim is to deliberately devalue their currency to make Eritrean goods more appealing to exporters.

America can do it because people give a fuck about the dollar, it's the currency that determines the effective value of all other currencies. What happens when USA prints money is that America stays as wealthy as it did before, but every other nation in the world becomes poorer. All those dollars that countries have in reserve, and it's an imperial fuck ton, becomes less valuable, which hurts the nations holding that currency more than it hurts USA. Then now can't buy as much oil with it. But USA doesn't care because USA has all the dollars it wants. China can't print dollars.

And people say Trump isn't a genius.

He's more honest than you're used to a President being, and it's shocked you.

[Poopadoop]

Spoken by someone completely ignorant to how the world works.

Lol look who's talking.

Rambling nonsense about economics from someone who knows fuck all about it.

I'll give you credit; that's a wall of bullshit banana would be proud of.

He's more honest than you're used to a President being, and it's shocked you.

It shocked Cohn, that's for sure.

[MadMojoMonkey]

For someone whom thinks they're smart, you have less self-awareness than a rock.

[BananaStand]

So similar issue is the Serena cartoon. No one wants to talk about Serena's behavior. But they are happy to say that criticism of it is racist.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/opini...nzo/index.html

^ look at this.

I don't know who Rebecca Wanzo is, but obviously a news organization as large as CNN decided that what she had to say on this was more compelling than what anyone else has written, and hence, have published her column to try and explain to us why the cartoon is racist.

That's great. I love to hear an intelligent presentation of the other side.

Except I can't find it in this column. This column is FULL of examples of other cartoons, many from bygone eras, that had controversial themes. Then the author tries to say "and this is just another example...."

As best I can tell, this is her argument:

it is clear that European standards of beauty and fantastic representations of a black grotesque have thoroughly colonized every genre, and every medium. Knight's cartoon depends on a black grotesque seeming natural, which makes it the very essence of visual imperialism.

This is not an argument. This is demagoguery. Just like the outcry against Tucker Carlson.

You can't be getting pissy with me over failing to acknowledge nuance, or respect the other side of an argument, when there IS NO OTHER SIDE.

[Poopadoop]

Oblivious.

[BananaStand]

Oblivious.

Fine. Maybe I am.

Help me not be.

Please cite chapter and verse that explains why it is racist, and not an apt depiction of behavior, to cartoon-ize Serena's temper tantrum?

[Poopadoop]

Please cite chapter and verse that explains why it is racist, and not an apt depiction of behavior, to cartoon-ize Serena's temper tantrum?

I don't think it is racist. I think that's an overreaction. And I'm trying really hard to lose my mind over it, but I just can't. Sorry.

[BananaStand]

Is it because Serena is black and you can't draw cartoons of black people? Are black people co-opting Islam's rules now?

Is it because you can't depict a black person doing something unattractive? But then how might we ever criticize their behavior?

Is it because the cartoon depicted the other girl as having blond hair? What about the objective reality that her hair is blond?

Help me understand what's so bad about this cartoon?

I mean, we've beaten the TC horse to death now. You guys are just dumb and/or desperate. TC didn't make up the phrase "diversity is our strength". That's not something he invented for entertainment value. I believe that he's sincere in his inquiry to challenge that. You can't prove that he isn't. But even if you believed that he was insincere, his question could still be answered if there is indeed a legitimate answer. There's no harm in humoring his insincerity by treating the question as if it were sincere.

Any time one of you wants to cite chapter and verse where TC said something actually racist....I would love to have an intelligent and respectful discussion about it.

But we all know that isn't going to happen. Because what TC said is entirely fine. And no sensible person could believe otherwise without being ideologically possessed. Talk about not being open to nuance!

And it's not just TC. It's the Serena cartoonist. Stephan Molyneaux, Lauren Southern, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Charles Murray, Milo, Gavin McInnis, Christina Hoff Sommers, Stephen Crowder, are all people that have been de-platformed because of overwhelming, intrusive, and often violent protests. No such thing happens to David Pakman, Kyle Kulinski, or The Young Turks.

Notice a pattern? those are all people that are smart, reasonable, charismatic, and have knowledgeable fact-based challenges to leftist ideology. The key is charismatic. These people are compelling. Richard Spencer and David Duke are not. No one cares about de-platforming them. But someone like Candace Owens is supremely threatening to the left. And for that, she's treated worse than David Duke.

[Poopadoop]

Are you some kind of idiot? Seriously, are you?

Did you even read what I just said?

[BananaStand]

Are you some kind of idiot? Seriously, are you?

Did you even read what I just said?

You posted while I was writing my post. So eat cock.

[Jack Sawyer]

So similar issue is the Serena cartoon. No one wants to talk about Serena's behavior. But they are happy to say that criticism of it is racist.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/opini...nzo/index.html

^ look at this.

I don't know who Rebecca Wanzo is, but obviously a news organization as large as CNN decided that what she had to say on this was more compelling than what anyone else has written, and hence, have published her column to try and explain to us why the cartoon is racist.

That's great. I love to hear an intelligent presentation of the other side.

Except I can't find it in this column. This column is FULL of examples of other cartoons, many from bygone eras, that had controversial themes. Then the author tries to say "and this is just another example...."

As best I can tell, this is her argument:


This is not an argument. This is demagoguery. Just like the outcry against Tucker Carlson.

You can't be getting pissy with me over failing to acknowledge nuance, or respect the other side of an argument, when there IS NO OTHER SIDE.

It was racist. The racism is subtle, yet quite clearly there. Dogwhistle-ish, if you may.


Serena's features were exaggerated etc. But why was the other girl, who in reality happens to be a black japanese girl with black hair and blonde ends if you can believe it, whitewashed?

In the cartoon she's white and blonde. No exaggerated features on her. Or the actually white ref. Only Serena.

Things that make you go mmmm

[Poopadoop]

It was racist. The racism is subtle, yet quite clearly there. Dogwhistle-ish, if you may.


Serena's features were exaggerated etc.

I thought this as well, but I didn't want to get into an argument with banana over it because, you know...


ARRAARARARARGHGHGGHGHG!!!!

[Poopadoop]

That's fascinating, but I want to hear more of your thoughts about people calling other people racist, especially Tucker Carlson and the cartoon guy. Do you know any others who get called racist unfairly? What are the details and what do you think about it all?

[BananaStand]

Do you know any others who get called racist unfairly?

And it's not just TC. It's the Serena cartoonist. Stephan Molyneaux, Lauren Southern, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Charles Murray, Milo, Gavin McInnis, Christina Hoff Sommers, Stephen Crowder, are all people that have been de-platformed because of overwhelming, intrusive, and often violent protests. No such thing happens to David Pakman, Kyle Kulinski, or The Young Turks.

Notice a pattern? those are all people that are smart, reasonable, charismatic, and have knowledgeable fact-based challenges to leftist ideology. The key is charismatic. These people are compelling. Richard Spencer and David Duke are not. No one cares about de-platforming them. But someone like Candace Owens is supremely threatening to the left. And for that, she's treated worse than David Duke.

.

[Poopadoop]

No you said that already didn't you?

I want to hear MORE, not just the same thing again.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No you said that already didn't you?

I want to hear MORE, not just the same thing again.

I like where this is heading.

[BananaStand]

No you said that already didn't you?

I want to hear MORE, not just the same thing again.

https://www.businessinsider.com/list...olleges-2016-7

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/12/...n-campus-2016/

https://intellectualdarkweb.site/spe...lege-campuses/

[Poopadoop]

https://www.businessinsider.com/list...olleges-2016-7

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/12/...n-campus-2016/

https://intellectualdarkweb.site/spe...lege-campuses/

What do you think of all those stories?

[BananaStand]

What do you think of all those stories?

they're more interesting than any of the word turds that have fallen out of David Pakmans mouth

[Poopadoop]

they're more interesting than any of the word turds that have fallen out of David Pakmans mouth

Why do you think that?

[BananaStand]

Why do you think that?

Because I wish you would get AIDS

[oskar]

The point wasn't hurr durr we don't know how it wurks cos we stoopid from liberalism. It's just hilarious to hear the suggestion to combat the deficit (that you ran up by increasing government spending) by printing money, and making everyone else pay for it through inflation - coming from a small government memer.

[OngBonga]

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert when it comes to economics, but clearly I have a better grasp than you if you think that America printing money is the same as an African nation doing so.

[Poopadoop]

I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert when it comes to economics .

That's because you equate currency with wealth, and so if you print more money you somehow have more wealth.

but clearly I have a better grasp than you if you think that America printing money is the same as an African nation doing so

Right, your argument is because other countries hoard US dollars the way countries used to hoard gold that means having more US dollars in the world somehow, magically, wouldn't reduce their value. Just like when gold was the standard, and the world market was suddenly flooded with tons of gold during a gold rush the price of gold stayed the same.

[OngBonga]

You're going a bit strawman here. My argument is that the dollar is the most important currency in the world, by far, and as such any "devaluation" of it impacts on every nation in the world. If the Americans print money, then the real value of other nations' dollar reserves decreases. That level of exposure is greater for some countries than others, for example China. So America can print money as an economic weapon, just like China find ways to devalue their currency to make their goods more appealing to foreigners than their own nation's goods.

Do I understand it? No of course I don't, but at least I recognise that the world economy is a lot more complex than you seem to think it is. You think Trump is an idiot for printing money? He's probably an idiot if he doesn't.

[Poopadoop]

You're going a bit strawman here. My argument is that the dollar is the most important currency in the world, by far, and as such any "devaluation" of it impacts on every nation in the world. If the Americans print money, then the real value of other nations' dollar reserves decreases. That level of exposure is greater for some countries than others, for example China. So America can print money as an economic weapon, just like China find ways to devalue their currency to make their goods more appealing to foreigners than their own nation's goods.

Do I understand it? No of course I don't, but at least I recognise that the world economy is a lot more complex than you seem to think it is. You think Trump is an idiot for printing money? He's probably an idiot if he doesn't.

Lol, i don't know why you keep making arguments and then qualifying them by saying 'I don't actually have any idea what I'm talking about'. First, that's already obvious, and second, then why try to argue?

Do I understand it? No of course I don't, but at least I recognise that the world economy is a lot more complex than you seem to think it is. You think Trump is an idiot for printing money? He's probably an idiot if he doesn't.

The question wasn't how America printing money affected other countries or the world economy, it was if Trump's simplistic view that the deficit can be addressed by printing more money makes any sense.

I mean, if you want to join Wuf in arguing that it does and go against practically every economist in the world and a load of examples (Weimar Germany and paying wheelbarrows full of money for a loaf of bread comes to mind), then fine. But don't try to spin the argument into something about how you can hurt China. That wasn't the topic.

You think Trump is an idiot for printing money? He's probably an idiot if he doesn't.

Well according to the experts in the room, he is, because they wouldn't let him do it. The point is Trump thought it was an easy solution to a spiralling deficit. Everyone else in the room tried to tell him that was wrong, that it would increase inflation and be bad for the economy, and later in the same meeting he came back and suggested it again.

So, either Trump knows something his team of economic experts and the entire history of economics don't about managing a country's economy, in which case he should have overruled them and ordered them to print more money, or he's an idiot who got put in his place by people who aren't idiots. Take your pick.

[OngBonga]

poop, both you and I have no idea what we're talking about. However, wuf does. He's actually studied economics. You contributed to this conversation by mocking his comments, and then mocking Trump, for doing something that you have absolutely no idea about, and then you take a dig at me for also not knowing if what I say is true or not, even though it kinda corrleates more with the economics student than your comments, like "why doesn't Africa print money and become rich".

You can try to make me look as dumb as you like, but I answered your quesiton about Africa because it's fucking obvious to anyone who doesn't have his head up his own arse.

[Poopadoop]

poop, both you and I have no idea what we're talking about.

Actually one of us has some idea and the other has none.

However, wuf does. He's actually studied economics.

That didn't stop him from saying something that's obviously retarded even to someone that doesn't have a degree in economics. That's not my fault.

You contributed to this conversation by mocking his comments, and then mocking Trump, for doing something that you have absolutely no idea about,

Oskar and I both pointed out why it's a bad idea. The economists in the room with Trump at the time pointed out why it's a bad idea. If we're so wrong why don't you prove it instead of just coming back saying 'blah blah Africa, blah blah China, blah blah blah you don't know anything.'

and then you take a dig at me for also not knowing if what I say is true or not, even though it kinda corrleates more with the economics student than your comments, like "why doesn't Africa print money and become rich".

You say yourself you don't know what you're talking about. But that didn't stop you from putting up a wall of nonsense about why Trump was right and every economist in the room with him was wrong. I made the same argument in a mocking tone that Trump was saying: the answer to having a shortage of money is to print more money. Obviously not meant as a serious statement.

You can try to make me look as dumb as you like, but I answered your quesiton about Africa because it's fucking obvious to anyone who doesn't have his head up his own arse.

No, you started off calling me completely ignorant and then made some baloney arguments that had nothing to do with my point.

It's only 'fucking obvious' to someone who knows nothing.

[BananaStand]

Wow.. That was some impressive Banana-ing there poop. Brought a tear to my eye

[Poopadoop]

Wow.. That was some impressive Banana-ing there poop. Brought a tear to my eye

Fuuuuckk youuuuu!!!!! Tell me why printing money is the solution to the deficit!!!!! AAARRRGHHH!!

[BananaStand]

Fuuuuckk youuuuu!!!!! Tell me why printing money is the solution to the deficit!!!!! AAARRRGHHH!!

It's not. Feel better?

[Poopadoop]

It's not. Feel better?

NO, I'M PERPETUALLY OUTRAGED!!!!! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT??????

FUCK YOU!!!!!

[Poopadoop]

It's not. Feel better?

ALSO SOMEONE WHO'S RIGHT WING SAID IT WAS AND THEY'RE WRONG!!!!!!

EVERY FUCKING TIME !!!!! WHY DO THEY DO IT!!!!!!?????

I'M GOING TO GO CRAAAAAZYZYYZYZYZYZYYZ!!!!!!

[BananaStand]

ALSO SOMEONE WHO'S RIGHT WING SAID IT WAS AND THEY'RE WRONG!!!!!!

EVERY FUCKING TIME !!!!! WHY DO THEY DO IT!!!!!!?????

I'M GOING TO GO CRAAAAAZYZYYZYZYZYZYYZ!!!!!!

Well, let me know if there becomes a right-wing consensus on that, and I'll join you in your outrage.

In the meantime, if you're prone to going crazy like this, then I suggest you do NOT look into socialists like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's answer to deficits. That might give you an aneurysm.

[OngBonga]

...the answer to having a shortage of money is to print more money.

USA is probably the only country in the world where this actually applies.

[Poopadoop]

USA is probably the only country in the world where this actually applies.

Then why aren't they doing it?

[OngBonga]

Then why aren't they doing it?

Because it's tantamount to economic warfare against China? It might be a little too aggressive.

[Poopadoop]

It's not even like it's such a bombastic idea. Let's see, we as a country spend tons on getting the military powerful enough that we can drop a bomb in the eye of a mosquito; we spend tons on giving wealthy people who don't need the money even more money.

So you're a taxpayer and you're supposed to think, yeah that's great my taxes go to the army and to rich people. Fucking awesome.

Well surprise, some taxpayers think, if they're going to tax me at least put it somewhere where I can get a tangible benefit, like health care.

See, when you live in one of these shithole socialist countries, and you break a leg and go to the ER and it's free, you realize that's actually a pretty good use of your tax money. When your parent gets sick and gets expensive treatment for free, that seems right too. But when your parent goes broke because the government decided rich people deserve to get richer off your parent's taxes, a lot of people for some reason think that's fucked up.