Climate Change, Feminism, White Genocide, Donald Trump

Galwayguy35

RayM wrote: »

I'm talking about those people (thankfully only a tiny minority) who hold all the right-wing opinions: Opinions that require - at the very least - the suspension of empathy. When someone's constantly expressing the most cold-hearted, no-nonsense, oh-so-logical views on every topic, there comes a point when you decide that maybe you are, in fact, dealing with a cunt.

So in other words a person with a different view to your own is a cunt.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

Calling people sexist racists because they don't support your candidate is childish. Voting for someone because she's a woman is childish. Calling millions of Americans deplorable is childish. Ignoring every single scandal pre-election and expecting people to care about the ones after it is childish.

So if you want to call me a child for being spiteful at people for calling me a sexist racist for being pro-Sanders, then I'm a 2-year-old. And I didn't even have a vote, nor am I American, so what am I going to remember.... Trump's sexist comments or my "friends" ridiculous accusations to my fuking face? I was delighted they got defeated after what they said to me.

Donald Trump is a politically inexperienced, mentally unstable, lying con-man.

He was very visibly all of these things before he was elected.

Wanting to see such a person in change of the world's largest nuclear arsenal (hey right now he's playing nuclear chicken with another unstable narcissist!) just to spite people who hurt your feelings online is yes, incredibly, unbelievably childish.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Donald Trump is an politically inexperienced, mentally unstable, lying con-man.

He was very visibly all of these things before he was elected.

Wanting to see such a person in change of the world's largest nuclear arsenal (hey right now he's playing nuclear chicken with another unstable narcissist!) just to spite people who hurt your feelings online is yes, incredibly, unbelievably childish.

Theyve just pointed out they were rooting for the only one of the three potential winners who isnt a candidate driven by largely identity politics and youre using the term childish about them? Have I missed something?

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Donald Trump is an politically inexperienced, mentally unstable, lying con-man.

He was very visibly all of these things before he was elected.

Wanting to see such a person in change of the world's largest nuclear arsenal (hey right now he's playing nuclear chicken with another unstable narcissist!) just to spite people who hurt your feelings online is yes, incredibly, unbelievably childish.

I don't particularly want him in charge, I just wanted him to win to spite people who were horrible to me. Childish? I don't care.

But at least I know that this NK stuff was destined to happen whoever won. He was always going to be testing missiles and America was always going to be making threats back. Trump has had two Americans released from NK and there isn't war yet so I'll reserve judgement.

There's not much of a debate to me had here to be honest.. It's clear you've never been repeatedly called a sexist or a racist for absolutely no reason, so it's unlikely you know the spite I felt at self-righteous morons thinking I was a bad person for liking an old white man (Sanders), or hating a woman (Clinton), when my hate for her had nothing to do with her being a woman.

I never turned around and hated or was abusive to people for supporting her, so my childish conscience is clean.

B0jangles

tritium wrote: »

Theyve just pointed out they were rooting for the only one of the three potential winners who isnt a candidate driven by largely identity politics and youre using the term childish about them? Have I missed something?

Supporting Sanders because you believe he has good policies and a good way forward is a perfectly reasonable political position.

Wanting Trump to be President of the U.S and have control of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal for no reason other than to spite people who've said nasty things about you is very childish behaviour.

I'd say the same about people who only wanted Clinton win because it'd annoy their Dad.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Supporting Sanders because you believe he has good policies and a good way forward is a perfectly reasonable political position.

Wanting Trump to be President of the U.S and have control of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal for no reason other than to spite people who've said nasty things about you is very childish behaviour.

I'd say the same about people who only wanted Clinton win because it'd annoy their Dad.

There's a very big thing you're not accounting for here.. I'm not a Trump voter and I'm not American. My opinions had no effect on the outcome.

Should I have consoled my friends who left celebration parties crying, wondering how it all could have gone wrong? No, I'm not going to do that.

I didn't rub it in their face. I stayed quiet and now just passively listen when they bitch about it all, still oblivious like so many here, to how people react to personal insults.

You cannot expect people to care about the bigger picture when you're in their face calling them sexists or racists. All they're doing is sitting there thinking "I have never done anything sexist or racist in my life you dickhead so I'm voting to fuk you."

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Supporting Sanders because you believe he has good policies and a good way forward is a perfectly reasonable political position.

Wanting Trump to be President of the U.S and have control of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal for no reason other than to spite people who've said nasty things about you is very childish behaviour.

I'd say the same about people who only wanted Clinton win because it'd annoy their Dad.

What about people who wanted Clinton to win on the basis of her own brand of identity politics?

B0jangles

What is 'Identity Politics'? ; I've yet to find anyone willing to explain what it is and why it's bad. 'Cultural marxism' too.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

You cannot expect people to care about the bigger picture when you're in their face calling them sexists or racists. All they're doing is sitting there thinking "I have never done anything sexist or racist in my life you dickhead so I'm voting to fuk you."

I'm sorry, but no matter how much you explain how your friends being mean to you justified you being happy that Trump is president, it still leaves you sounding pretty childish.

To repeat: Trump is clearly massively unfit for the job; he also has control of enough nuclear bombs to kill the lot of us, and everything on the planet a dozen times over. The U.S. has long-standing systems in place to ensure that nuclear missiles can and will be launched on the president's order with the minimum of delay. You are still saying you were happy this person has control of this power because your friends were mean to you.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

What is 'Identity Politics'? ; I've yet to find anyone willing to explain what it is and why it's bad. 'Cultural marxism' too.

Surprised at the question tbh. Here you go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

As to why its bad, broadly covered there too but in a nutshell, it quickly becomes the politics of 'them' and 'us'. Fine if youre the 'us', pretty **** usually if you're the 'them'

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm sorry, but no matter how much you explain how your friends being mean to you justified you being happy that Trump is president, it still leaves you sounding pretty childish.

Repeat repeat repeat irrelevant stuff

While I'm trying to justify it in a way, my main point here is not to explain my own thinking, but the thinking that led to Trump, and it looks like it's going to be even worse in 2020. He's unlikely to win but it will be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory with the amount of internal strife.

Call me childish if you like. All I've done is defend myself and you've repeatedly attacked me, without even a hint of irony considering the topic.

B0jangles

tritium wrote: »

Surprised at the question. Here you go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

As to why its bad, broadly covered there too but it a nutshell, it quickly becomes the politics of them and 'us'. Fine if youre the us, pretty **** usually if youre the 'them'

Thanks for the link but I'm still not seeing why it's bad? Political control used to rest almost entirely in a specific subset of each society and as time passed those outside that subset fought to gain some level of political power - is the problem that they want it recognised that they are not the same as the existing political class, and as a result do not necessarily want the same things?

Up 'til quite recently the 'us' which had political control was one very specific section of society and the 'them' was everyone else.

Are the old 'us' having trouble sharing power with the old 'them'?

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

While I'm trying to justify it in a way, my main point here is not to explain my own thinking, but the thinking that led to Trump, and it looks like it's going to be even worse in 2020. He's unlikely to win but it will be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory with the amount of internal strife.

Call me childish if you like. All I've done is defend myself and you've repeatedly attacked me, without even a hint of irony considering the topic.

I'm not attacking you. You described the reason you wanted Trump to win. I said that I think your reasons were childish, that's all.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Thanks for the link but I'm still not seeing why it's bad? Political control used to rest almost entirely in a specific subset of each society and as time passed those outside that subset fought to gain some level of political power - is the problem that they want it recognised that they are not the same as the existing political class, and as a result do not necessarily want the same things?

Up 'til quite recently the 'us' which had political control was one very specific section of society and the 'them' was everyone else.

Are the old 'us' having trouble sharing power with the old 'them'?

It's a problem because people are automatically in a category and just follow whichever politician is geared towards it. There's no talk of healthcare or education when the topic everyone is voting on is genitals and skin-color. That stuff should be taken care of at a local level in America but it's elevated to the Presidency for votes.

It also results in visceral attacks because people are so involved. It breeds hatred and partisan politics. You hate your straight friend for caring about something instead of your sexual orientation. "With us or against us." is strong in identity politics.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Thanks for the link but I'm still not seeing why it's bad? Political control used to rest almost entirely in a specific subset of each society and as time passed those outside that subset fought to gain some level of political power - is the problem that they want it recognised that they are not the same as the existing political class, and as a result do not necessarily want the same things?

Up 'til quite recently the 'us' which had political control was one very specific section of society and the 'them' was everyone else.

Are the old 'us' having trouble sharing power with the old 'them'?

Ah, so it wasn't a particularly genuine question so. Ok, well this I guess illustrates my point in an earlier post about why neither side of the extremes is particularly noble or decent. Or as I said last post, identity politics is great when you're the us and crap when you're the them. Strangely enough the us always seem to find reasons why thats ok though. (Quite often they even argue they they used to be the them so many years ago so its just everything being evened out somehow... And the ends always justify the means.)

B0jangles

I may be a bit cynical, but it seems like maybe the problem some people have with 'identity politics' is that suddenly a whole slew of people who had very limited political power in the past (black people, gay people, women, etc) now have some and as a result want their issues to get some attention and it's bothering the people who already had a seat at the big table.

B0jangles

tritium wrote: »

Ah, so it wasn't a particularly genuine question so. Ok, well this I guess illustrates my point in an earlier post about why neither side of the extremes is particularly noble or decent. Or as I said last post, identity politics is great when you're the us and crap when you're the them. Strangely enough the us always seem to find reasons why thats ok though. (Quite often they even argue they they used to be the them so many years ago so its just everything being evened out somehow... And the ends always justify the means.)

No no, I read your link (well most of it) and I couldn't see the big problem with groups representing underrepresented demographics getting together to exert political pressure. They know their own problems better than anyone, so they should be the ones to push for changes.

RayM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So in other words a person with a different view to your own is a cunt.

How about you re-read my post (properly this time) and come back to me.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

I may be a bit cynical, but it seems like maybe the problem some people have with 'identity politics' is that suddenly a whole slew of people who had very limited political power in the past (black people, gay people, women, etc) now have some and as a result want their issues to get some attention and it's bothering the people who already had a seat at the big table.

Obama just had a seat at the big table.. And tonnes of legal progress towards lgbt rights has been made. Equality for women is higher than ever etc.

I think you're just being cynical because to everyday people, it must be incredibly infuriating. Anyone with an interest in a country progressing as a whole must be frustrated by these loud fringe groups that dominate the media.

There has been more talk of toilets in America than a million other actual issues.

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

No no, I read your link (well most of it) and I couldn't see the big problem with groups representing underrepresented demographics getting together to exert political pressure. They know their own problems better than anyone, so they should be the ones to push for changes.

And can you see why there might be an issue if that's pushed as an ideology to the exclusion of other views?

Or how that may be similar to what you say has gone before?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Obama just had a seat at the big table.. And tonnes of legal progress towards lgbt rights has been made. Equality for women is higher than ever etc.

I think you're just being cynical because to everyday people, it must be incredibly infuriating. Anyone with an interest in a country progressing as a whole must be frustrated by these loud fringe groups that dominate the media.

There has been more talk of toilets in America than a million other actual issues.

And the toilet talk has been coming from the right. You didn't even hear about it until the right went nuts about it.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

And the toilet talk has been coming from the right. You didn't even hear about it until the right went nuts about it.

Thanks for that extra information, Grayson. Valuable contributions as always.

WinnyThePoo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pro-Sanders got it a few times. Anti-Hillary after that got it more. No, I'm not a bad person, as much as you want that to be true.

But anyways, you just proved my point by calling me a sexist racist because of my viewpoint. So eh, thanks I guess for proving my point.

I didn't call you any of those things.

snowflaker

An islamaphobe, a white supremacist and a sexual predator walk into a bar. The barman says "What'll it be Mr Trump?"

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for that extra information, Grayson. Valuable contributions as always.

You too sir. You definitely elevated the argument with your fine riposte

osarusan

Us lads must stick together and fight against identity politics.

jackofalltrades

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It seems increasingly the case that if you observe a person's opinion on any one of the above four topics, the chances are you will immediately deduce their opinion on the other three (and often, perhaps: Islam, millennials, Brexit, RTE, among others)

I think people are a lot more nuanced than you give them credit for.
I'd say it's only people on the far right/left that you would be able to reliably predict their views on a range of topics, based on their opinion on just one of them.

I think people are too eager to categorise people these days, the development of which I blame on our english speaking neighbours.
Brexit and Trump have only made this situation worse.

jackofalltrades

B0jangles wrote: »

I may be a bit cynical, but it seems like maybe the problem some people have with 'identity politics' is that suddenly a whole slew of people who had very limited political power in the past (black people, gay people, women, etc) now have some and as a result want their issues to get some attention and it's bothering the people who already had a seat at the big table.

I don't doubt that for some people they just don't like the idea of other groups being at the table and them losing power.
But I'd guess for most people it's just the hyper-polarised, "you're either with us or against us" thinking that makes them dislike Identity politics.
You can see this happening on a day to day basis.
Someone takes offence to something and strongly denounces the action or opinions of someone else.
Some agree with them, the ones who don't are vilified by all manner of name calling with highly derogatory names.
There's no attempt to entertain a wide variety of views, have a rational discussion or find a consensus.
No for some groups they've decided that their worldview is "right" and there's no need for discussion.
You either conform or get attacked.

B0jangles

tritium wrote: »

And can you see why there might be an issue if that's pushed as an ideology to the exclusion of other views?

Or how that may be similar to what you say has gone before?

I don't see how it can be described as a ideology in and of itself - people tend to be predominantly concerned with issues that they themselves face, that's just human nature.

As groups made up of previously excluded people get a seat at the table of political power, more issues, their issues, will be brought to the table. That might be tiresome for those who already had a seat at that table and who are now seeing their concerns being pushed down the list of priorities.

Are the groups that are new to the table being asked to sit and wait, are they being told "we'll get to your problems eventually, right after we deal with ours" ?

I think they might just say "We've waited long enough", and I think they'd be right.

Resist ZOG

The modern left is CRINGE. Who wants to hang out with a bunch of saddos who'll denounce you for not being 100% right on, all the time?