Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[Geeto67]

This won't help...

 

http://nbc4i.com/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-named-robert-lee-from-university-of-virginia-football-game/

 

Another sign this country is moving towards the PCU movie model. Fucking Cause Heads...

 

Lmao what in the actual fuck? It wouldn't surprise me if people who actually offended by someone's name though.

 

This morning and still can't believe we've let our country come to this point.

 

That is an unfortunate (and I have to say, slightly hilarious) coincidence for ESPN and Robert Lee, but after reading the above three comments I can kind of see the point: No matter what, you three and people like you three wouldn't be happy. If they went the other way you would call the "left" out as pulling a double standard or ESPN trolling or some other such nonsense or you would have co-opted ESPN as a supporter of your brand of lunacy when all they really want to do is show some college games. It's a Sophie's choice of looking ignorant and insensitive and fanning the flames, or looking somewhat sensitive to the issue and albeit a bit dumb. In the end I think they made the right call because nobody want's to be on the side of ignorant and insensitive right now, and once this shit dies down they will go back to normal and not give a fuck. The whole country is a raw nerve right now, I can't blame them for not wanting to step on the nerve, even by accident.

 

Don't worry, ESPN isn't permanently taking away your white privileged, and look on the bright side: they just gave you a talking point to claim your white privileged sky is falling, so you got that going for you.

 

I have to say, I am kind of surprised there hasn't been any controversy about Robert E. Lee the Playwright who wrote inherit the wind considering how may people tend to confuse him with the General, even though they never lived in the same time period.

 

If you really believed in the things you rail on about with personal liberty, personal responsibility, and accountability for consequences then this wouldn't even be an issue for you - they are a private company and have the right to make their own decisions and show responsibility and thoughtfulness for their actions. But you don't, and thus we are here talking about it.

[10phone2]

This man gets it and is a legal immigrant

[BStowers023]

That is an unfortunate (and I have to say, slightly hilarious) coincidence for ESPN and Robert Lee, but after reading the above three comments I can kind of see the point: No matter what, you three and people like you three wouldn't be happy. If they went the other way you would call the "left" out as pulling a double standard or ESPN trolling or some other such nonsense or you would have co-opted ESPN as a supporter of your brand of lunacy when all they really want to do is show some college games.

 

Um, no. I wouldn't have even thought about it, because his name should be a non-issue. Nice try though playing the assumption game in an attempt to spin something so stupid.

 

Don't worry, ESPN isn't permanently taking away your white privileged, and look on the bright side: they just gave you a talking point to claim your white privileged sky is falling, so you got that going for you.

 

Uhhhh? What exactly does this have to do with white privilege?

 

 

If you really believed in the things you rail on about with personal liberty, personal responsibility, and accountability for consequences then this wouldn't even be an issue for you - they are a private company and have the right to make their own decisions and show responsibility and thoughtfulness for their actions. But you don't, and thus we are here talking about it.

 

Yes they can do whatever they want, but their reasoning is stupid and judgement is not off-limits. I have a right to judge them. I don't however have the right to go show up at ESPN's campus and start pepper spraying their employees and bashing them with a baseball bat because I don't agree with their stance.

[Geeto67]

Um, no. I wouldn't have even thought about it, because his name should be a non-issue.

 

It SHOULDN'T be, but you know it was going to be. Even if there was no mention of it, someone would have seen it on TV and made a meme about it and then it gets circulated by god knows who with god knows what message attached and ESPN suffers reputational damage no matter what. This way they only take the hit from nutjobs like you, so it's kind of a win for them.

 

It's nice to dream Cinderella, but this is the post internet world we live in. In terms of managing their perception I'd say they are doing a heck of a lot better job than you at the moment. Most people are reading this at the moment and saying who gives a shit....except for the people that needed a talking point to say how the world is going to hell in a handbasket so they can continue to spread their shitty polarizing message.

 

 

 

Uhhhh? What exactly does this have to do with white privilege?

completely effing tone def to this issue aren't ya? Every time you make a free speech argument about a certain kind of protester this is the kind of stuff you are talking about - your right to be insensitive without consequences. Except we don't live in that fantasy land. Free speech only extends to interference by the government, it does not mean you can just say anything you want to anybody and they have to accept it. In this case, ESPN weighed their options and made a decision. If you really believe in a white supremacist's right to march without private protests, then you should also believe in ESPN's right to make a decision without having to listen to your dumbass judgement on the matter. Except you don't - you adhere to a double standard for the people you don't agree with.

 

 

Yes they can do whatever they want, but their reasoning is stupid and judgement is not off-limits. I have a right to judge them. I don't however have the right to go show up at ESPN's campus and start pepper spraying their employees and bashing them with a baseball bat because I don't agree with their stance.

 

Well I am glad you aren't taking the white supremacy approach to things.

 

yes you have a right to judge them, just as everyone else has a right to judge the marching NAZI'S at Charlottesville or I have a right to judge you here. And honestly you seem to be the only one who really wants to make a big deal or a statement about this. Really do you care that much? Is this the line in the sand too far for you? Or are you just buying into more controversy because you really like it and you want conflict.

[BStowers023]

It SHOULDN'T be, but you know it was going to be. Even if there was no mention of it, someone would have seen it on TV and made a meme about it and then it gets circulated by god knows who with god knows what message attached and ESPN suffers reputational damage no matter what. This way they only take the hit from nutjobs like you, so it's kind of a win for them.

 

LOL yeah I'm the nut job :dumb:

 

 

completely effing tone def to this issue aren't ya? Every time you make a free speech argument about a certain kind of protester this is the kind of stuff you are talking about - your right to be insensitive without consequences. Except we don't live in that fantasy land. Free speech only extends to interference by the government, it does not mean you can just say anything you want to anybody and they have to accept it. In this case, ESPN weighed their options and made a decision. If you really believe in a white supremacist's right to march without private protests, then you should also believe in ESPN's right to make a decision without having to listen to your dumbass judgement on the matter. Except you don't - you adhere to a double standard for the people you don't agree with.

 

I have no issue with protests. I do have an issue with people showing up to incur violence on citizens who are protesting.

 

 

 

Well I am glad you aren't taking the white supremacy approach to things.

 

yes you have a right to judge them, just as everyone else has a right to judge the marching NAZI'S at Charlottesville or I have a right to judge you here. And honestly you seem to be the only one who really wants to make a big deal or a statement about this. Really do you care that much? Is this the line in the sand too far for you? Or are you just buying into more controversy because you really like it and you want conflict.

 

Someone posted it. I made a short, 2 sentence response. You blew it up and created an argument, because that's what you do.

[wagner]

This thread really is the fail thread that just keeps on giving :lolguy:

[Geeto67]

Someone posted it. I made a short, 2 sentence response. You blew it up and created an argument, because that's what you do.

 

you take complex social issues and "simplify" them to the point where your moral compass can't find true north and then make inconsistent moral judgements based on how little you know of an issue and god knows what macho bullshit self image has been pumped into your head. because that's what you do.

[wagner]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

 

https://www.facebook.com/tyler.j.lindsey/posts/10211811146487497

[Geeesammy]

Kerry will say antifa is not a singular organization then in the same breath say that the alt right is and that their leaders must be dealt with

 

Front butt gonna front butt

[Geeto67]

Kerry will say antifa is not a singular organization then in the same breath say that the alt right is and that their leaders must be dealt with

 

Richard Spencer is the one claiming ownership of "alt right" and trying to unite the various disorganized groups into a united front. Don't like it? take it up with him.

[BStowers023]

you take complex social issues and "simplify" them to the point where your moral compass can't find true north and then make inconsistent moral judgements based on how little you know of an issue and god knows what macho bullshit self image has been pumped into your head. because that's what you do.

 

 

Most of these are simple social issues. For example, the one we were just discussing. You and your overly offended left partners are the ones who create issues where they shouldn't exist.

[10phone2]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

 

https://www.facebook.com/tyler.j.lindsey/posts/10211811146487497

 

"Can't play football but can pull people off the streets". great material.

[Geeto67]

Most of these are simple social issues. For example, the one we were just discussing. You and your overly offended left partners are the ones who create issues where they shouldn't exist.

 

Simple minds often require simplification to understand an issue. Unfortunately flattening the issue means you lose detail. Considering how much you simplify - you lose a lot of detail. Narrowing the scope to focus on what you want to focus doesn't mean the stuff isn't there, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

[10phone2]

Simple minds often require simplification to understand an issue. Unfortunately flattening the issue means you lose detail. Considering how much you simplify - you lose a lot of detail. Narrowing the scope to focus on what you want to focus doesn't mean the stuff isn't there, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

 

the irony

[Geeto67]

the irony

 

something actually has to be ironic for this to have meaning. I've been pretty consistent in saying these issues are more complex than most are making them out to be.

[10phone2]

Which I do agree with. The reason for the irony post is the portion of your post that ignoring it won't go away. For example, liberals scream anti-gun everything but haven't mentioned a peep about the gun carrying liberal group that showed up at the rally (if it is true given the internet). As much as other will disagree, I honestly respect your thought and ability to research. Where I feel that you may at occasional times fall into the trap of holding to ones political belief when it is at a downfall to the overall good of the country while ignoring larger impacting social issues. Trust me, I know that I have my pitfalls and know that Republicans can do the same while having their own dirty laundry.

 

The question I do have for both sides is, where do we go from here to be able to mutually exist while protecting the welfare of the country?

[Geeto67]

Which I do agree with. The reason for the irony post is the portion of your post that ignoring it won't go away. For example, liberals scream anti-gun everything but haven't mentioned a peep about the gun carrying liberal group that showed up at the rally (if it is true given the internet). As much as other will disagree, I honestly respect your thought and ability to research. Where I feel that you may at occasional times fall into the trap of holding to ones political belief when it is at a downfall to the overall good of the country while ignoring larger impacting social issues. Trust me, I know that I have my pitfalls and know that Republicans can do the same while having their own dirty laundry.

 

 

Well then thank you. It's nice to have a civil conversation about this.

 

The overarching problem as I see it is that too many people are nailed to their perception of certain things and dig into that position. And a lot of that is irrational or at least not political based. There are some that are conservative because they have their idea of manly identity tied up with conservatism or because their family has a history of conservatism. This goes the same for liberalism but to a lesser degree because part of the notion of liberalism is to be flexible on position and rely more on data than inflexible integrity. Both sides are equally susceptible to confirmation bias and willful ignorance so that doesn't help. Still if you have an irrational distaste and contempt for the other side then no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to sway a person. It also tends to make people gullible so that they believe the worst extremist versions of the other side speak for everyone on the other side (see the recent fake Antifa manual that circulated recently).

 

Take Brandon's position on AntiFA for example. You can't convince him they aren't a terrorist group. In reality they aren't a group at all, but a loose association who's mission it to show up to white supremacy rallies and give the white supremacists the violence they are looking for. Theirs is a reactionary position, and one that is difficult to justify because it still leads to violence, but if you listen to Brandon's rhetoric they are the aggressors and the biggest threat to us right now. Not the White Supremacists who are actually staging the rallies and who show up loaded for bear but the people who show up and give the NAZI's the violence they want are the threat. No amount of evidence to the contrary is going to sway him otherwise It's an easy and convenient enemy and he's dug in.

 

Grant's correct too in that the "Alt right" are mostly the same structure of loose associations united under an ideology, but where they differ is there is an actual person trying to unite those groups and organize them under a singular structure. It's not really fair to draw an moral equivalence between them...because NAZI's, but in terms of strategy they are different as well. The "alt right" is using an offensive strategy to provide a unified front, it gains power in numbers because their numbers are not overly large, so they plan to have rallies and draw all the hardliners together. Antifa as a reactionary group finds strength in being decentralized because their primary strategy is to respond - having no centralization means it's easier to mobilize with little to no planning. They aren't large either, but their cause is easier to recruit for with on the fence people... because they are fighting NAZIs...so they don't need hardliners to bolster their numbers.

 

We've seen this before - we are in a way reliving to a degree the civil rights movement from 1964-1972, with the current situation putting us somewhere between the Watts Riots and the 1967 National Riots.

 

 

 

The question I do have for both sides is, where do we go from here to be able to mutually exist while protecting the welfare of the country?

 

I know you probably won't like this answer but....we wait. History teaches us that eventually these things will normalize, and that progress will be made in the correct direction regardless as to how much each side hates the other or not.

 

We have been living with the 24 hour internet based news cycle for roughly 20 years and it works really well at working people up into a frenzy - much in the same way newspapers caused the same kind of reactionary frenzy in the 17th century or public news notices did in the 15th century. We need time to adjust and adapt to the cycle and things will settle down, and sometimes that takes generations. This includes evolving access and quality of education in this country to compensate for the larger volume of disinformation that we have traditionally seen.

 

The great part about our government is that it's fluid, which means usually we can undo the stupid . We put prohibition in the constitution and then took it out, we abolished slavery and gave the right to vote to all despite state prohibitions on those things. The thing we can take comfort in is that selfishness rarely wins, bigotry looses in the end, and we all end up better off regardless if we feel that way or not. Sometimes it just takes longer than others.

[Otis Nice]

...and ignoring it won't make it go away.

 

I've noticed.

 

That's all. Just came in because of the new thread title. :lolguy:

[BStowers023]

Here is a "biased" article about the violence from antifa.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20343/timeline-antifa-violence-january-%E2%80%93-august-2017-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=082817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

Fake news. Fake videos. Fake violence. Fake people. The left can do no wrong. By hating these people you are a Nazi sympathizer. These people are not a threat. The left is tolerant.

 

Did I get that right, Kerry?

[BStowers023]

DP...

[Geeto67]

Here is a "biased" article about the violence from antifa.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20343/timeline-antifa-violence-january-%E2%80%93-august-2017-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=082817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

Fake news. Fake videos. Fake violence. Fake people. The left can do no wrong. By hating these people you are a Nazi sympathizer. These people are not a threat. The left is tolerant.

 

Did I get that right, Kerry?

 

You don't seem to get anything right. It's starting to get boring having these conversations because you just simply refuse to see these things in anything but all or nothing extremes, and even if in real life you don't actually view these things as that way you don't seem to know any other way to talk about it than to just be an extremist loony.

 

how about instead of listening to another Antifa is the absolute worst (and somehow not NAZIs) rant from you we discuss something actually political - like Arpaio's pardon by the current carrot in chief, the damage it does to the rule of law in this country, and the message it sends to the country.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/us/politics/trump-pardon-joe-arpaio-constitution.html

 

The legal question is actually kind of interesting and a bit of an ouroboros, it boils down to: "can the president use a constitutional power to absolve someone of a violation of the constitution itself?" Or even more simply does the constitution have the power to invalidate itself?

 

and if so does it have that power by accident or is it intended?

[BStowers023]

When did I say ANTIFA was worse than Nazi's?

 

Do you think ANTIFA is a positive organization for America?

 

It's starting to get boring having these conversations because you tend to consistently put words in my mouth and fail to answer most of my questions.

[BStowers023]

When did I say ANTIFA was worse than Nazi's?

 

Do you think ANTIFA is a positive organization for America?

 

It's starting to get boring having these conversations because you tend to consistently put words in my mouth and fail to answer most of my questions.

[Geeto67]

When did I say ANTIFA was worse than Nazi's?

 

I am too lazy to look it up but about three or four pages back you said they were the greater danger. In nearly every post since charlottesville you keep saying they are an equal threat because they are violent (I believe the term you use is violence on both sides). They are not an equal threat. That doesn't mean they are not violent.

 

Do you think ANTIFA is a positive organization for America?

 

I am not quite sure what to make of it at the moment since in America it is not traditionally a large movement. Generally speaking I am in support of historical Antifa movements because they opposed people who literally wanted to murder my kind. I certainly think facisim is bad for America full stop.

 

The Majority of people who seem to comprise the meetings are not violent and don't condone violent tactics, but there is a smaller subset of groups and free associates who operate under the same banner if Antifa and have chosen as a strategy to meet the white supremacy violence with more violence. There is an even smaller group of anarchists whose approach it is to cause property damage at any rally regardless as to who is hosting, and to either do so under the Antifa banner, or intend to be labeled as Antifa mistakenly regardless as to affiliation or not. There are also infiltrators from the alt right groups whose job it is run false flag operations in everything from fake signs up to inciting violence while looking like a member of Antifa.

 

Ideologically: I don't condone violence as a political statement, I don't think it solves any issue, I don't think it helps any situation, and I don't support individuals who think otherwise. Does this mean I condemn Antifa as a whole? no, because as we discussed they aren't violent as a whole.

 

Personally: I am delighted anytime someone punches a nazi in the face. Not as a political statement, but as a moral one.

 

Things you personally get wrong about Antifa:

 

- you speak about the organization as if it is an organization and not a political ideology. It is not an organization, it has no organized structure. It is an ideology like Democracy, Libertarian-ism, communism, or anarchy.

 

- you speak about it as if ALL members are violent or condone violence

 

- You continually think "violence on both sides" is an acceptable response to discussions about the actions of one group. In truth White Supremacist violence is responsible for 80% of domestic terrorism in this country and has held that spot for over 30 years (with 2001 and 2016 being years when Islamic terrorism eclipsed them in body count but not incidents). Leftist extremist violence accounts for 2% in any given year. 2% does not equal 80%.

 

- you think antifa is an "anti white" movement (there is a tirade a couple pages back as to why you think this) despite having no evidence to back this up. Yes Black Separatists are a thing that exists, and yes they are violent as well, but most of them are as critical of the left and Antifa as the white supremacists and neo confederates. They don't usually align themselves with Antifa. Again there is no singular organization since it is an ideology and the ideology is to oppose fascists. In case you forgot what facisim is - it's radical authoritarian nationalism <-- not one of those words mean white or black.

 

It's starting to get boring having these conversations because you tend to consistently put words in my mouth and fail to answer most of my questions.

 

I am not putting words in your mouth - if you aren't conveying the right message, then use different words.

 

Saying there is violence on both sides in response to people more worried about the bigger threat of white supremacy is drawing a false equivalency that white supremacy is an equal threat to Antifa, and there just isn't any evidence to support it. Again you are comparing cessnas to c-130s.

[Otis Nice]

 

It's starting to get boring having these conversations because you tend to consistently put words in my mouth and fail to answer most of my questions.

 

He's a big, smart, lawyer. It's what he does. It's ALL he knows HOW to do.