Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Options
1…6263656768…75

Comments

  • Options
    #1922
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    recedite wrote: »
    Do you prefer the Israeli tactic of not giving any notice?
    Which was originally Iran's own tactic.

    I was making fun of the wording.


  • Options
    #1923
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    408222.jpg


  • Options
    #1924
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    silverharp wrote: »
    Trump isn't a tyrant, he was elected in and he will leave power by the democratic system.
    I'm not at all so sure - during his campaign, he displayed all the features of an unpleasant nutter and now that he's acquired power, he's done nothing dispel that image. Of his eighteen executive orders delivered up to last week, only two are reasonable and proportionate - number 16, an excellent lobbying ban and number 18, a regulation trading order which could certainly be put to good use. The rest are regressive and his behaviour since the inauguration suggests that he is grossly unstable, has a narcissistic personality disorder which he cannot control, is unashamedly dishonest and is as belligerent as he is ignorant.
    silverharp wrote: »
    I think you have fallen to the mass hysteria that the media and the "literally Hitler" Left has painted him.
    I'm not quite sure how you know what I'm reading and even less sure how you can impute that I'm brain washed.

    FYI, my favourite media outlet is the FT (reason I don't quote from it here is because it's paywalled). Remind me again - is the FT especially left-wing these days?
    silverharp wrote: »
    The more the opposition is based on emotion and not heavy hitting rationality
    Was there anything unreasonable I said above? And how well exactly did calm reasoning work during the US election and the brexit vote?
    silverharp wrote: »
    Apart from ISIS Trump was elected on not involving the US in middle east remodelling so in terms of foreign wars it hopefully will be relatively boring.
    As Hotblack has pointed out, he's issued a threat to Iran, he's placed limits on North Korea and contested reports have suggested that he's threatened to send US troops into Mexico as well. In addition to putting a white supremacist on the NSC while kicking out the military; appointing a creationist to oversee "university reform"; appointing a dim billionaire as education secretary and is proposing, as his ambassador to the EU, a man who compares the EU to the Soviet Union? Plus whatever else I've missed or forgotten.

    You still haven't answered the question I've asked three times now - does he really sound to you like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to the kind of peaceful, rational discussion which you say you want?


  • Options
    #1925
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    - does he really sound to you like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to the kind of peaceful, rational discussion which you say you want?
    Whatever about peaceful rational discussion, this video proves DJT kicks ass.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE


  • Options
    #1926
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    recedite wrote: »
    Whatever about peaceful rational discussion, this video proves DJT kicks ass.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

    About as real as his hair and his respect for minorities.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1927
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, of course :) So long as people are amenable to reason - then violence is never appropriate. Nonetheless, there is a point at which tolerating intolerance, or reasoning with the unreasonable, becomes not only pointless, but counterproductive to the public good.

    All of that is worthless if you can't even identify the correct targets when you decide it's time to fight intolerance.

    http://patch.com/wisconsin/milwaukee/wisconsin-family-threatened-epic-misunderstanding-over-nazi-flag

    There is a question of how much we should trust the people who are declaring others "racist" or "nazi" or whatever.

    In the example above an innocent family have been targeted because a society that has said "hey, it's OK to attack Nazis" has identified people who are not Nazis as potential targets.

    Is it at all possible that mass-hysteria over "Nazis" could become more dangerous than clowns like Richard Spencer?


  • Options
    #1928
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    orubiru wrote: »
    Is it at all possible that mass-hysteria over "Nazis" could become more dangerous than clowns like Richard Spencer?
    Yes, it's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible that things go the other way and the atmosphere of incendiary rhetoric causes a higher and faster spike in hate crimes first. Or both could happen in tandem. Or one could rise, first, then trigger retaliation, or one side or the other could take to the streets to get their retaliation in first.

    All we can say for sure is that DJT has practiced and legitimized extreme speech, open dishonesty, intolerance of minorities, intolerance of immigrants, so the conditions are now right for an increase in hate crimes.

    How the complex social calculus of attack, defence and revenge will pan out is not possible to predict at this time.

    Looking to the UK and noting the murder of Jo Cox before, and the spike in hate crimes following, the brexit vote - it seems that the majority of crimes were committed by nationalists and looking at how things have been going so far in the US, it's likely to be similar there.


  • Options
    #1929
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    orubiru wrote: »
    All of that is worthless if you can't even identify the correct targets [...]
    Of course, it's much easier to identify people with brown skin and people who speak with funny accents.


  • Options
    #1930
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    About as real as his hair and his respect for minorities.

    It's alternatively real. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1931
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, it's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible that things go the other way and the atmosphere of incendiary rhetoric causes a higher and faster spike in hate crimes first. Or both could happen in tandem. Or one could rise, first, then trigger retaliation, or one side or the other could take to the streets to get their retaliation in first.

    All we can say for sure is that DJT has practiced and legitimized extreme speech, open dishonesty, intolerance of minorities, intolerance of immigrants, so the conditions are now right for an increase in hate crimes.

    How the complex social calculus of attack, defence and revenge will pan out is not possible to predict at this time.

    Looking to the UK and noting the murder of Jo Cox before, and the spike in hate crimes following, the brexit vote - it seems that the majority of crimes were committed by nationalists and looking at how things have been going so far in the US, it's likely to be similar there.

    I think it's plain to see then that more prevalent far-right/alt-right/nationalist rhetoric leads to higher instances of violence against innocent people.

    At the same time increased mass hysteria over "the Nazi next door" will also lead to increased violence.

    So how do you criticize one side without looking like you are defending the other?

    How do you criticize one side without being accused of actually belonging to the other side?

    There is an issue there because someone like Richard Spencer, for example, is so blatantly and obviously a distasteful individual, with a horrible ideology, while people who are in favor of sucker punching him are not so obviously in the wrong.

    So it takes a bit more effort to explain why just running up and punching a guy and then gloating about it is kind of a bad thing even if the guy who got the punch is obviously a bad guy.

    You can punch someone in self defense. I get that. Just attacking another citizen? How is that right?

    Like it's easy to get people to agree that murder is wrong. It's more difficult to get people to agree that capital punishment for murderers is wrong.

    It's wholly unfair though to insinuate that because someone is against capital punishment that they must therefore be in favor of committing capital offenses.

    A: It's great that we shot those murderers.
    B: Actually I don't think we should execute criminals.
    A: Ah, so you are pro murder, that's good to know... *prepares rifle*

    The conversation inevitably becomes something like me saying I think the death penalty should never be used in any circumstances and the response being "tell that to the victims of X".

    Which is kind of what happened here right? I am saying that just attacking people over their ideology is a bad move at the best of times and a terrible move if you've somehow managed to get the wrong targets.

    Your reply is along the lines of "yes, but the ideology is REALLY bad".

    Yeah. I know it's bad.

    Hate crimes are bad. Got it.

    What is a suitable punishment for someone who commits a hate crime?

    How should that compare to the punishment for someone who indirectly inspires several hate crimes?

    If I am a known subscriber to the newsletter of the ideology that spawned the speaker who inspired the people to commit the hate crimes, should I be punished at all?

    What if someone thinks your suggested punishments are too harsh? Are they pro-hateful ideology or are they just trying to point out that you've lost your sense of perspective?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1932
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    The mod is clear, those who are not open to reason should be allowed be punched. This was explicit in his post.


  • Options
    #1933
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek




    Carrying on from the 'is it OK to punch a Nazi' narrative, an NYU professor gets upset with the NYPD that they are not punching 'Nazi's'.


  • Options
    #1934
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    The mod is clear, those who are not open to reason should be allowed be punched. This was explicit in his post.

    What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?


  • Options
    #1935
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?
    Oddly enough, the Austrian philosopher and economist, FA Hayek, suggested that dictatorships aren't always the bad things they're cracked up to be:
    FA Hayek wrote:
    As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. [...] Personally I prefer a liberal dictatorship to democratic government devoid of liberalism.
    Hayek was also hostile to conservatism on account of "its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism".


  • Options
    #1936
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?

    Well, first of all I presume we can agree that punching them is a non-option,no matter how distasteful their views.

    I find that sunlight is the best remedy for these people. Give them a noose to hang themselves with and debate them with the facts.


  • Options
    #1937
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?

    How can you expect anyone to be able to sufficiently answer that question?

    I think the question at hand is whether or not violence is an appropriate response.

    So doesn't your question really translate to "if not violence, then what?"

    FA Hayek: The mod is clear, those who are not open to reason should be allowed be punched.

    Mark Hamill: What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?

    This seems like a bad way of looking at things.

    A: I oppose the death penalty.
    B: Well, if we can't execute them then how do you propose we deal with murderers?

    A question I have for posters like Mark Hamill and robindch. If someone ran up to you in the street and punched you in the face would you be OK with it if their reason was that they thought you were a Nazi and they can prove that they genuinely did 100% believe that you were a Nazi?

    So you are sitting on the ground with a tooth missing or your nose broken and you are understandably upset. The cops have the guy and you want to press charges but then you find out that your attacker thought you were actually a Nazi and that's why he punched you. Do you just forgive and forget?

    If we agree that "punching a Nazi" is OK then that's fine but we are now faced with a new dilemma. Who gets to decide which people are Nazis and which people are not Nazis?

    How are we even defining "Nazi" in these circumstances? Are we going to be pedantic about the definition or are we going to play fast and loose with it?

    Technically a Nazi would be someone who was a member of the Nazi Party of Germany at any time from the 1920s to the mid-1940s, right?

    There probably aren't many Nazis around these days. So we are really talking about "neo-nazis" or "alt-right" or "fascists"?

    Given that those who are labelled will be subjected to violence, is there anyone you would honestly trust to apply these labels correctly?

    It's bizarre to me that people who set out to oppose mob rule actually end up advocating for mob rule.

    What is blinding people here to the point where they lose track of their own moral compass?

    Is it simply that the guy who got punched is a really bad guy? Or is there some kind of visceral or cathartic reaction that overrides the moral objection to violence?

    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."

    I would like to ask you the same question actually. What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?


  • Options
    #1938
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    I find that sunlight is the best remedy for these people. Give them a noose to hang themselves with and debate them with the facts.

    Didn't work with Trump.


  • Options
    #1939
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    orubiru wrote: »
    So doesn't your question really translate to "if not violence, then what?"

    Firstly, if you do want to say that violence isn't the answer, then it is very logical to ask what then is the answer.
    Secondly, I didn't even ask that. I asked the same question I'm currently asking on the Interesting Stuff thread, not to argue on behalf of violence but because the stock answers of "ignore them" or "rationally debate with facts" have (IMO) failed with the likes of Trump. I am not supporting the violence as an answer, I just want to know what people think the answer is.
    orubiru wrote: »
    FA Hayek: The mod is clear, those who are not open to reason should be allowed be punched.

    Mark Hamill: What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?

    This seems like a bad way of looking at things.

    A: I oppose the death penalty.
    B: Well, if we can't execute them then how do you propose we deal with murderers?

    You don't think asking how we should deal with murderers is a sensible question?
    orubiru wrote: »
    I would like to ask you the same question actually. What do you propose is the best way to engage with those who are not open to reason?

    I don't know, it's why I asked first.


  • Options
    #1940
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I don't know, it's why I asked first.

    I also don't know. Sorry.

    With Trump specifically I think people could have been smarter and I think Trumps success is more down to the total mediocrity of his opposition.

    Trump is a total disaster as a politician. Look who he was up against though. Come on. This guy should have been a footnote as a joke candidate who failed miserably in the Republican primaries but gave all the trolls online a good laugh.

    So what went wrong there? I honestly think that the opposition to Trump was just that bad.

    I reckon that debates over whether or not it's ethical to punch "Nazis" when I think deep down we know people are WAY too willing to throw that label around are just an extension of that mediocrity.

    Come on, we are going to be pedantic about the moral rights and wrongs of sucker-punching someone in the street but we are going to flippantly and thoughtlessly use "Nazi" as a label?

    How do you beat Trump or Neo-Nazis or whoever? Be better. "Git Gud".

    Ignoring them won't work. Rationally debating them can only go so far and, in my opinion, rational debate does put a ceiling on their popularity.

    Lying about them? That's a good way to lose.

    Labeling people indiscriminately with buzzwords "racist", "sexist" etc? That's another good way to lose.

    Violence towards them? Good luck with putting a positive spin on that without simply encouraging more violence which will eventually become indiscriminate violence.

    So many people on "the left" are in the process of destroying their own credibility and it's sad because they already had the moral high ground over the far-right.


  • Options
    #1941
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    orubiru wrote: »
    A question I have for posters like Mark Hamill and robindch. If someone ran up to you in the street and punched you in the face would you be OK with it if their reason was that they thought you were a Nazi and they can prove that they genuinely did 100% believe that you were a Nazi?
    Firstly, they couldn't prove that they "100% believed" that I was a Nazi. Secondly, even if that was their genuine belief, that's not a reason to assault somebody out of the blue.

    However, going back to the odious Mr Spencer - well, I understand why a jew might want to punch Spencer as he took the Nazi salute last year. And I can understand why a farmer with white skin in Zimbabwe might want to punch a member of ZANU-PF. And I can understand why somebody with black skin might want to punch somebody dressed up in KKK robes.

    That's not to excuse or explain away any of these assaults, or to support, tolerate or encourage violence as FA Hayek's silly misrepresentation of my position might have you believe. But instead, it's simply to point out that grievances do exist, they can be acted upon irrationally and unfairly, and one should not simply behave as though they are not there.
    orubiru wrote: »
    I mean, what if the Alt-Right actually WANT a fight?
    That certainly seems to be the policy of Milo and friends who seem to enjoy nothing more than provoking people to the point at which they react angrily, then the dishonest Milo dances away proclaiming himself a victim.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/this-is-what-milo-yiannopoulos-wants.html

    Incidentally, the English phrase "agent provocateur" is usually used to cover this kind of activity, but it's hopelessly coy and doesn't really convey the devious, dishonest, often vicious, nature of the people concerned. Russian and Ukrainian have, as they often do in this unfortunate case, better words to describe these kind of people - титушки, тітушки, titushki - people from one side of a political conflict and who are prepared to fight people on the other - either directly, or indirectly (and here's the similarity with Milo and company ) by showing up at some a protest march, and pretending to support it, then attacking police, vandalizing shops, burning cars and that kind of thing in order to discredit the marchers and the cause.

    See breitbart's output concerning the "masked anti-MILO protestors start fires, swarm building" line in the run-up to the abandoned talk:

    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/01/protesters-gather-uc-berkeley-milo-show-police-helicopters-appear/

    Again - and why do we keep on hearing this so often recently? - tactics which are straight out of the Russian political playbook.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1942
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,868 ✭✭✭Christy42


    robindch wrote: »
    Firstly, they couldn't prove that they "100% believed" that I was a Nazi. Secondly, even if that was their genuine belief, that's not a reason to assault somebody out of the blue.

    However, going back to the odious Mr Spencer - well, I understand why a jew might want to punch Spencer as he took the Nazi salute last year. And I can understand why a farmer with white skin in Zimbabwe might want to punch a member of ZANU-PF. And I can understand why somebody with black skin might want to punch somebody dressed up in KKK robes.

    That's not to excuse or explain away any of these assaults, or to support, tolerate or encourage violence as FA Hayek's silly misrepresentation of my position might have you believe. But instead, it's simply to point out that grievances do exist, they can be acted upon irrationally and unfairly, and one should not simply behave as though they are not there.That certainly seems to be the policy of Milo and friends who seem to enjoy nothing more than provoking people to the point at which they react angrily, then the dishonest Milo dances away proclaiming himself a victim.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/this-is-what-milo-yiannopoulos-wants.html

    Incidentally, the English phrase "agent provocateur" is usually used to cover this kind of activity, but it's hopelessly coy and doesn't really convey the devious, dishonest, often vicious, nature of the people concerned. Russian and Ukrainian have, as they often do in this unfortunate case, better words to describe these kind of people - титушки, тітушки, titushki - people from one side of a political conflict and who are prepared to fight people on the other - either directly, or indirectly (and here's the similarity with Milo and company ) by showing up at some a protest march, and pretending to support it, then attacking police, vandalizing shops, burning cars and that kind of thing in order to discredit the marchers and the cause.

    See breitbart's output concerning the "masked anti-MILO protestors start fires, swarm building" line in the run-up to the abandoned talk:

    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/01/protesters-gather-uc-berkeley-milo-show-police-helicopters-appear/

    Again - and why do we keep on hearing this so often recently? - tactics which are straight out of the Russian political playbook.

    Is false flag the phrase you are looking for?


  • Options
    #1943
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    robindch wrote: »
    That certainly seems to be the policy of Milo and friends who seem to enjoy nothing more than provoking people to the point at which they react angrily, then the dishonest Milo dances away proclaiming himself a victim.

    I apologize if I misunderstood that you were condoning or supporting the assaults. My main point was just that condoning or supporting that kind of assault is dangerous because innocent folks will end up being the victims.

    I agree with you here, on Milo. Though everyone seems to be doing that these days.


  • Options
    #1944
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    - people from one side of a political conflict and who are prepared to fight people on the other - either directly, or indirectly (and here's the similarity with Milo and company ) by showing up at some a protest march, and pretending to support it, then attacking police, vandalizing shops, burning cars and that kind of thing in order to discredit the marchers and the cause.

    See breitbart's output concerning the "masked anti-MILO protestors start fires, swarm building" line in the run-up to the abandoned talk:

    http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/01/protesters-gather-uc-berkeley-milo-show-police-helicopters-appear/
    So basically you are saying that the rioters in the link were pro-Trump or pro-Milo people conducting a false flag operation. Have you any evidence at all for this allegation?

    Considering that violent anti-Trump street protests in certain cities since his election have been widely reported, and were not disputed, your conspiracy theory on this particular protest seems highly implausible.


  • Options
    #1945
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Is false flag the phrase you are looking for?
    Similar - false flag refers only to the operation, agents provocateurs or titushki are the people doing it.

    The possibility that it's false flag could be clarified if the people at the protests and the people who organized them came out with some strenuous condemnation of the actions of the "masked protestors" - I didn't see it or go looking for it, but I presume they did.
    orubiru wrote: »
    I apologize if I misunderstood that you were condoning or supporting the assaults.
    No worries - it was FAH who had spent quite a long time attempting to convince himself that I condoned violence and then thought it useful to try to convince everybody else :)
    orubiru wrote: »
    My main point was just that condoning or supporting that kind of assault is dangerous because innocent folks will end up being the victims.
    Yes - I was in Ukraine during the Maidan protests in February 2014 and have seen, first hand, exactly the kind of violence which happens when the authorities and demonstrators lose control. In fact, it's a little difficult to forget.
    recedite wrote: »
    So basically you are saying that the rioters in the link were pro-Trump or pro-Milo people conducting a false flag operation. Have you any evidence at all for this allegation?
    I am not "basically saying" anything since you'll have noticed, I hope the word "similarity" above :)

    I am suggesting that protestors who play into the entirely predictable "shock" which Yiannopoulos affects each time that riots break out when he's around - well, such protestors really seem quite stupid - leading me to suspect that they may not be exactly who they pretend to be. An uncontroversial-enough opinion in a world, I'd have thought, in a world now anesthetized to "alternative facts".

    So, I'm suggesting that it it useful to ask cui bono? when it comes to the dark meme-scape created and maintained by individuals like DJT, Spencer, Spicer, Bannon, Yiannopoulos, Conway and the rest of them - individuals who are unburdened by the usual human qualities of honesty, decency, morality and of course, factual accuracy.


  • Options
    #1946
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    The possibility that it's false flag could be clarified if the people at the protests and the people who organized them came out with some strenuous condemnation of the actions of the "masked protestors" - I didn't see it or go looking for it, but I presume they did.
    Not a terribly rigorous factual basis for your allegations then.
    robindch wrote: »
    I am suggesting that protestors who play into the entirely predictable "shock" which Yiannopoulos affects each time that riots break out when he's around - well, such protestors really seem quite stupid - leading me to suspect that they may not be exactly who they pretend to be.
    Perhaps Occam's Razor should be considered here?
    Maybe they really are as stupid as they appear.


  • Options
    #1947
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm not at all so sure - during his campaign, he displayed all the features of an unpleasant nutter and now that he's acquired power, he's done nothing dispel that image. Of his eighteen executive orders delivered up to last week, only two are reasonable and proportionate - number 16, an excellent lobbying ban and number 18, a regulation trading order which could certainly be put to good use. The rest are regressive and his behaviour since the inauguration suggests that he is grossly unstable, has a narcissistic personality disorder which he cannot control, is unashamedly dishonest and is as belligerent as he is ignorant.I'm not quite sure how you know what I'm reading and even less sure how you can impute that I'm brain washed.

    FYI, my favourite media outlet is the FT (reason I don't quote from it here is because it's paywalled). Remind me again - is the FT especially left-wing these days?Was there anything unreasonable I said above? And how well exactly did calm reasoning work during the US election and the brexit vote?As Hotblack has pointed out, he's issued a threat to Iran, he's placed limits on North Korea and contested reports have suggested that he's threatened to send US troops into Mexico as well. In addition to putting a white supremacist on the NSC while kicking out the military; appointing a creationist to oversee "university reform"; appointing a dim billionaire as education secretary and is proposing, as his ambassador to the EU, a man who compares the EU to the Soviet Union? Plus whatever else I've missed or forgotten.

    You still haven't answered the question I've asked three times now - does he really sound to you like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to the kind of peaceful, rational discussion which you say you want?

    I do think Trump is a patriot who wants the best for the US so thats a good greater good. What worries me is that so many people are invested in him being "literally Hitler" that they would prefer that the US becomes a police state to validate their position so lord knows what effort they will put in to make it happen.

    C4BFniBWIAEx_xt.jpg:small

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #1948
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    Not a terribly rigorous factual basis for your allegations then.
    I'm not sure if you had time to read my posts before replying? The claim I'm making is that there are similarities in style and content. Try reading the posts again and get back to me if you're still unsure :)


  • Options
    #1949
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Didn't work with Trump.

    So, we should have punched Trump and his supporters.
    OK, so.


  • Options
    #1950
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    robindch wrote: »

    That's not to excuse or explain away any of these assaults, or to support, tolerate or encourage violence as FA Hayek's silly misrepresentation of my position might have you believe. .

    I am sure Orubiru and others can make up their own minds in interpreting your views on the matter quite clearly. They need no help from me in pointing out blatant double standards.

    If your views are confusing, then perhaps stop talking in subtle riddles, on what you think we should do with the likes of Spencer and Bannon.

    Perhaps you can start with condeming all violence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1951
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    silverharp wrote: »
    I do think Trump is a patriot who wants the best for the US so thats a good greater good.
    My understanding of the word "patriot" seems to be similar - somebody who works for the greater good of his country and all its citizens.

    However, I'm having a little trouble connecting that understanding with DJT, an unstable, narcissistic, petulant tax-avoiding fraudster who has boasted about sexual assault, brazenly lies, is dangerously uninformed about nukes and who actively undermines the judicary.

    Can you clarify what you mean, in practice, by the term as it might apply to DJT?


Advertisement