137 replies to this topic

[udarnel]

I'm not an american, the elections were interesting to me but I wasn't concerned

I'll just quote this beginning. I'm no american too, yet I would be a fool to say I'm not concerned: climate change, interstate relations, progress of tolerance and personal rights are something that require an international effort; if the country supposed to lead the world in all of these problems is suddenly taking the opposite route by menacing to exit the Paris 2015 agreements, close its doors to other economies and people, ban gays, muslims and the rest, cutting down on social welfare— yeah, we all got a problem.

Edited by udarnel, 11 November 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Doonge]

I don't think USA was ever at the forefront of climate change. Green parties, I believe, are an European thing. I remember feeling angry about it years ago, as even then the USA was behind.

 

I don't believe the progress of tolerance is really helped by politics. It's very mixed. Putting a gun to the head of a racist won't make him not racist. Here in Europe we have anti hate-speech laws, and to me they seem to do more harm than good when it comes to racism and all that. I think one of the reason is because it's anti hatespeech but ALSO anti free speech. It's sometime easy to silence people by invoquing hate speech, even when what they say isn't and is valuable and important conversation. There is a good intent, but psychos are not afraid to use this law to their benefit and silence even normal people.

Another reason would be that hate speech become split into two strong parts while anti-anti hate speech (yeah ^^) becomes lazy and weak: one part of the hatespeech goes underground, and grow really really nasty and unchecked. Another part of the hate speech stay public, but as it has to bear extreme pressure, it grows strong - while the opponents grew lazy (because shouting racism / extremism etc... is easy). So extremists learn and become charismatic.

 

In science, theorically, there should be pressure (peer reviewed stuff) everywhere, it is how theory and model grow strong, it is how you find errors. It is how you get good science.

In speech, when good speech has no pressure against it, it becomes bad.

 

You can make a parallel with the notion of "tough love". You want your children to grow strong.

 

I don't think interstate relation are relatively bad with Trump. You know they weren't good with Hillary, as she was oddly anti diplomatic against Russia. And you know she voted for wars at her various political tenures.

 

I don't see Trump "banning gays", but with Pence perhaps there will be a backlash against gay marriage (that's bad but it's NOT the same thing as a gay ban). I doubt it however as I don't recall gay marriage being a presidential decision to begin with (it wasn't Obama who decided it?). So I don't believe it's presidential matter.

 

And about social welfare, well social welfare in the sense you mean it is paid "by the governement" through taxes. If the economy is bad social welfare goes down anyway. So if Trump manages to make america great again (his slogan), even if he cuts social welfare it doesn't mean overall that social welfare will be worse off. I don't know if Trump can improve economy, it's out of my depth, but if he practices America first and the world second, then it's a good start to improve the social welfare of american (perhaps at the expense of the social welfare everywhere else).

 

 

Nearly all your points seem superficial to me. And it's good to know you're not American (you should have disclosed it in your OP), but it paints your OP in an even worse light.

Edited by Doonge, 11 November 2016 - 03:33 PM.

[Natureboy]

After WWII America led by default. Britain, Germany, USSR, Japan, China, and France had lost too much in the conflict. They all had to rebuild and reform. Before the 1940s, the U.S. was a fairly isolationist country--avoiding Bismark's "Great Power Politics" whenever possible. Even the American leadership 'moment' at the end of WWI, creating scores of new democracies and the League of Nations, was ultimately a failure. That was partly because America withdrew after Woodrow Wilson died, but mostly because other major powers didn't step up to build a stable international system. They went back to pursuing naked national interests, spheres of influence and colonialism. The U.S. turned inward, put up trade barriers and, after the capitalist orgy of the "roaring twenties", fell into economic depression.

 

The population of the USA is deeply conflicted about leading international institutions, even during decades where elites appear to back an internationalist consensus. The rest of the world needs to be prepared to support and defend the institutions that matter for international peace and prosperity. America won't always be there to step in. It's not a sufficiently stable part of our culture. On the contrary, Bush-Cheney-style meddling, self-delusion and flouting of international norms are just as likely, if the wrong folks take control.

 

Oh and the executions after the Nuremberg Trials were hardly summary. Due process was followed and the crimes on trial were truly horrific.

[udarnel]

 

Oh and the executions after the Nuremberg Trials were hardly summary. Due process was followed and the crimes on trial were truly horrific.

It's dubbed a farce process by many. And while it's true that those crimes fully deserved it, it's also true that the countries leading the trials were doing the same things, if more secretly: this was the point of my comment.

 

I don't think USA was ever at the forefront of climate change. Green parties, I believe, are an European thing. I remember feeling angry about it years ago, as even then the USA was behind.

 

I don't believe the progress of tolerance is really helped by politics. It's very mixed. Putting a gun to the head of a racist won't make him not racist. Here in Europe we have anti hate-speech laws, and to me they seem to do more harm than good when it comes to racism and all that. I think one of the reason is because it's anti hatespeech but ALSO anti free speech. It's sometime easy to silence people by invoquing hate speech, even when what they say isn't and is valuable and important conversation. There is a good intent, but psychos are not afraid to use this law to their benefit and silence even normal people.

Another reason would be that hate speech become split into two strong parts while anti-anti hate speech (yeah ^^) becomes lazy and weak: one part of the hatespeech goes underground, and grow really really nasty and unchecked. Another part of the hate speech stay public, but as it has to bear extreme pressure, it grows strong - while the opponents grew lazy (because shouting racism / extremism etc... is easy). So extremists learn and become charismatic.

 

In science, theorically, there should be pressure (peer reviewed stuff) everywhere, it is how theory and model grow strong, it is how you find errors. It is how you get good science.

In speech, when good speech has no pressure against it, it becomes bad.

 

You can make a parallel with the notion of "tough love". You want your children to grow strong.

 

I don't think interstate relation are relatively bad with Trump. You know they weren't good with Hillary, as she was oddly anti diplomatic against Russia. And you know she voted for wars at her various political tenures.

 

I don't see Trump "banning gays", but with Pence perhaps there will be a backlash against gay marriage (that's bad but it's NOT the same thing as a gay ban). I doubt it however as I don't recall gay marriage being a presidential decision to begin with (it wasn't Obama who decided it?). So I don't believe it's presidential matter.

 

And about social welfare, well social welfare in the sense you mean it is paid "by the governement" through taxes. If the economy is bad social welfare goes down anyway. So if Trump manages to make america great again (his slogan), even if he cuts social welfare it doesn't mean overall that social welfare will be worse off. I don't know if Trump can improve economy, it's out of my depth, but if he practices America first and the world second, then it's a good start to improve the social welfare of american (perhaps at the expense of the social welfare everywhere else).

 

 

Nearly all your points seem superficial to me. And it's good to know you're not American (you should have disclosed it in your OP), but it paints your OP in an even worse light.

Climate: you are right, but if the one of the biggest polluters actively says they don't care about climate change and the treatises that the world managed to gain after so much struggle...

 

Tolerance: your points about hate speech are fair, and something I wondered about myself; and "tough love" may be pragmatically a right choice (but I can't bring myself to accept it); yet you can't say that politics doesn't matter in tolerance: if you allow gay marriage, it can start becoming a part of life; new generations will think it's nothing strange; but if you forbid it, than people can't grow past the hate & blind disgust phase (and remember that love between consensual blood-related people is sentenced up to 25 years of prison in many of the darkest states of the US, just for instance: something I would expect from islamists.)

 

Interstate relations: yes, Trump likes his fellow Putin; but he also wants to build walls and break all sorts of international treatises and organisations with better countries than Putin's Russia.

 

Social welfare: the only people that will get wealthy in Trump's America will be the usual 0.1%, the wealthy. A modern country must implement a socialist welfare.

Edited by udarnel, 11 November 2016 - 04:11 PM.

[ClothoBuer]

I'll just quote this beginning. I'm no american too, yet I would be a fool to say I'm not concerned: climate change, interstate relations, progress of tolerance and personal rights are something that require an international effort; if the country supposed to lead the world in all of these problems is suddenly taking the opposite route by menacing to exit the Paris 2015 agreements, close its doors to other economies and people, ban gays, muslims and the rest, cutting down on social welfare— yeah, we all got a problem.

 

Irony. You essentially took what mass media fed you and made their opinion yours. So, let me enlighten you, as someone who actually lives here. 

1. Trump is very much anti-global warming. This cannot be argued and was one of the few points I did not like. 
2. Interstate relations are not affected by presidential elections, barring a new amendment. Given that Trump plans to repeal the AHA (Obamacare) and make it into something more inter-state friendly, I'd say relations will probably get a whole lot better. Hopefully he'll also do something about concealed carry permits across state borders, too.
3. Tolerance? Tolerance of what? Of gangs of inner-city hoodlums rioting because dey boi got capped by the po-po after pulling a gun on the officer? Of largely unchecked Mexican/Arab immigration because Obama wanted "diversity"? If you can't vet the safety of the people you're sending over, then they shouldn't be allowed over, simple as that, and that's what Trump wants. 
4. Nations were crying about us meddling in affairs for over 2 decades, and now that we decide to tell you guys to fuck off, we're doing our own thing, suddenly you want us back? Tell your politicians to start doing a better job, to start sharing the burden. Don't blame it on us when we get tired of doing it all.
5. Both Canada and Mexico have reached out to the US for talks about NAFTA, and the TPP nations will likely follow suit. According to keikaku.
6. You clearly don't realize that Mexicans are hopping the border, having anchor babies, and leeching welfare to the tune of several millions. 
7. Load of shit. Trump isn't doing anything about LGBT protections Obama enacted, he never made banning anyone gay a part of his campaign.
8. Not quite shit, but still shit. He has no issue allowing legal, vetted Arab Muslims into the country or to stay, but illegal immigration is one of his power points and one he plans to crack down on.
9. How does our social welfare affect you, again? When someone can walk on into a store, buy $100-something dollars in returnable pop on welfare debit, then return the cans so they can have drug money, we have a serious issue with welfare regulation. This was an actual story a friend of mine who worked Loss Prevention told me about. Not to mention all the times I've seen people with $300 grocery orders and welfare it, then buy a pack of cigarettes with their own money. 

The vote was once of two parts: a middle finger to establishment candidates with wealthy backings (Clinton) and a bigger middle finger to the media, who did nothing but throw talking heads on all day to rehash the latest dirt their team of muckrakers dug up on Trump. American media won this election for Trump more than any other group.

[udarnel]

Irony. You essentially took what mass media fed you and made their opinion yours. So, let me enlighten you, as someone who actually lives here. 

1. Trump is very much anti-global warming. This cannot be argued and was one of the few points I did not like. 
2. Interstate relations are not affected by presidential elections, barring a new amendment. Given that Trump plans to repeal the AHA (Obamacare) and make it into something more inter-state friendly, I'd say relations will probably get a whole lot better. Hopefully he'll also do something about concealed carry permits across state borders, too.
3. Tolerance? Tolerance of what? Of gangs of inner-city hoodlums rioting because dey boi got capped by the po-po after pulling a gun on the officer? Of largely unchecked Mexican/Arab immigration because Obama wanted "diversity"? If you can't vet the safety of the people you're sending over, then they shouldn't be allowed over, simple as that, and that's what Trump wants. 
4. Nations were crying about us meddling in affairs for over 2 decades, and now that we decide to tell you guys to fuck off, we're doing our own thing, suddenly you want us back? Tell your politicians to start doing a better job, to start sharing the burden. Don't blame it on us when we get tired of doing it all.
5. Both Canada and Mexico have reached out to the US for talks about NAFTA, and the TPP nations will likely follow suit. According to keikaku.
6. You clearly don't realize that Mexicans are hopping the border, having anchor babies, and leeching welfare to the tune of several millions. 
7. Load of shit. Trump isn't doing anything about LGBT protections Obama enacted, he never made banning anyone gay a part of his campaign.
8. Not quite shit, but still shit. He has no issue allowing legal, vetted Arab Muslims into the country or to stay, but illegal immigration is one of his power points and one he plans to crack down on.
9. How does our social welfare affect you, again? When someone can walk on into a store, buy $100-something dollars in returnable pop on welfare debit, then return the cans so they can have drug money, we have a serious issue with welfare regulation. This was an actual story a friend of mine who worked Loss Prevention told me about. Not to mention all the times I've seen people with $300 grocery orders and welfare it, then buy a pack of cigarettes with their own money. 

The vote was once of two parts: a middle finger to establishment candidates with wealthy backings (Clinton) and a bigger middle finger to the media, who did nothing but throw talking heads on all day to rehash the latest dirt their team of muckrakers dug up on Trump. American media won this election for Trump more than any other group.

You may "actually live there", but unless you are a congressman in disguise, you know exactly as much as us.

 

1. I really doubt that somebody wanting to pump the oil industry can be considered anti-global warming.

2. interstate relations refers to US versus other countries of the world; I don't give a damn about internal issues of the federal government

3. tolerance means exactly this: stopping dubbing everyone who isn't white, christian and straight as a "hoodlums".

4. this is the only true thing you said. But I'm not saying I want US to meddle: I'm saying that like it or not they HAVE BEEN meddling; and that they are so much of a powerhouse that what they do concerns everyone in this world

5. what else could they do? everybody needs to know what'll await them so they can prepare

6. we have MILLIONS of immigrants in Europe right now, taking free money daily for their basic needs. I don't like it, but it's us westerners, you americans on top, who lead to this; we should take responsibility, shouldn't we?

7. banning gays is a metaphor: it means that if you revert their right to marry, you are bringing us back to shitting on them. Gay marriage is the first, necessary step to stop gay persecution.

8. see point 6

9. I don't really understand what you are saying. Welfare states are states where everybody pays some more taxes so that when they need 35 000 euros (price of a pace maker, just for instance) surgery they don't pay nothing: everybody pays a small sum so that if they need a super big sum and they obviously don't have it they are not left dying. (Obamacare was just a first brave step to this). This is reality in many countries of Europe. We don't need to show our credit card to get medical help, unlike you poor souls. The problem is, your shitty example is slowly getting in our politicians' heads.

Edited by udarnel, 11 November 2016 - 04:58 PM.

[Doonge]

You may "actually live there", but unless you are a congressman in disguise, you know exactly as much as us.

 

1. I really doubt that somebody wanting to pump the oil industry can be considered anti-global warming.

2. interstate relations refers to US versus other countries of the world; I don't give a damn about internal issues of the federal government

3. tolerance means exactly this: stopping dubbing everyone who isn't white, christian and straight as a "hoodlums".

4. this is the only true thing you said. But I'm not saying I want US to meddle: I'm saying that like it or not they HAVE BEEN meddling; and that they are so much of a powerhouse that what they do concerns everyone in this world

5. what else could they do? everybody needs to know what'll await them so they can prepare

6. we have MILLIONS of immigrants in Europe right now, taking free money daily for their basic needs. I don't like it, but it's us westerners, you americans on top, who lead to this; we should take responsibility, shouldn't we?

7. banning gays is a metaphor: it means that if you revert their right to marry, you are bringing us back to shitting on them. Gay marriage is the first, necessary step to stop gay persecution.

8. see point 6

9. I don't really understand what you are saying. Welfare states are states where everybody pays some more taxes so that when they need 35 000 euros (price of a pace maker, just for instance) surgery they don't pay nothing: everybody pays a small sum so that if they need a super big sum and they obviously don't have it they are not left dying.

I think he agreed with you on 1. Wasn't saying the opposite.

 

Your own racism shows in your 3. I knew it would at some point.

 

6 is highly dubious. Not only are the immigrants from various countries - not all in war (economic migrants not war refugees); but even if it was the case, and even if it was "our fault", the conclusion that we need to move them in our own countries instead of doing work where they live doesn't automatically follow.

 

7 is ridiculous. But you need to define first what marriage is. My godfather is a gay man, in a gay community. The gay community is not united with you about the gay marriage thing. Because marriage can mean many things. I'm pro gay-marriage in the civil sense, but even in that sense many gays aren't interested. Marriage is weak.

 

Your 8 has next to no relation to 6. If you define what you consider as somebody worthy of help (a poor war refugee or whatever), then you have a rule, and you make a law. Illegals are against the law of the country. Certainly you don't owe to the WHOLE WORLD do you? I find your point of view funny because if we were so responsible for all the problems in the world, it would be a strong case for white supremacy. You want to tether non-whites.

 

Welfare state isn't the sole solution to help people in need. It sure is convenient not having to "beg" for help and having all automated, but it comes with drawbacks. It's not the ultimate solution. I enjoy the welfare state, but I have worked alongside it and it's not that pretty. In medicine, it creates problems along the line of what subsidied and what's not. Governement, bureaucracy, is lagging behind. Innovation is made more difficult because of it. And supersystem like this are ripe to abuse, as who cares if money gets stolen or wasted?

[udarnel]

I think he agreed with you on 1. Wasn't saying the opposite.

 

Your own racism shows in your 3. I knew it would at some point.

 

6 is highly dubious. Not only are the immigrants from various countries - not all in war (economic migrants not war refugees); but even if it was the case, and even if it was "our fault", the conclusion that we need to move them in our own countries instead of doing work where they live doesn't automatically follow.

 

7 is ridiculous. But you need to define first what marriage is. My godfather is a gay man, in a gay community. The gay community is not united with you about the gay marriage thing. Because marriage can mean many things. I'm pro gay-marriage in the civil sense, but even in that sense many gays aren't interested. Marriage is weak.

 

Your 8 has next to no relation to 6. If you define what you consider as somebody worthy of help (a poor war refugee or whatever), then you have a rule, and you make a law. Illegals are against the law of the country. Certainly you don't owe to the WHOLE WORLD do you? I find your point of view funny because if we were so responsible for all the problems in the world, it would be a strong case for white supremacy. You want to tether non-whites.

 

Welfare state isn't the sole solution to help people in need. It sure is convenient not having to "beg" for help and having all automated, but it comes with drawbacks. It's not the ultimate solution. I enjoy the welfare state, but I have worked alongside it and it's not that pretty. In medicine, it creates problems along the line of what subsidied and what's not. Governement, bureaucracy, is lagging behind. Innovation is made more difficult because of it. And supersystem like this are ripe to abuse, as who cares if money gets stolen or wasted?

about point 3: why?? if you mean I'm "patronizing" them, no, I'm not; I grew up in a mixed environment where it was absolutely normal to be from different skin colors and so on; it wasn't until I grew up that I came in contact with the concept of racism.

 

6 and 8: sure, but building walls to keep out people whose only fault is being born in unfortunate countries seems a bit too sad to me; maybe we have no obligation and so on, but I don't feel well just shrugging them off. And walls remember me too much of the wall in Germany.. don't want to go back to that age.

 

7: ridiculous? I'm against marriage myself, as divorce made it meaningless; historically, marriage began as a contract to manage family heirlooms; the point is not marriage, is winning rights to gays, whatever these rights might be: look at India, where raping women is seen by many as a right of men, included police officers and lawmakers; there's little support from the country to stop rape; by allowing gays to marry, you are not simply allowing them to marry, you are making it more difficult to go back to state-backed persecution... You are building a supportive culture that will require a major coup to undo (just think about people with disabilities in Europe: as soon as you say something slightly against them, you are fucked nowadays; and that's good, because even if we are risking to be excessive in the opposite way, at least we are firmly far from previous shit; the same for women rights). I don't know if I'm explaining it clearly.Some two years ago a lesbian couple in the US (California, I think) was denied help by a pediatrician for their adopted child "because they are gay"; what's worse, the court said the doctor was right, calling as a pretext the fact that law doesn't mention discriminating by sex, only by ethnicity, religion and beliefs: just an idiotic quibble for everyone in their right minds, but they could make it work because they were backed by authorities. This wouldn't be possible anymore if marriage was allowed. I mean, there will be people discriminating, but they'll be prosecuted, otherwise everybody would jump at the authorities.

Also: civic marriage is a basic civic right; freedom of (mutual, consensual) love is a basic human right. It's high time countries that call themselves civilized actually become civilized. Obama was building towards this, but now there will only be a regression.

 

about welfare: sure, it has many faults (tax money being wasted by corrupted local- and state- authorities, etc), but I can't think of a better system, even if this is far from perfect. I don't think there can be a perfect solution here, though.

Edited by udarnel, 11 November 2016 - 07:51 PM.

[PItiful Boar]

I personally think racism is normal.

 

The people who are not racist are the CEOs of large companies, who are mostly white, and are willing to screw their fellow white brothers by closing down those factories and moving jobs over the Mexico. Those guys are truly not racist. That's because they choose class over race. 

[udarnel]

I personally think racism is normal.

 

The people who are not racist are the CEOs of large companies, who are mostly white, and are willing to screw their fellow white brothers by closing down those factories and moving jobs over the Mexico. Those guys are truly not racist. That's because they choose class over race. 

 

Actually, many (most?) racists are just people fearing that the "stranger" is coming to take away their job and food. It's not a matter of skin color; just a matter of defending what (you think) is yours by right against others, the "different" on top. Yes, this is normal, sadly. But I'm no ceo, just your typical middle-low class guy struggling to find a job. Yet I'm not a racist.

Edited by udarnel, 11 November 2016 - 08:50 PM.

[PItiful Boar]

That's like the average person saying he's better/more moral than the average person. I dare you to take the an implicit association test. Google it. 

[Natureboy]

I thought I wasn't racist towards African-Americans. Then both my sisters married black men. Fine for me in theory. Then at family gatherings I noticed my visceral reaction to their different skin color and features. It took a (for me) surprisingly long time for their looks, and those of my nieces and nephew to seem "normal" to me. Now they and their children all feel like family, even if there remain plenty of aspects of U.S. black culture that are opaque to me.

 

Something about growing up almost exclusively with people of European descent (absent the occasional maid or teacher and some black kids in classes at school) left me ill-equipped to accept people of African/Asian descent as family. Yes I had girlfriends and lust/love objects who were Asian and/or dark-skinned, but black men remained "the other" until I really got to know my brothers-in-law.

[udarnel]

That's like the average person saying he's better/more moral than the average person. I dare you to take the an implicit association test. Google it. 

 

Seems to me like a huge fad (there's much controversy about this; read for example this: http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/IATmaterials/PDFs/AT.psychinquiry.2004.pdf)...but maybe what natureboy says would apply to me too. But even if it were true, I wouldn't like myself for that: and this is what's important; I mean, there's a huge difference in being subconsciously racist and believing racism is good.

 

I thought I wasn't racist towards African-Americans. Then both my sisters married black men. Fine for me in theory. Then at family gatherings I noticed my visceral reaction to their different skin color and features. It took a (for me) surprisingly long time for their looks, and those of my nieces and nephew to seem "normal" to me. Now they and their children all feel like family, even if there remain plenty of aspects of U.S. black culture that are opaque to me.

 

Something about growing up almost exclusively with people of European descent (absent the occasional maid or teacher and some black kids in classes at school) left me ill-equipped to accept people of African/Asian descent as family. Yes I had girlfriends and lust/love objects who were Asian and/or dark-skinned, but black men remained "the other" until I really got to know my brothers-in-law.

Edited by udarnel, 11 November 2016 - 09:49 PM.

[Doonge]

No I don't mean you are patronizing, just flat out racist. You are also patronizing, but not towards me or the racists, you are patronizing towards the people you perceive as victims.

Basically, you react to words like hoodlums only when it's not towards white christian whatever. White christians hetero victims are not on your radar at all. Same rethoric than when you say that handicapped people can't deal with criticism or insults, and say that it's OK if non-handicapped people are fucked for slight reasons. You do not have overarching rules for everybody, but you divide people into categories like white and non-white, handicapped and non-handicapped, heterosexual and non-heterosexual, then apply different rules. One of those categories make you a racist. If you do not see people as individual but as groups, it's easy to be racist/sexist/whateverist.

 

Raping women is not seen as a right of men in India. You don't understand the dynamics. In "patriarchies", men are given more rights but also more obligations, while the women less right and less obligations. Women are treated somehow like children, and "protected". If it wasn't the case, there would be no civilization to begin with. In India, if a man is accused of raping a woman, he will be beaten up to pulp or outright killed summarily, if not by all the people around, by family and friends.

Your comment about marriage tells me you don't understand marriage, unless you consider children as "family heirloom".

 

Being racist is "normal" in the sense everybody is racist to some extent, but we don't call everybody racist. It's those above some norm, and for me you fit the bill. You are basically everything you shout against. You are even sexist by thinking indian men are monster and indian women victims just because genitalia.

Edited by Doonge, 11 November 2016 - 09:55 PM.

[ClothoBuer]

3. tolerance means exactly this: stopping dubbing everyone who isn't white, christian and straight as a "hoodlums".

 

I like to think of this as the "gotcha" moment. Not once did I mention any sort of skin color or ethnicity. You made the assumption based on the words "inner-city" and "hoodlum" that I meant only blacks, but surprise surprise, there's a whole bunch of whites who are just as bad and are inner-city. This is what the DNC failed to pick up on the entire campaign run. You're all too busy nit-picking his words and trying to portray him as some kind of white supremacist overlord that you don't even understand the depths of your own racial bias. And, contrary to whatever popular beliefs you have in the EU, it is entirely possible to be racist against whites.

 

1. I really doubt that somebody wanting to pump the oil industry can be considered anti-global warming.

 

Being anti-global warming was said in the sense that he was opposed to the concept, but I can see how I may have phrased it weirdly.

[Doonge]

I like to think of this as the "gotcha" moment. Not once did I mention any sort of skin color or ethnicity. You made the assumption based on the words "inner-city" and "hoodlum" that I meant only blacks, but surprise surprise, there's a whole bunch of whites who are just as bad and are inner-city. This is what the DNC failed to pick up on the entire campaign run. You're all too busy nit-picking his words and trying to portray him as some kind of white supremacist overlord that you don't even understand the depths of your own racial bias. And, contrary to whatever popular beliefs you have in the EU, it is entirely possible to be racist against whites.

 

 

Being anti-global warming was said in the sense that he was opposed to the concept, but I can see how I may have phrased it weirdly.

To be honest with you, I think that this belief you speak of is originating from USA. This wave comes from you, as there are several things where USA innovates and Europe lags 3-5 years behind. Imho, this "fad" is one of them. Because racism is less of a thing here. In the US, strangely as there are mexicans and asians too, there is a whole black vs white racism history and sensivity.

 

However, when it comes to colonialism and thinking you owe reparation to third world countries, that's probably from us.

 

I assume that countries that are historically christians have culture of guilt, and the guilt travel easily between both our cultures (US and Europe).

Edited by Doonge, 11 November 2016 - 11:05 PM.

[PItiful Boar]

Something about growing up almost exclusively with people of European descent (absent the occasional maid or teacher and some black kids in classes at school) left me ill-equipped to accept people of African/Asian descent as family. Yes I had girlfriends and lust/love objects who were Asian and/or dark-skinned, but black men remained "the other" until I really got to know my brothers-in-law.

Or it could mean you have incestuous feelings for your sisters and you feel hostility subconsciously for your brothers-in-law

 

(kidding kidding)

And, contrary to whatever popular beliefs you have in the EU, it is entirely possible to be racist against whites.

 

You're probably thinking of affirmative action. Nixon introduced affirmative action in his Machiavellian calculation to break up the Democratic party, Nixon being the most racist president in recent history.

 

I think this line of thinking is limiting. It follows standard divide-and-conqueror paradigm of the ruling class. To give a parallel, that's what Belgium did in Rowanda - pitting the Tutsi against the Hutu's and causing the racial ethnic cleansing wars later.

[Doonge]

Or it could mean you have incestuous feelings for your sisters and you feel hostility subconsciously for your brothers-in-law

 

(kidding kidding)

You're probably thinking of affirmative action. Nixon introduced affirmative action in his Machiavellian calculation to break up the Democratic party, Nixon being the most racist president in recent history.

 

I think this line of thinking is limiting. It follows standard divide-and-conqueror paradigm of the ruling class. To give a parallel, that's what Belgium did in Rowanda - pitting the Tutsi against the Hutu's and causing the racial ethnic cleansing wars later.

Rwanda (Congo then).

 

Belgium just continued German politics the territory when it comes to separating Hutu and Tutsi.

[PItiful Boar]

According to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer

 

The divide and conquer strategy was used by foreign countries in Africa during the colonial and post-colonial period.

• Germany and Belgium ruled Rwanda and Burundi in a colonial capacity. Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the already dominant Tutsi minority in positions of power. When Belgium took over colonial rule in 1916, the Tutsi and Hutu groups were rearranged according to race instead of occupation. Belgium defined "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose, while "Hutu" meant someone with less than ten cows and a broad nose. The socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus continued after independence and was a major factor in the Rwandan Genocide.

 

My point is that the race usually is a cover for class. Critics of trump (and defenders of trump) usually point to race issues, when they should be talking about class. But you can't talk about class, at least not in the US. The so called "liberal media" will go on and on about race conflicts, but not the underlying class conflicts. The "conservative media" will point to the "liberal medium" and called them out for their hypocrisy, which is correct, but they won't talk about class conflicts either. 

Edited by Feisty Bit Moar, 11 November 2016 - 11:59 PM.

[Doonge]

According to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer

 

The divide and conquer strategy was used by foreign countries in Africa during the colonial and post-colonial period.

• Germany and Belgium ruled Rwanda and Burundi in a colonial capacity. Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the already dominant Tutsi minority in positions of power. When Belgium took over colonial rule in 1916, the Tutsi and Hutu groups were rearranged according to race instead of occupation. Belgium defined "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose, while "Hutu" meant someone with less than ten cows and a broad nose. The socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus continued after independence and was a major factor in the Rwandan Genocide.

 

My point is that the race usually is a cover for class. Critics of trump (and defenders of trump) usually point to race issues, when they should be talking about class. But you can't talk about class, at least not in the US. The so called "liberal media" will go on and on about race conflicts, but not the underlying class conflicts. The "conservative media" will point to the "liberal medium" and called them out for their hypocrisy, which is correct, but they won't talk about class conflicts either. 

I agree.

 

But the reason is obvious.