Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. News
      2. Red Dead Online
      3. The Armadillo Inn
    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Raavi

General US Politics Discussion

Recommended Posts

KornbreadMaf1a

 

Now there is proof that there was widespread fraud. Texas was forced to revert to paper ballots midway through early voting due to the machines flipping votes for Hillary Clinton, it can only be done if pre-programmed. Florida election officials were caught rigging the vote early on for Hillary. Indiana also had massive issues. Pennsylvania even indicted a person of major power within the DNC and the Pennsylvania government due to a mixture of the Podesta emails and her being caught (sorry, I am sh*t at remembering names). Not to mention, there were a ton of poll watchers that were witnessing magic jumps that went 100% in one way, small numbers, but still enough to make large differences. That isn't even mentioning how Trump had only consistently held 33.3% of the vote in California, a state so populated that it holds close to 1/9 electoral votes. Watching California, Trump's numbers should have fluctuated, but it stayed consistent. Same with New York. Ohio avoided the fraud because we got rid of all the electronic devices and went back to the old fashioned way of doing things. By the way, this isn't even mentioning the miraculous amount of resurrected voters that turned out to vote, some even twice, which was around 2 million dead voters. And yet, with all that, and whatever other fraud (looking at places like NH, states shouldn't be called so close), Clinton still only succeeded in a 0.2% lead in the popular vote.

Interesting. Do you have sources for any of this? The two million dead voters story isn't actually that they vote, but rather that they are still registered. And the story was about how terrible some states' bureaucracy is handling all the paperwork.I don't have much faith in the voter registration process works because I got first hand experience of how its f*cked up. I'm a convicted felon and by law I'm not aloud to vote and when I was convicted of my first felonly I received a letter from the Kentucky board of elections telling me that I was no longer allowed to vote and my name was being removed from the voter registration list. Fast forward almost a year and the first election that took place I didn't pay much attention to because I wasn't allowed to vote then I get a call from my mom who tells me my name is on the list at the polling station so I went and sure enough I showed em my ID and signed my name and got a ballot and I've voted in every election since. If I wanted to I could get my voting rights restored but the process is a hassle because I gotta go to my former PO and get proof from her that I'm no longer on paper and my sentence is finished then I would have to petition the governor of Kentucky to get my rights restored and from people I know who have done it your rights will always be restored but it takes a long time so I've just never bothered since I was never removed from the voter registration list.

 

The curious thing about the voter registration list is all but one black person I know that is a felon has been removed from the list while all the white people I know are still on the list. To make it even more interesting the one black guy who is still on the list lives in a majority white precinct while all the other black people live in majority black precincts. The sample size is only about twenty to twenty five people so it's not big enough to prove anything but it does seem that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860

 

I too come from a small all white town in Finland and 90% of all blue collar men express negative views about immigration

So you admit you don't actually have to deal with the consequences of immigration, or have any real direct experience of it because of your location...yet still maintain strongly distrustful views of it. And that doesn't strike you as ridiculous in any way?

 

I was under the impression that you were supposed to be some kind of main man of Debates & Discussion. Supreme debating machine. But this is just awful logic. No you do not need first hand experience to be able to oppose something. Besides, first hand experience is simply anecdotal and shouldn't be judged upon like it's data. You're questioning the validity of my views because they are not based on anecdotal evidence? Sorry, but that's just silly.

 

I don't oppose immigrants. I oppose immigration. Especially when it's with numbers we cannot assimilate and from cultures vastly different from ours. I've also stated before that I want Finland to stay both culturally and ethnically Finnish (pragmatically speaking ~95%). If Sweden for example wants to become multiethnic and multicultural, go right ahead. That's their democratically chosen future. But it's not ours.

 

I've also stated before that I don't perceive neither nationalism or globalism to be objectively better than the other, just a matter of personal preference and I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you on personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric

(which is dumb, aliens don't exist)

Given the scale of the universe, 15 billion light years across, the fact we are starting to see the possibility of life on other bodies within our solar system (Ganymede's ocean and volcanic vent theory is a good example.) and the clear examples of nearby exoplanets in a relatively close distance, it's clear we are not alone in this cosmos!

 

We might not think of little green men, but if it lives and it comes from any planet but Earth, it's alien!

 

(Sorry for the digression)

Edited by Uncle Sikee Atric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You're questioning the validity of my views because they are not based on anecdotal evidence? Sorry, but that's just silly.

No, I'm questioning the validity of your views as they're not based on any evidence at all. You don't appear to rationalise your views with any evidence or even coherent analysis; in fact your primary justification appears to be ethnonationalism. You refer to a shared view in your locale and social group as if it's valid simply because it's held by a large group of people; ironically this in itself is anecdotal.

 

I'm just struggling to see a justification which isn't basically just racism.

 

I oppose immigration. Especially when it's with numbers we cannot assimilate and from cultures vastly different from ours.

And what makes you think either of these assertions is true? Second, third hand anecdotes from other people?

 

I've also stated before that I want Finland to stay both culturally and ethnically Finnish (pragmatically speaking ~95%).

 

Let's gloss over the fact that the ethnic and cultural history of Finland is a mish-mash of Norwegian, Swedish and Finnic ethnic heritage and Swedish and Russian cultural influence. Oh, and there's that fairly sizeable Swedish minority. Are they ethnic Finns in your eyes? Actually, how do you define ethnic and cultural Finns?

 

That's their democratically chosen future. But it's not ours.

I don't think you speak for the majority of Finns. The notion you think you do is cute, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860

I oppose Finland becoming more multiethnic and multicultural because it goes against my personal preference. My preference is that Finland should stay ethnically and culturally Finnish. A lot of my countrymen also share this same preference and together we have voted for a party that represents our preference in our democratically elected government. I don't even need crime statistics. I don't need welfare statistics or the size of our budget deficit. Simply the fact that I do not want to see Finland become any less Finnish is enough for me to justify my views, as they are based on personal preference.

 

 

Aliens

How about we talk about US politics instead?

 

Obama and Trump just met. Trump said he has great respect for Obama. I think even he had to cringe internally as he said that. A bit awkward.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

WikiLeaks

 

Which is about far from a politically impartial source of information you could possibly find.

 

There is nothing on wikileaks which substantiates the mass voter fraud he fantasizes about.

 

 

 

EDIT: regarding the 33.3% consistent count for Trump in California, that had been a personal observation from the point California closed it's polls. Unfortunately, I do not have a camera to record with so I couldn't record the whole night. But it was something that seemed fishy that it would stay at such a consistent mark for such a heavily populated state.

 

Lmao, he missed that chance to record mass voter fraud in California with his camera in front of his pc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

My preference is that Finland should stay ethnically and culturally Finnish.

Define these, and explain why your definition is more compelling than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860

 

My preference is that Finland should stay ethnically and culturally Finnish.

Define these, and explain why your definition is more compelling than others.

 

I know you're about to say that race doesn't exist since you can't accurately define a certain ethnicity, but that would be like saying that colors don't exist because you can't draw a line where red ends and orange begins. We can all still see that red and orange are two different colors and personally I prefer a play dough bucket with lots of different colors instead of one with a big lump of gray-brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I know you're about to say that race doesn't exist since you can't accurately define a certain ethnicity, but that would be like saying that colors don't exist because you can't draw a line where red ends and orange begins. We can all still see that red and orange are two different colors and personally I prefer a play dough bucket with lots of different colors instead of one with a big lump of gray-brown.

Naa, race does exist, but the distinction between them is largely based on subjective, personal views. I'm wondering why you feel your own interpretation of what it means to be "ethnically" or "culturally" Finnish has more validity of that of, say, a second-generation acclimatised immigrant citizen who considers themselves Finnish, and what authority you feel you have to claim they're not?

 

As an aside, the distinction between red and orange is a poor analogy because the points of crossover in frequency and wavelength from red to orange are mathematically defined- 480THz and 620nm respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

The American left is dead

lol I'm not sure you understand how politics works...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

 

The American left is dead

lol I'm not sure you understand how politics works...

Your side has no branch of government and only 8 states to fall back on... If you wanna say the American left isnt dead go on ahead. Of course you've been consistently wrong about everything for the past several months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860

what authority you feel you have to claim they're not?

Me personally? None. A nation's stance on that question depends on the authority of the democratic majority. Edited by 860

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Your side has no branch of government and only 8 states to fall back on... If you wanna say the American left isnt dead go on ahead. Of course you've been consistently wrong about everything for the past several months...

lol.

well no one expected Trump to win, least of all Donald Trump.

 

I was hoping he would lose of course but I never said that he couldn't pull it off. whenever people on the Left said Hillary has got it "in the bag," I was one of the few to call them out for being way too overconfident. but that's beside the point...

 

the "American left" isn't any more dead than the American right was after Obama.

those who control Congress are not representative of the American left. apparently you didn't realize this, but the Congressional Democrats are not the Left. they're Center-right sellouts. Hillary was not my candidate, she's who we were left with after the DNC f/cked up. she's not the Left. just because they lost one election cycle (after winning several in a row) doesn't mean that Liberals just disappear. the same way Conservatives didn't disappear just because Obama won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

The American left is actually on the rise ever since Bernie's popularity. There's actually a lot of momentum for the American left right now, but due to the fact that the spectrum ranges from the right to the far right (Obama is not a leftist by any measure) it will be a difficcult struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KornbreadMaf1a

 

I know you're about to say that race doesn't exist since you can't accurately define a certain ethnicity, but that would be like saying that colors don't exist because you can't draw a line where red ends and orange begins. We can all still see that red and orange are two different colors and personally I prefer a play dough bucket with lots of different colors instead of one with a big lump of gray-brown.

Naa, race does exist, but the distinction between them is largely based on subjective, personal views. I'm wondering why you feel your own interpretation of what it means to be "ethnically" or "culturally" Finnish has more validity of that of, say, a second-generation acclimatised immigrant citizen who considers themselves Finnish, and what authority you feel you have to claim they're not?

 

As an aside, the distinction between red and orange is a poor analogy because the points of crossover in frequency and wavelength from red to orange are mathematically defined- 480THz and 620nm respectively.

Race is easy to distinguish it's nationality that is tricky. You can look at someone and on just about every occasion you can tell without asking what race they are based solely on skin color but with nationality it's not as black and white no pun intended.

 

A persons race is going to always be the same as their biological parents but their nationality can be different. For instance I have a friend who's mom immigrated to the US from Venezuela and was a legal alien then a few years later my friend was born. My friend is an American and his mom is Venezuelan but both are Hispanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

 

 

The American left is dead

lol I'm not sure you understand how politics works...

Your side has no branch of government and only 8 states to fall back on... If you wanna say the American left isnt dead go on ahead. Of course you've been consistently wrong about everything for the past several months...

 

>Republican

 

So are you done pretending to be a radical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

 

First of all you're quoting a post about alt-right radicalization from a Rad Fem tumblr blog. Isn't that at least a little bit ironic? A little bit?

Not at all. I'm not calling for moderation, I'm decrying the right-wing specifically.

 

Also the woman on twitter is clearly very moderate- referring to the left as 'liberals' should make that obvious.

 

 

 

Second, like the FB friend mentioned in the post, I too come from a small all white town in Finland and 90% of all blue collar men express negative views about immigration and these aren't guys who spend their time on Chinese finger painting forums discussing Nazi frogs and meme magic (like me, one of "our boys", I assume). These are your average working class guys, both old and young. Finland is far more conservative than Scandinavia.

The alt-right is an online phenomenon that explicitly targets middle class men. These blue collar lads you're talking about don't believe in all the insane sh*t you believe, they just vote for rightist parties. They probably spend around 0.001% of their time thinking about immigration

 

The alt-right is part of a broader lurch to the right but it has specific conventions unique to... y'know, dorky guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KornbreadMaf1a

 

Your side has no branch of government and only 8 states to fall back on... If you wanna say the American left isnt dead go on ahead. Of course you've been consistently wrong about everything for the past several months...

lol.

well no one expected Trump to win, least of all Donald Trump.

 

I was hoping he would lose of course but I never said that he couldn't pull it off. whenever people on the Left said Hillary has got it "in the bag," I was one of the few to call them out for being way too overconfident. but that's beside the point...

 

the "American left" isn't any more dead than the American right was after Obama.

those who control Congress are not representative of the American left. apparently you didn't realize this, but the Congressional Democrats are not the Left. they're Center-right sellouts. Hillary was not my candidate, she's who we were left with after the DNC f/cked up. she's not the Left. just because they lost one election cycle (after winning several in a row) doesn't mean that Liberals just disappear. the same way Conservatives didn't disappear just because Obama won.

The Democratic Party isn't dead but they do need to completely gut the leadership at the DNC and I'd say even burn the headquarters down just as a symbol because if nothing changes the party will be dead and relatively soon.

 

IMO it wasn't Republicans who got Trump elected it was Democrats who supported Bernie that either didn't vote, voted for a third party candidate, or voted for Trump. There were a lot of counties and even entire states that have been left leaning for years even decades in some cases that in this election voted Republican. The base of the Democratic Party is as splintered as I've ever seen it and many myself included have no faith in the direction the current leadership is headed. If nothing changes in the next two years then both the Senate and House become even bigger majorities for the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

As I said in the previous thread. The American Left needs to use this to purge itself of all radical elements, modernise, and appeal to those who voted for Trump. Their sanctimony, their extremism, their downright bigotry has enabled the election of a man who is very likely a sexual predator, a man who denies climate change and openly supports torture.

Had the political climate been less toxic, had there been real debate and real outreach to disaffected white voters, this could have been avoided.

 

And yet, in light of this election, what has been the reaction? The Left has again been blaming white people as a whole, ignoring the whites who voted for Hilary in yet another cheap ploy to elicit a general flagellating. They have learned nothing, they refuse to change, they refuse to understand the basic idea of cause and effect.

 

Hilary should have demolished Trump, but her base was divided. And there will never be a solid Left-wing base, so long as virtue is measured by how extreme your views are.

 

Still, it doesn't matter. Trump won't last four years. He has won nothing. His own deviant nature will destroy him before his term ends.

Edited by Typhus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

As I said in the previous thread. The American Left needs to use this to purge itself of all radical elements, modernise, and appeal to those who voted for Trump. Their sanctimony, their extremism, their downright bigotry has enabled the election of a man who is very likely a sexual predator, a man who denies climate change and openly supports torture.

Had the political climate been less toxic, had there been real debate and real outreach to disaffected white voters, this could have been avoided.

 

And yet, in light of this election, what has been the reaction? The Left has again been blaming white people as a whole, ignoring the whites who voted for Hilary in yet another cheap ploy to elicit a general flagellating. They have learned nothing, they refuse to change, they refuse to understand the basic idea of cause and effect.

 

Hilary should have demolished Trump, but her base was divided. And there will never be a solid Left-wing base, so long as virtue is measured by how extreme your views are.

I sort of agree with parts of this, but I'm not really sure what you mean by 'extreme views'. Hillary is actually a very right wing democrat (was a right wing Democrat.. she's over with). I guess you could argue that the extent to which the mainstream has politicized identity politics, and race, in order to divide people, and distract from the issue of social class in the US, is an extreme view. I'm actually very left wing myself. I'd vote for Corbyn. But the type of people who are outraged about things like 'cultural appropriation' are making me think twice about really considering myself a progressive these days. The extent to which race is being politicized since recently is in my opinion divisive, and I feel it is purposefully used to distract from the political issue of social class in general. As long as there's a race war within the lower class, those who effectively own the country can continue with hording all the wealth unaffected.

 

If you look at the election result, there's probably a lot of Obama voters who actually voted for Trump. So there's just no way you can call all these people racists and sexist. It's a protest vote, which some complacent elitists just fail to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Me personally? None. A nation's stance on that question depends on the authority of the democratic majority.

And it seems that the majority in Finland does not agree with your stance; I suppose that's the advantage of having a single sizeable, demographically disparate, well educated, comparatively diverse metropolitan area comprising nearly 30% of the entire national population.

 

Race is easy to distinguish it's nationality that is tricky.

In general terms yes, but not when you get into ethnonationalism- that's much more complex. When you have people arguing about "preserving British ethnicity", but the genetic makeup of French nationals from Normandy and Brittany is closer to the genetic makeup of citizens of South-Eastern England than those in Cornwall, it doesn't really make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

 

As I said in the previous thread. The American Left needs to use this to purge itself of all radical elements, modernise, and appeal to those who voted for Trump. Their sanctimony, their extremism, their downright bigotry has enabled the election of a man who is very likely a sexual predator, a man who denies climate change and openly supports torture.

Had the political climate been less toxic, had there been real debate and real outreach to disaffected white voters, this could have been avoided.

 

And yet, in light of this election, what has been the reaction? The Left has again been blaming white people as a whole, ignoring the whites who voted for Hilary in yet another cheap ploy to elicit a general flagellating. They have learned nothing, they refuse to change, they refuse to understand the basic idea of cause and effect.

 

Hilary should have demolished Trump, but her base was divided. And there will never be a solid Left-wing base, so long as virtue is measured by how extreme your views are.

I sort of agree with parts of this, but I'm not really sure what you mean by 'extreme views'. Hillary is actually a very right wing democrat (was a right wing Democrat.. she's over with). I guess you could argue that the extent to which the mainstream has politicized identity politics, and race, in order to divide people, and distract from the issue of social class in the US, is an extreme view. I'm actually very left wing myself. I'd vote for Corbyn. But the type of people who are outraged about things like 'cultural appropriation' are making me think twice about really considering myself a progressive these days. The extent to which race is being politicized since recently is in my opinion divisive, and I feel it is purposefully used to distract from the political issue of social class in general. As long as there's a race war within the lower class, those who effectively own the country can continue with hording all the wealth unaffected.

I wouldn't consider Hilary an example of what I'm talking about. Regardless of her supposed corruption, she herself ran a very good campaign. And, in general, I don't even think you can blame the media.

If you want to see the problem, look at the people reacting to Trump's victory. People are burning the flag, going on Twitter and launching tirades against white people, openly calling for Trump to be assassinated, and so on. They don't see how it looks. They don't understand how this behaviour only strengthens their enemies.

 

I'm like you, I consider myself a progressive. Even in regards to issues like cultural appropriation. But all change has to be achieved quietly. Bigotry is like a bloodsucking tick, it has to be slowly dislodged. All these morons calling for some hazily defined "revolution" are the kinds of people who helped Trump win. And I'd like some acknowledgement on their side. I'd like to see some humility, some admission of guilt, and an actual drive to purge themselves of their impure elements.

 

It would almost be worth a Trump presidency if it meant American society could be cleansed of fringe Leftist extremists. Ideological purity is the only way to combat sloppy populism.

Edited by Typhus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I think those who think cultural appropriation is a relevant issue are regressive. I think they are working towards racial and social division within society. I do think this has completely been the media's fault. But those who control the six corporations that effectively own over 90% of all media aren't going to have to take the damage that a Trump presidency will cause. That burden will fall on ordinary people, like it always does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

I think those who think cultural appropriation is a relevant issue are regressive. I think they are working towards racial and social division within society. I do think this has completely been the media's fault. But those who control the six corporations that effectively own over 90% of all media aren't going to have to take the damage that a Trump presidency will cause. That burden will fall on ordinary people, like it always does.

I must respectfully disagree. I think keeping cultures seperate is a great way to engender a helathy respect between different peoples.

I mean, don't you find it distasteful for a white person to wear dreadlocks and pretend to be a Rastafarian? Or for some white person to wear a Native American headdress, ignore its history, and spout some vapid bullsh*t about us all being "one race"?

Culture is a beautiful thing, and so requires great protection and maintenance from outsiders. Mutual respect and distance is healthier than this persistent delusion that you can take what you want, do what you want, and it doesn't matter because you share the same species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I think it's none of anyone elses business how someone expresses themself. You can have an opinion about it, and say you think it's lame, but you can't say it's immoral. That's a divisive regressive attitude. And I think the idea that 'cultures should remain seperate' is the pinnacle of regressive attitudes.

And when you think about it, the whole practice of cultural appropriation is aimed at white people doing something non white. It doesn't apply to non white people doing something white. It is based on the idea that some cultures are fundamentally unique, and that white culture is non unique and neutral. It is in itself very racist. It's kind of similar to how many leftists think higher standards of criticism apply to Western culture than other cultures, which is a way of establishing that Western culture should be more heavily criticized because it is more robust and advanvced, which was the very thing they wanted to avoid by being a cultural relativist. Regressive attitudes turn on themselves, which is why these people end up with strange superiority victim complexes.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

 

 

As I said in the previous thread. The American Left needs to use this to purge itself of all radical elements, modernise, and appeal to those who voted for Trump. Their sanctimony, their extremism, their downright bigotry has enabled the election of a man who is very likely a sexual predator, a man who denies climate change and openly supports torture.

Had the political climate been less toxic, had there been real debate and real outreach to disaffected white voters, this could have been avoided.

 

And yet, in light of this election, what has been the reaction? The Left has again been blaming white people as a whole, ignoring the whites who voted for Hilary in yet another cheap ploy to elicit a general flagellating. They have learned nothing, they refuse to change, they refuse to understand the basic idea of cause and effect.

 

Hilary should have demolished Trump, but her base was divided. And there will never be a solid Left-wing base, so long as virtue is measured by how extreme your views are.

I sort of agree with parts of this, but I'm not really sure what you mean by 'extreme views'. Hillary is actually a very right wing democrat (was a right wing Democrat.. she's over with). I guess you could argue that the extent to which the mainstream has politicized identity politics, and race, in order to divide people, and distract from the issue of social class in the US, is an extreme view. I'm actually very left wing myself. I'd vote for Corbyn. But the type of people who are outraged about things like 'cultural appropriation' are making me think twice about really considering myself a progressive these days. The extent to which race is being politicized since recently is in my opinion divisive, and I feel it is purposefully used to distract from the political issue of social class in general. As long as there's a race war within the lower class, those who effectively own the country can continue with hording all the wealth unaffected.

I wouldn't consider Hilary an example of what I'm talking about. Regardless of her supposed corruption, she herself ran a very good campaign. And, in general, I don't even think you can blame the media.

If you want to see the problem, look at the people reacting to Trump's victory. People are burning the flag, going on Twitter and launching tirades against white people, openly calling for Trump to be assassinated, and so on. They don't see how it looks. They don't understand how this behaviour only strengthens their enemies.

 

I'm like you, I consider myself a progressive. Even in regards to issues like cultural appropriation. But all change has to be achieved quietly. Bigotry is like a bloodsucking tick, it has to be slowly dislodged. All these morons calling for some hazily defined "revolution" are the kinds of people who helped Trump win. And I'd like some acknowledgement on their side. I'd like to see some humility, some admission of guilt, and an actual drive to purge themselves of their impure elements.

 

It would almost be worth a Trump presidency if it meant American society could be cleansed of fringe Leftist extremists. Ideological purity is the only way to combat sloppy populism.

 

Your beef with the radical left seems to be that it is not the the centre-left. The centre-left Bernie types are not going to 'purge' people like me because they are not organised, they have no coherent ideology and have zero dialogue with us. They are not apart of our political movement at all, so I have to laugh at you basically demanding that liberals (the moderates you describe, a separate ideology) should basically take over our spaces and force us out of our own movement.

 

I don't know what to tell you, we have no interest in appealing to (white) nationalist sentiment, which is more or less what you want. We aren't going to hoist the flag and sing the national anthem, we have our own flag and our own international anthem. Not that I don't agree with you about failure to organise white southerners, but organising them doesn't mean pandering to their prejudice or their love for the Empire, it means educating them on why nationalism and whiteness are invented and false identities.

 

Our movement is about building solidarity between working people and between women, and on the basis of their membership in those social classes. Solidarity based on nationality and race is what we call 'false consciousness' and we fight this rather than try to co-opt it.

I think it's none of anyone elses business how someone expresses themself. You can have an opinion about it, and say you think it's lame, but you can't say it's immoral. That's a divisive regressive attitude. And I think the idea that 'cultures should remain seperate' is the pinnacle of regressive attitudes.

So Native Americans don't like you wearing ironic headdresses (they are very serious about this if you bother to listen), and your answer is that they are dividing us? Why do white people not share responsibility in this 'division' when they refuse to respect Native culture? Whites are the aggressors here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

So you think it's a moral issue if someone dresses up as an indian at haloween? If you think so, you have sh*tty priorities. Those who are wealthy applaud you for your sh*tty and divisive priorities. It'll make you completely ineffective and irrelevant.

You also missed this part of the comment: And when you think about it, the whole practice of cultural appropriation is aimed at white people doing something non white. It doesn't apply to non white people doing something white. It is based on the idea that some cultures are fundamentally unique, and that white culture is non unique and neutral. It is in itself very racist. It's kind of similar to how many leftists think higher standards of criticism apply to Western culture than other cultures, which is a way of establishing that Western culture should be more heavily criticized because it is more robust and advanvced, which was the very thing they wanted to avoid by being a cultural relativist. Regressive attitudes turn on themselves, which is why these people end up with strange superiority victim complexes.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KornbreadMaf1a

 

 

Me personally? None. A nation's stance on that question depends on the authority of the democratic majority.

And it seems that the majority in Finland does not agree with your stance; I suppose that's the advantage of having a single sizeable, demographically disparate, well educated, comparatively diverse metropolitan area comprising nearly 30% of the entire national population.

 

Race is easy to distinguish it's nationality that is tricky.

In general terms yes, but not when you get into ethnonationalism- that's much more complex. When you have people arguing about "preserving British ethnicity", but the genetic makeup of French nationals from Normandy and Brittany is closer to the genetic makeup of citizens of South-Eastern England than those in Cornwall, it doesn't really make sense.

 

I agree with you about people trying to claim being pure this or that because if you want to get technical there aren't many people who are completely 100% pure anything because somewhere in their family tree there is a bloodline that isn't pure. All it take is one person too because even if 99 out of 100 of your direct relation can trace their heritage back to where they currently live they don't have a pure bloodline. There are some places like the tribes in South America that live in the rainforest that have pure bloodlines but I'd be willing to bet 99% of the population in first world countries don't have a pure bloodline even if they think they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ClaudeSpeed1911

If we have to go to the first humans, Humanity is built on incest and the only thing that changed the features is that people got whiter skin the more they moved to the cold.

 

I don't see the logic of being "pure" because it never was there in the first place and we are all brothers and sister technically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

I want to return to the Electoral College for a bit. Despite its name, they never actually convene as a single body. Instead, the electors of each state meet on the real election day in December in their respective state capitols. And here they cast their votes for President and Vice-President.

 

This is not a secret ballot affair. While most states don't include a pre-printed ballot (I think only New Jersey does), the vote of each elector is known to all the other electors. Because each elector must 'cast' their vote six times, that is fill in six Certificate of Vote. And each of these certificates must contain the Presidential and Vice-Presidential vote, along with each elector's signature.

 

But even before those certificates are written and signed, they cast their vote and the votes are tallied, usually by someone not an elector themselves.

 

But who are these electors? Well, before the 'election day' (i.e. where the people vote), each party submits a list of electors they want, should their candidate win in each state.[1] And yes, every party has to do this, otherwise they won't be on the ballot. Because when people vote on 'election day', they don't vote for a President, they vote for a number of electors who have pledged to vote for a specific Presidential candidate.

 

In other words, it means these electors are likely to be loyal their party and their candidate. Which makes this petition to encourage some electors to be faithless a bit pointless. A faithless elector is an elector who votes for someone else than whom they've pledged to vote for.

 

The problem is, those electors that will vote for Trump/Pence on 19 December will already be loyal to the Republican Party. It's unlikely to see them become faithless. But - you may say - what if some Republicans who really hate Trump decide to cast their vote otherwise? It might happen, but it's unlikely that it will be enough.

 

President-elect Donald Trump will have to do something terribly shocking between now and 19 December for a significant portion of Trump/Pence pledged electors to change their vote.

 

I also learnt of an initiative called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The idea is to have it by law in the several states and DC, that their electors shall cast the vote for whomever got the most votes nationally, regardless of how their state voted otherwise.

 

But as you can tell from the map, it's currently only passed in states that would vote Democratic anyway, so it's not enough to flip this election back. Plus, the laws are written so that they only come into effect, if enough states pass the law to be the required electoral votes (currently 270). This will ensure that whoever wins the popular vote wins the presidency.

 

I can imagine this initiative getting more momentum now.

 

[1] A note here: While this is basically the same process in every state, there is no constitutional requirement for this, as each state can decide their own electors. You could even have the popular vote only be a recommendation to an already previously decided group of electors. You can do whatever! They just can't hold federal office. Or have broken an oath to the United States.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

    • Svip
×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.