Printable View
I don't know what's going on. My intention is to be reasonable in a situation where there is little reason. From that perspective, Muh Russia is pretty damn hilarious and there are some others in government who have probably committed serious crimes that they may or may not have to account for.
@Boost : logic is wasted on banana, he only knows 'zomg i can't believe ur such a fucking idiot; i'm losing my mind - aaaaah!!' types of arguments
On the Trump thing, I heard an interesting hypothesis that the investigation is not going to find collusion but is going to find evidence of money-laundering - that Trump's campaign got a bigly contribution from Russian oligarchs in return for an agreement to ease sanctions, etc., (good for business if your a Russian oligarch) and to keep letting them launder their money through his businesses (explaining why he guards his tax returns so jealously); Mueller's first hire was a money-laundering expert; the Manafort and Flynn indictments are basically about money laundering; Jared has his greasy hands all over it; etc. etc.
Banana, you're a walking paradox. On the one hand your belligerent disregard for following the thread of the discussion can lead to cool tangents that we may have never gotten to. On the other hand, your belligerent disregard for following the thread of the discussion makes wading through these cool tangents tedious and gruelling.
zomg i can't believe ur such a fucking idiot; i'm losing my mind - aaaaahQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
Edit: Shit, wrong account.
haha
fucking gold
https://i.imgur.com/XV0Td6Y.jpg
Yeah that was tremendous. It got talked about and tweeted so fucking much.
I must be out of the loop since the only retweet I saw was Scott Adams
And I figured it was Harambe's birthday or soemthing since he is all over t_d
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/05/th...fs-trump-book/Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Haha, that is some A+ satire. It's great because it manages to play to either side, it both can be read as an almost plausible, but just over the top, anecdote starring Trump, or it can be read as satirizing the gullibility of the FAKE Media^tm
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I adore how some view Trump basically as Peter Griffin (sans comedy). Because I can totally see Peter doing that. And it being hilarious. And an audience taking it as representative of truth is just another level of funny.
Ok, so we all are on board with some form of the two movies thing, and I really do try to get a peak at the other movie whenever I can, but Trump's declarations of his own genius on Twitter.. I mean, how does this look on your screen? He's just trolling the snowflakes? Don't there need to be more than two screens then? Would you not acknowledge that a significant portion of those viewing pro Trump screens are unaware of how daft this string of tweets is, and simply take them at face value?
Even if we assume he's just trolling, lol@the idea that this can in anyway be seen as positive way for our president to be acting-- trolling half the country and misleading a significant portion of the rest.
So, again, maybe I'm just failing to see the other screen. So if someone would, please fill me in on how this is not alarming behaviour coming from our president.
I'll give two perspectives. The first is Scott Adams discussing the reasons he thinks Trump made those tweets. I think the first 8 minutes gives enough information, but you can probably watch less than that. His periscopes tend to get to the point then meander, so you can literally just watch then stop watching when you no longer want to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1YqJDLENMgoJV
The second is to your question about what people on "this side" see on the TV screen. To start that, it might be important to introduce the idea of the humility fetish (another term sparked by Adams). The humility fetish is along the lines of the belief that being humble is better than being braggadocious. The humility fetish is something most of us have and it is very traditional for our public figures (especially at the level of president). Trump entirely disregards the humility fetish. His fans are people who, along with him, deny the humility fetish at this point in time and at this level. To those who don't (most everybody else), Trump looks almost incomprehensible because he is doing things he's "not supposed to do". As for why some of us have discarded the humility fetish in this case, I won't go into details, but it seems to stem from a lot of us being sold a bill of goods over and over by tricksters and crooks who don the humility fetish. We're told to sit down and take it. We have for a long time. Not anymore. We want a champion. Now we have our champion. The greatest champs are people like Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson. They have a total lack of humility fetish in their public personas. They don't take bullshit, they brag themselves up and tell losers to fuck off. Trump supporters feel like they have been trampled on for such a long time that they now embrace the political equivalent of Mike Tyson. In the minds of Trump fans, he has the real success and real policy actions to back up being a Tyson, so when he talks himself up he looks like he's the champ clowning on his opponent. To Trump's detractors, Trump has no life success and has no policy success, so when he talks himself up looks like a clown.
That's the background for what we see on our TV screen. The other things we see are varied and probably can be said to break into separate screens themselves. Some see him getting people to pay attention to what he wants them to. He did this today when he inserted ",like," into his tweet. Detractors blow a lid at that and inadvertently cause the tweet with the info he wants out to get attention. Another view is that he gets detractors to chase the cheese in the maze (so this is the element of trolling). This is typically thought to be for purpose other than just getting kicks. Even Trump's biggest fans of the trolling think he does it to further his agenda behind the scenes while the media and the ctrl-left go bonkers about a misspelling or some other thing that doesn't matter. Then there's the view that Trump saying how big of a genius he is has the effect of persuading some people to actually believe it. You ain't gonna convince somebody you're smart by saying you're stupid, but you might convince some people you're smart by saying you're smart.
Does this help?
This tweet:
"...Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job."
I'm putting this down as the greatest burn of all time. Sure, it's not the cleverest, but the greatness of a burn isn't just about cleverness. Trump's claim can't be disproven, and now virtually the entire world in politics believes that Bannon is a weak baby who cried when he got fired. Even his fucking family is probably wondering if it's actually true. Bannon is beyond finished.
wuf cried when I told him I don't like him & begged me to be his friend.
You weren't supposed to tell anybody.
Here's the problem regarding the Bannon slam: It is not a coherent move if the narrative that the book is "complete fantasy" is true (or at least believed by the administration.) To this point, it seems that Bannon was actually drafting a statement that defended Trump and painted the book and author as untrustworthy Fake News^tm. That statement got scrapped because Trump forced the narrative to a point where it no longer would have worked.
If the book is misquotes and quotes out of context, and the author had several months to collect quotes to take out of context, then couple that with an impulsive administration, and here we are. Sure it's a sick take down-- but it's also probably friendly fire. Oops.
I agree. I think Trump is running scorched earth against Bannon, like, he literally wants Bannon out of the picture. Some have said Trump personally dislikes Bannon because of stuff that went on between him and Trump's son-in-law. But I tend to think it's more along the lines of Trump believing that Bannon is screwing things up regarding the coming elections. Bannon wants to get rid of the GOP establishment and replace with new Republicans while it appears Trump is trying to change the current Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Actually I shouldn't say that. I think it is not useful to think one can read somebody else's mind. I can't read Trump's or Bannon's minds. I don't know the thoughts in Trump's head for why he is running scorched earth against Bannon now. The data suggest that the reasons that inform his thoughts could be Bannon going against Trump's version of MAGA.
So, like, filter the swamp?
Seriously though, yeah, you may be right, but I think that misses the point. If the book is not "complete fantasy", the reaction, especially with regards to Bannon, makes no sense.
Heh. Word has been passed down that ending the "drain the swamp" rhetoric was Mitch McConnell's required compromise for Trump to make for them to even begin to work together. But yeah, the way to drain the swamp is with a filter, some of the stuff can stay, or more like some of the stuff will stay given the constraints.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Okay, I see. I think this is perfectly logical. And a reason I think most don't see it this way is because of compartmentalization. Somebody who sides with Trump can easily just say, "the book is false and Trump is using this as an opportunity to take out Bannon, not basing the Bannon take-out on the claims of the book."Quote:
Seriously though, yeah, you may be right, but I think that misses the point. If the book is not "complete fantasy", the reaction, especially with regards to Bannon, makes no sense.
I'm confused as to whether the thing in quotes is what you think is a reasonable explanation or an erroneous one made by "most".
If it's the former, using this opportunity to slam Bannon legitimizes the quotes attributed to him in the book. Labeling him "Leaky Bannon" further compounds this. So some may not notice this inconsistency, but who are the rubes? His base?
But, let's step back from the 3D chess board. Or at least zoom out. What do you think is happening here? I get that your story that lead up to this disagrees with the president being an impulsive strategic buffoon, but how many of these seemingly impulsive fumbles need to happen before your picture changes? Or the picture on the shared screen that I only get a peek at? If Pence pulls the 25th, does your screen adjust, or is it still pro Trump? If Mueller actually is building a case against Trump and drops indictments(recommendations for impeachment? I'm not entirely sure how this works..) does that snap the projector into focus?
Maybe it's my screen that is largely showing a false narrative, and I suppose I should ask myself the same questions, but, well, I asked first :)
When one reacts to any slight by immediately belittling and ridiculing the transgressor, and does so virtually 100% of the time, assuming that habitual reaction has some long-range planning behind it this time (or every time, for that matter) strikes me as a rather inelegant explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He was made to look bad, he lashed out in return. The next 100 times someone disses him, he'll likely react the same way somewhere between 99 and 100 of those times.
The shit is fucking hilarious. I love having a president who will just talk shit. And why the fuck shouldn't he? He beat the most prolific politician of our time when he ran for president on his first try when he was just running for the fucking hell of it and had no experience in politics whatsoever. That would be like if McGregor knocked Mayweather out in the first round. The shit is cold blooded.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
It is an explanation that somebody can make to handle the logic you presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Thinking that logically about it isn't something that many people will do. The funny thing is that with that in mind, it can explain why both the quotes could be false and Trump could attack Bannon. I don't have much of an opinion on the book because I don't think it matters one way or another if they are true.Quote:
If it's the former, using this opportunity to slam Bannon legitimizes the quotes attributed to him in the book. Labeling him "Leaky Bannon" further compounds this. So some may not notice this inconsistency, but who are the rubes? His base?
I'm trying to respond and realize that I need you to clarify exactly what you think is happening. Exactly what your logic is.Quote:
But, let's step back from the 3D chess board. Or at least zoom out. What do you think is happening here? I get that your story that lead up to this disagrees with the president being an impulsive strategic buffoon, but how many of these seemingly impulsive fumbles need to happen before your picture changes? Or the picture on the shared screen that I only get a peek at? If Pence pulls the 25th, does your screen adjust, or is it still pro Trump? If Mueller actually is building a case against Trump and drops indictments(recommendations for impeachment? I'm not entirely sure how this works..) does that snap the projector into focus?
As for what I think is happening is that Trump fired Bannon in part for leaking other things not related to this book, that Trump is taking out Bannon in part because of how Bannon is screwing things up in elections (Roy Moore/Luther Strange), and that Trump is taking out Bannon in part because it is an effective counter to the book. The book needs to be countered, not because of what Bannon is quoted for, but because it's the backbone of the current narrative that Trump is crazy. As far as I can tell, you pointed out how one statement Trump makes being true implies the other he makes is false. That can be the case, but also few people think that hard about these things. Tearing down Bannon as "the leaker" can make the book seem less credible simply because Bannon is associated with it. The general public doesn't stop to think about it like you have; they don't go "oh wait that makes Bannon MORE credible". They just think "pew pew Bannon the leaker pew pew Wolff is a liar pew pew Trump said he's Very Smart Genius".
You're probably right. There is probably SOMETHING we don't see; Trump wouldn't just take Bannon out like this if the only concern was the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But yes, his strategy involves counter-punching anybody who attacks him, and if that person's attack gains any traction whatsoever, Trump goes scorched earth against that person.
If the idea is that Trump attacks injudiciously, I'd say that's something we would have to cover first. It is a premise I do not believe stands up to scrutiny.
This word implies it is planned and calculated; I think it's more visceral than that. Calculated moves don't necessarily repeat themselves every time (though they can), a strategist is generally more flexible and chooses their battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're conflating strategy and strategist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...58851024265216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakoff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adams
If he didn't pick his battles, how does he have a business, family, or any friends?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He's just crazy! 25th Amendment! ReeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Nonsense and/or trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
A strategist is one who uses a strategy.
It's like saying you're mixing things up by calling someone driving a car a 'driver'.
There are plenty of people who react that way to criticism and manage those things as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Wrong. It's not someone who uses a strategy. It means something very specific:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
a person skilled in planning action or policy, especially in war or politics
a person skilled in strategy
an expert in strategy, especially in warfare
You're trying to call someone who drives a truck a trucker or someone who bakes a cake a baker.
So replace the word 'strategist' in my post with 'someone who's using a strategy'. Better?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Ah, so he makes a distinction between between a personal attack and a non-personal attack. Do you think he makes a distinction between level of importance of a personal attack, meaning do you think he thinks it is more important to tear down a personally attacking Rosie O'Donnell than it is to tear down a personally attacking Soros Twitter Troll?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I lol'd at soros twitter troll. i dont know if they are soros funded (probs are). but they are defo twitter trolls and there are a billion of them and they attack trump in the most personal way people can imagine.
This string of Lakoff posts is fantastic. Pretty sure he's no fan of Trump. From the one quoted above
https://twitter.com/GeorgeLakoff/sta...25111362666496
No because you're implying that Trump is still someone skilled at strategy in the political realm, and he's not. It's much simpler than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He talks shit because he can. If you show you aren't loyal to him or if you're opposing him, he's going to light your ass up. It's simple.
May be the most credible view of why Trump tweets the way he does I've come across.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't know what you're talking about with Soros twitter troll, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But since you mentioned it, another person might draw the line well above Rosie O'Donnell when it comes to which critics and what criticisms warrant an immediate and aggressive response.
Yeah Trump used to be on the same level as Rosie so he countered her a lot but now he is beyond that level and his behavior reflects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not implying anything regarding his political skills, except maybe tangentially. I'm basically saying what you say there in bold, though perhaps in a different way than you intend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What I'm saying is his default behavior is to react aggressively to anyone who makes him look bad. Conversely, a more flexible person (i.e., one who's operating with some longer-range thinking or 'strategy' if you will, might well respond differently at different times depending on the context.
In short, I'm arguing he's a person who can't bite his tongue even when it would serve him to do so. One could always argue he could bite his tongue but chooses not to, and that's fine. But it's difficult to reconcile either characterization with a person who's thinking deeply about the long-term consequences of such behavior.
A Soros Twitter Troll is one of those accounts that respond within seconds to everything Trump tweets with nasty personal attacks that get users who are not ctrl-left banned. Certainly Ivanka has to yank the phone out of Dad's hands after each tweet before he is able to look at any responses. It's a full time job. Maybe that's why they got the Gorilla Channel. Now Trump isn't even bothered by Ivanka taking his phone because the gorillas are fighting.
Well, there's only so many hours in a day ;). Even Trump has to sleep sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And that's why you can't call him a strategist politically. He doesn't give a shit about politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Why didn't he start yelling out comebacks at Obama during the infamous correspondents dinner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But actually that's an interesting point. He doesn't generally keep after his enemies after he attacks them, he moves on to the next fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He's like Abraham Lincoln during the Trent Affair 'One war at a time' only with Donny it's 'One twitter war at a time.'
He was too busy dicking around on Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No wait, it's because it's mentally unfit. He was probably texting the Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Putin told him to sit still beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I don't know but it would have been funny and not entirely surprising if he had.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Edit: maybe he didn't want a secret service takedown and knee in the back on his political resume.
When has he done something that would make such behavior unsurprising?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What else have I not said that you'd like to call me out on? ;)
I was joking...Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If CNN reported this, how many people would believe it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
A young up and coming general is marching his army along a road when they encounter an unmanned wall erected straight across the road. He brashly orders his engineers to dismantle it. His men cheer him for his decisiveness as they march through the newly opened hole in the wall. A wise old general happens into the same situation. He orders his engineers to study it and report back their conclusions as to its purpose. His men groan as they setup camp to await the engineers' findings.
With regards to political etiquette, I'm with the second general, which interestingly enough would make me the conservative.
To be less vague and esoteric: politicians do display this fetishization of humility, and it can be off putting, and it's understandable how a politician who does away with it can feel refreshing. However, there are likely all sorts of benefits to assuming this manner in the political realm. If not, it would be highly unlikely that it would not only be a trait that survives the constant tests of fitness, but one that has come to dominate modern politics.
I agree with the general sentiment of your first paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
With that having been said, when everyone acts like that to an extreme, they're very easily exploited by someone who does not act like that, whether or not it's the optimal thing to do or not.
For a random example, remember when Obama was caught on tape calling Kanye a fucking jackass? That helped his image a fair amount at the time. It was an accident, but it still worked.
Related:
Machiavelli's point here is not about moderation. It's about doing the right thing at the right time whether it's the "good" thing to do or not. Whether Trump is doing this intentionally or not, he has a massive advantage because he doesn't feel the need to be as politically chilled the fuck out.Quote:
Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.
It's a good point and I mostly agree. I think we will return pretty quickly to it once Trump is out of the picture. Some may try to mimic him (some already are) and they will probably fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Ways in which I push back are that humility in the political sphere isn't perfect; we still have stuff to learn. It can be the case that the humility fetish has led to a lot of problems even as it is stable. It can also be that the discarding of the humility fetish is a response to corruption in media. The day that the media stops being an extension of the Democratic Party may be the day that Republicans want to return to humility. But as of now, the GOP being humble might actually be hurting them (and the country).
One way of looking at is that you're only at war for a little while, but when you're at war, you're at fucking war. You want peace, and most of what you live is and will be peace. But when you're at war you're at fucking war.
Right now, the citizens that support Trump are at war.
Why are they at war? The government keeps taking, the media keeps lying, and the blame keeps getting put on the shoulders of the makers and the doers and the decent.
War will end as soon as that changes.
Spoon, while we may differ on how to implement these notions, I agree with your elaborations completely. As I was writing, those ideas were kind of bubbling up, but I couldn't solidify them.
Similarly, wuf, I mostly agree with what you've said. Trump is probably more like Stu Ungar than Jamie Gold in this respect. After Ungar the game snapped back to a bunch of weak tight old men, but Ungar opened the door for a new way to think about the game, and slowly but surely the game evolved to include elements found in his play.
The thing that gives me pause with your posts, wuf, is that I don't think virtually any of the soldiers in this war know what they're fighting for or towards. And due to the nature of the grievances and the war, strong leadership is unlikely and the soldiers are prone to unknowingly taking up the cause of an enemy.
I personally think the risks of putting a troll president in office are too great-- he's not just trolling the American political establishment, he's trolling allies, nuclear armed enemies, etc. But that's actually besides the point if the soldiers in this war are without a clear win condition, which leads to unending war, and without adequate leadership/safeguards against their cause being hijacked. If the cause was filled with a bunch of wuf's and spoons and led by Ben Shapiro, maybe I'd rest a little bit easier-- but as is?...
Ben Shapiro is a fucking cuck.
I would totally have a gay marriage with Lauren Southern though.
Just yesterday I described Shapiro as half a cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What happened?
nm i see it was in reponse to boost
It's funny how Shapiro is a Nazi sympathizer to the left and a jewcuck to the right.
I think he's wrong on a lot and leans to heavily on his tactical ability to eviscerate lesser opponents in debate-- but I find myself drawn to at least listen to people who draw the ire of both sides like this. They tend to be making a lot of sense on at least a few issues.
I'm very conflicted because I think LS is hot AF and I love sassy gals who don't take shit. On the other hand I'm not super hot on the white nationalist part.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8HsQC_MBhc
This is a pretty good LS meme.
1. Lauren Southern is a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
2. White nationalism and white supremacy are not the same thing, but in the Venn diagram of people who prescribe to the two, the overlap is definitely greater than either of the individual sides. With that having been said, virtually all white nationalists who are not white supremacists are also black nationalists and nationalists of various other races and ethnic groups.
That's Shapiro.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I think he is partly masquerading. His site is set up so that he can be the "conservative that anti-Trump conservatives can get behind" while Andrew Klavan is the pro-Trump guy. Meanwhile, Trump has done more conservative policy than Shapiro could have imagined in Shapiro's wildest dream for Shapiro's dream candidate. I want honesty, not somebody playing to their crowd.
On Lauren Southern
I can't fuckign stand her and it's purely personal wugy reasons. Just the way she sounds when she speaks. Same with Faith Goldy. Other than that she's great. Also yes 10/10 would go gay for her. Also would probably try to date her though I bet I would jam a pen in my ear after ten minutes.
On whiteness
It's more of a culture than anything. Postmodern neo-Marxism needs that culture to die off in order to usher in Utopia (the same Utopia at a philosophical level that the world realized was an unbelievably destructive force back in the 70s and 80s).
I think he is honest. He does not knock Trump for the conservative stuff he does, he openly says he's thankful for it. However, I think he's of the opinion that Trump is not fit for office. These views are not mutually exclusive. I can be happy that hurricane dropped a full chest of long lost sunken pirate treasure in my backyard and still not want hurricanes to continue making landfall.
Can't be unfit for office if you fucking won. Sucka sucka dick y'all.
That's reasonable enough. By now you probably know more current Shapiro than I do. I used to be a big fan of his though. Him and his weaselly voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Sound's like you're assuming that if I only were to realize that a white nationalist is not necessarily a white supremacist, I'd go: Oh! That's not retarded then!Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Well, no, it still is really retarded. We can talk about that if you want. But no trollerino pls. I'll get sufficiently triggered by whatever your real arguments are, I promise.
Well I guess this means Trump must be very genius (and stable)
https://i.imgur.com/rh2sKdJ.jpg
I wonder if today will mark the end of the ctrl-left flipping a lid every time Trump goads them into giving him a helping hand. I just get that impression, given how many people have been saying it.
Naw who am I kidding? Orange Clownies gonna Orange Clown.
You know my avatar. Every time I look at it all I see is Uncle Nige. I mean Trump's jakt arms and delts are cool, but Uncle Nige is one suave motherfucker.
The most basic argument for white nationalism is that there is benefit in allowing different people to have their own homelands without having them forced into diversity for the sake of diversity. There are reasonable arguments and data to support this argument. Logically, you cannot be a white nationalist without also being an [insert race/ethnicity] nationalist. It's ultimately a sub-set of liking to have well-defined borders between things.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The problem is that a majority of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalists of any type aren't necessarily logical and don't necessarily give a shit about the reasonable arguments. When any type of [insert race/ethnicity] nationalism is combined with [same race/ethnicity] supremacy, it results in wanting to kill off everyone else and to create a master race and all of this other ridiculousness. Since most white nationalists, for example, are also white supremacists, it's easy to see how that's a problem.
For what it's worth, there's also the odd group who are white supremacists but who are not white nationalists. They tend to be the least violent or aggressive towards other racists/ethnic groups, and they also tend to feel they are simply being realists and that they have no reason to be hostile to other groups due to being the best or whatever.
For myself, I'm not a white nationalist, but I am a nationalist.
Edit: I want to point out also that the overwhelming majority of white supremacists are in the bottom 50 percent of the intelligence and socioeconomic pool.
Edit 2: Random but perhaps interesting, most people I have seen wanting to incorporate race play into their sex lives have been black women wanting to be degraded by a white man. Second place is white men wanting to be degraded by a black man, usually by fucking his wife/significant other in a cuckold arrangement (I suspect porn has something to do with this). Third place is Asian girls wanting to be dominated (note the difference in the verb) by white men.
A nation is a set of ideas. Some ideas are better than others.
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/...81fd86ee1c.jpg
Remember the Animaniacs segments "Good Idea, Bad Idea."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I feel like those have a lot of meme magic potential.
Depends on whether or not I am a sexist for saying hello to a nurse.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I can literally see both sides of this hahaha
How many times will I see the word "nationalist" not preceded by the word "white" in 2018.
I don't care where you set the post....I will bet the under.
Can someone explain to me why non-white people can't be Nationalist?
This is a media trick to associate anyone with conservative, America-first values, as a racist.
And wuf....YOU FELL FOR IT.
When you say shit like "white nationalism is different from white-supremacy", you're just feeding the narrative that anyone who shirks the policies of globalization and open borders is really just a racist and xenophobe.
There is no such thing as "white nationalism". There is "nationalism" and there are white people. That's it. Any attempt to marry the two is just a spin-game that is attempting to broad-brush an entire conservative movement as racist and hateful.
Trump knows this. That's why he blamed both sides in Charleston. How did the media react to that?? They eviscerated Trump because his truth doesn't fit their phony narrative that Nationalism is anti-black, rather than simply pro-america.
Kwanzaa was established as an anti-white, black nationalist holiday in the 60s.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ever hear of the Nation of Islam? Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad, some boxer guy? They were black nationalists who wanted to create a nation for black people (somewhere in America presumably).
Essentially if you want a nation made up entirely of one colour people, you're a [insert colour here] nationalist.
Also, you can be a nationalist without being supremacist or racist in any way, though they tend to go together since anyone who has supremacist/racist leanings will see nationalism as taking those views to their logical conclusion.
The reason you don't hear much if anything about black nationalism in America is because blacks will never have enough power to enact it, so it's about as big of a threat as gay nationalism or mormon nationalism - i.e., it ain't gonna happen. White nationalism on the other hand has the latent power to make itself realized if enough people got on board.
That's why liberals go ape-shit over white nationalism and not black nationalism. If blacks were the majority in America, liberals would be going ape-shit over black nationalism and not worry about white nationalism. It's a question of which type of nationalism poses the most tangible risk of coming true, and that depends on who holds the power.
Poop, you just perverted the definition of Nationalism.
Also, even if everything you just said is true.....I haven't heard any of the people who identify as nationalist, ever say anything about an all-white America.
Rather, I've heard them argue for an all-american-america. By your definition, they are American-nationalists. What's wrong with that? How is it racist? How do you get from there....to "all-white america"
Just because they happen to be white, doesn't mean that you get to super-impose a racist agenda on to their platform.
?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Black nationalism isn't some foreign concept that's never been a major topic in the US lol
You're mind-reading again.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I was talking about white and black nationalists and you somehow took that to mean I think every type of nationalist bases their idea on colour.
An anti-immigrant American nationalist is more commonly referred to as a nativist. So why would anyone go ape-shit over nativists? I suspect it's because they (rightly or wrongly) correlate that attitude with racism/intolerance/other bad stuff.
If you take Trump as an example; he doesn't rail against immigration in general, he mainly rails against immigration from countries whose people happen to be a different colour and/or religion than white/christian (e.g., Mexico, the Middle East). I've never heard him say 'don't let in any more white protestant europeans, they're fucking this country right up! Build a Wall on the border of Canada!' or the like.
Perhaps this is mere coincidence, and one could argue that Mexican immigration is more important to control due to the sheer numbers involved, and non-christian immigrants don't share christian values and are as such 'un-American'. And if Trump made those kinds of cogent and reasoned arguments they'd be more palatable. But instead he aims for the heart and not the head with words like 'bad hombres' and 'zomg radical muslim terrorism'. It's this language and the tacit racism/intolerance it suggests that gets many people's backs up.
Never said it was never a major topic and i thought i made that clear with the reference to the NoI. But it hardly gets screaming headlines any more, does it? You'll have to tell me I don't live there.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So do you agree that it's unfair to describe a conservative, pro-America movement as "white nationalist"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Do you agree that the left-wing media is playing a dirty trick on the minds of American people by pounding this suggesting that Nationalism = Racism.
No, of course you don't. You've echo-chambered yourself into believing that it's true all because of some silly, biased observation, that Trump talks too much about the southern border, and doesn't talk enough about stopping immigration from Denmark.
Lol you're such an angry twat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But to answer your question, those two views aren't mutually incompatible. The left-wing media can overblow the connection between nationalism and racism by focusing on the intolerant language Trump uses like 'Muslim Ban'. He's given them the bullets for their gun, so to speak.
More generally, if you're suggesting that the media is biased and spins things to suit their purposes, you'll hardly get an argument from anybody. A better question is, why rant and rave about it? It's a fact that it happens on both sides of the fence. Deal with it.
"Muslim ban" is not intolerant language. It's a part of a defense against intolerance.
Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Yeah yeah two fucking pages ago and all, but this made me howl with laughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by banana
It reminds me of when someone tries to tell me Debbie Harry is ugly. I know it but I'll punch you for saying it.
I think banana has a man crush on Trump.
The paradox of tolerance has never escaped me; the idea that to be truly tolerant implies you also tolerate the intolerant. However, not sure what this has to with the words 'Muslim Ban'.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If your argument is that Muslims are holders of an intolerant creed and thus must be excluded from America in order for it to remain a tolerant society, this is overly simplistic. There are just as many Christians who are intolerant, and by your logic should thus be deported (or not allowed in).
So where does this leave us? This argument uses a broad brush to paint an entire religion based on the actions/views of a tiny minority of them, ignoring that applying that same heuristic to the majority religion was never a part of the stated goal of the 'Muslim Ban'. My argument is that to do so is to behave unfairly. If this is not intolerance then it's at least unjust.
If instead, your argument is that tolerance requires we passively acquiesce to intolerance in our leaders and government, then well I guess a utilitarian argument could be made for a tolerant person seeking whatever allows the greatest amount of net tolerance to exist, and that being intolerant of a national policy of intolerance is logical under that principle.
Islam is not compatible with American society. Get over it.