Show Posts

You can view here all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas to which you currently have access.

Messages - Ali

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 137
Don't worry, Peder. I will be filming stuff and Adventure-Treff plan to record all the talks. We'll also be archiving the twitch feed.

I'm afraid the deadline for trailers has passed. If people still want to send more we will try our best, but we can't guarantee we'll be able to show them.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 16 Nov 2016, 23:58 »
Had she won, Clinton supporters would absolutely have had to accept that they supported the USA's appalling use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Would it be fair to say though that someone who voted for hillary for any reason at all, fully supports drone murder? That their intention is to kill syrians? That we should hate them for this?

It would be fair to say exactly what I said in that quote. They supported it. Would it be fair for a victim of a drone bomb to hate Clinton's supporters? I could certainly understand that. I haven't said that we should all hate Trump voters, I've said they have to accept their complicity in a most dangerous kind of bigotry.

Given that, I'd say it's fair to say that you support the continued use of drones to commit targeted killings if you support Clinton.

Yes, of course you do. If you hold your nose and vote for someone, you have to take the bad with the (in Clinton's case) less bad. But you can't make the 'lesser of two evils' argument when the candidate you're defending is, by any historical comparison, the greater evil.

I would have more sympathy if criticism of Clinton had focused more on her foreign policy and less on her bloody eeeeeeeeemails.

Here's Trump saying some stuff about nuclear weapons. I said he wanted to nuke ISIS - I apologise for that overstatement*. In fairness, he's at pains to make it clear that nuclear would be a last resort. In context he merely said he wouldn't rule it out for the Middle East, or Europe:

He was subsequently pressed on these issues and stood by his insistence that "Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table.", and boasted of his unpredictability as a businessman.

That's not as clear cut as I made out. But it's hardly a case of warmonger versus peacemaker.

*or to put that apology in Trump's voice: "I never said that. Huge lie. It's really terrible this lying media, folks. Real shame."

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 16 Nov 2016, 00:57 »
Jack has said something I sort of agree with. Had she won, Clinton supporters would absolutely have had to accept that they supported the USA's appalling use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere. If a Pakistani American told me they couldn't support Obama or Clinton because of this, I would disagree but understand. If they told me that's why they voted for Trump, I would disagree and not understand. I would argue, as others have extensively in this thread, that there's no reason to imagine that Trump's foreign policy will be any less bloody than Clinton's would have been. An allegiance with Putin's repressive regime may not prove to be as delightful as some Trump supporters imagine. Trump said he wanted to attack ISIS with nuclear weapons and that US soldiers should target the families of terrorists (a war crime).

Darth - as Scavenger says, you're asking us to weigh a substantial threat to the equality of gay people against a generalised feeling that something Clinton was going to do would have been bad. You must see how the specifics matter.

EDIT: Darth, on that one you're  gent.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 16 Nov 2016, 00:21 »
Let's say a Trump supporter was to tell you that he sees Clinton's policy of "ABC" (whatever) as a direct threat to his family's future and that's why he's voting for Trump.

No, not "ABC" (whatever), we're discussing real threats to women and minorities. Things that actually might happen. You can't draw a parallel between homophobia and a detail-free hypothetical.

What is the compelling fear that motivated this Trump voter? Can you argue that it's just as rational and substantial as the fear Scavenger is expressing?

You need to engage with the issues and do that if you're going to argue that the two candidates were as bad as each other.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 15 Nov 2016, 14:46 »
Unshakeable belief is not synonymous with bigotry. I think fire burns and rain falls and you won't convince me otherwise. That's not bigotry; it has no victims.

While I have criticised people for defending Trump and Trump voters - there is a difference between belonging to a racial or ethnic group and being (for example) a Trump supporter. You're not born a Trump supporter, you decide to be one and criticism is legitimate.

I don't think I've demonstrated obstinate devotion to any prejudices. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 15 Nov 2016, 14:05 »
I'm sorry you're sad. But the google definition of a word is not the "actual" definition of a word. That's not how the English language works.

Compassion yes, tolerance no. I feel compassion for the poor, downtrodden, disenfranchised, under-educated, blinkered and misled Americans who voted for Trump. Tolerance of their jingoistic racism and misogyny? Never.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 15 Nov 2016, 13:41 »
I am not going to give in to the mass hysteria. It'll calm down in a few months like it always does. The people will forget about for about 3 years.

*Bookmarks thread and waits*

Also, Merriam Webster's definition of bigot more closely reflects contemporary usage:

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 14 Nov 2016, 20:51 »
So considering everyone is treating this like it's the end of the world, newspapers and all, means that there's hope that it isn't all that bad. ;-D

Yes, this time we're better prepared.

Writer of ‘Taxi Driver,’ ‘Raging Bull’ Pens Post-Election ‘Call to Violence’

The mask drops.

That proves it!

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 14 Nov 2016, 20:24 »
Come on, people. It'll be ok. Nothing will change. Every politician ever has been a corrupt piece of shit, we just didn't get a chance to fight about it on social media so it wasn't as interesting as it is now, and the dirt didn't spread around the globe faster than light, so we lived in sweet ignorance.

I hope you folks who think this is business as usual are right. I will say this though: When students in Nazi Germany held book burnings in universities, what was the international reaction? Presumably revulsion, horror? Fear of what it might foreshadow?

Not really. People thought it was crass, a little uncivilised. A few leftist intellectuals got very wound up, but most newspapers didn't pay it much heed. Business as usual, nothing really changes...

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 14 Nov 2016, 15:51 »
I won't judge people for where they come from, but it is reasonable to make judgements about people based on their actions.

If someone supports a racist, they are behaving in a racist way. I won't write them off as an evil monster and I'll listen to their reasons, but I'm not going to blink at racism.

It's great that you can call for peace and unity, that's what I want too. But people have a right to be afraid of the resurgent far-right. It's not bandwagon-jumping - people are actually frightened of the consequences of the decision that 18% of Americans made and 46.9% didn't try to stop. It's not just about us all having different views, it's about people who are literally in fear for their lives and afraid for their children's futures.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 14 Nov 2016, 12:48 »
Anyway, I've made my point. I'll not gain anything by arguing with a self-identified -ist.

I was going to leave this, but since you prefer to focus on pedantry than real issues - when did I identify as an "-ist"? I mean I try to be some "-ists" and I try not to be some other "-ists", but I didn't self-identify as any of them in this thread.

But hey, we're all delighted that you're so relaxed about bigotry. That sounds swell.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 14 Nov 2016, 11:44 »
Scavenger should have said: "some of their stories approach the truth in the most roundabout way." Then he wouldn't have been guilty of inflammatory exaggeration of the sort that upsets Breitbart readers so much.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 13 Nov 2016, 14:36 »
Being a feminist is sexist. Ignorance is strength. We can all read Orwell, some of us understood it.

EDIT: And in case a mod feels like this is off topic, I would argue it's not. Many people are living in a fact-free fantasy world, oppressed by evil feminists and tyrannical Black Lives Matter activists, and those people just voted for an orange fascist. It's relevant.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 13 Nov 2016, 14:29 »
Oh no, am I being sexist against men? OH NO!

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 13 Nov 2016, 13:08 »
Cuiki and Jack, you're talking like Philip J. Fry: "It's a widely believed fact".

If a woman is "widely regarded" as being corrupt, when she's no more corrupt than the next man, there's a good chance that misogyny has a hand in it. I have no idea what Zuma or Samuel L. Jackson have to do with this.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 12 Nov 2016, 21:39 »
There is a notable overlap between 'politically incorrect' and 'factually incorrect'.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 12 Nov 2016, 20:07 »
I don't care that Jack 'labelled' Clinton female - she is female. I object to him calling her the "most openly corrupt female politician in history."

The vast majority of politicians in history are men, and all the people who've held the office of President are men. Clinton should be compared to them. By comparing Clinton to other female politicians, rather than other politicians, he was holding her to a different, in this case higher, standard because of her sex. That is a sexist thing to do. He should try to make his argument without relying on implicit prejudices.

I don't mind you singling me out, but I don't see anything bigoted in dactylopus's quote.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 12 Nov 2016, 18:14 »
What I meant by political correctness, personally, was things like Ali saying that Jack shouldn't use the word female when refering to Hillary being corrupt. I mean, I get it's a label, and her gender shouldn't have anything to do with being corrupt, but from a pragmatic point of view, someone who demonizes such labeling could do more harm than someone who casually uses it. Don't get me wrong Ali, I am definitely on your side in the bigger picture, but maybe it's not just people like me who should be more careful with their words.

I'm all for being polite and trying to understand other people's views, although my intemperate post is not the best example of that. But the left and Jonathan Pie are beating themselves up for demonising Trump supporters. The names we used, the labels we threw around are to blame for his victory.

I don't think Trump supporters are all evil, but there's this idea that 60 million people can't be racist, can't be sexist, can't be homophobic. 60 million people CAN be all those things. Anyone can, it's very easy. I've been guilty of each of them, to my shame.

But if we can't name bigotry for fear of causing offence, for fear of 'labelling' someone, then where does that get us? How does it help the left to tiptoe around the feelings of people who want to BE racist, but don't want to be CALLED racist? Millions of people decided that they were prepared to at least *tolerate* Trump's racism.

Perhaps articles which call racist people racist should have a 'label' warning at the top to prevent anyone from getting *labelled*.

General Discussion / Re: Trumpmageddon
« on: 10 Nov 2016, 18:47 »
But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

I used the word female because I assumed there must've been male politicians more openly corrupt than her. Your assumption that I used the word female pejoratively is... Yes...

If there are male politicians more corrupt than her, then she is not exceptionally corrupt! She belongs to the group 'politicians', not 'female politicians'. Your use of the word was sexist and you cannot get out of that by ending sentences... with ellipses...

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 137