Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry, the Trump Twitter Account Bingo already snapped up the 'safe space needed' square.

No, you're right, we should move on from him whining and talk about his settlement for his fraudulent university -

Our New President-Elect wrote:
I settled the Trump University lawsuit for a small fraction of the potential award because as President I have to focus on our country.

Oh, hey, I can check my 'bragging about screwing people out of their money' AND 'vomited all over the card' squares! It's a twofer!

sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No, that's wrong as well. You can hate Islam without being a bigot as long as you have well considered reasons for hating it.

bs. You can't decide to hate a billion people and be anything other than a bigot.

You keep conflating the ideology and the people who hold them.

sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You can still even be tolerant of people who follow those religions and still hate the religion.

"You're fine, but I hate one the most important parts of your life, even though I have no clue how it actually applies to your life" is totally fething bonkers nonsense.

Once again you are making it about the people, not the ideology.
You are essentially strawmanning by continuously misrepresenting what is being said.
In addition, I don't give a flying fundamentalist in what specific ways it actually applies to a person - because I am not talking about the person!

sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's not my fault you can't separate disliking something someone believes and disliking the person.

I am not separating the two because the distinction is bs.

The fact that you seem unable to - or recognize that some people are unable to - draw a distinction between the two doesn't prevent other people from doing just that.

sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's not a crock it just requires people to acknowledge that ideas =/= people. A Christian can be prohibited from condoning homosexuality due to his/her religious beliefs but still treat any LGBT individual he/she meets with civility and kindness. Avoiding sinful behavior while also forgiving trespassers and loving your neighbor is a core tenet of Christianity.

It's a crock because what is an abstract idea to one person, is a core part of another person's every day lived experience. Imagine someone telling you that set of beliefs you base your life around are evil, but that they have nothing against you personally. Or someone telling you that the most important relationship yo have, the one you are building your life and family around, is a sin, but they have nothing against you personally.

It's an obviously ridiculous thing. But people believe it, because they don't understand that what is merely an abstract concept to them, is actually a key part of other people's lives.

The fact that some people are so deeply invested in their given ideology to the point where they are unable to distinguish between the two cannot be my problem - especially if I go out of my way to clarify that I do make that distinction.
This applies to religious views as well as political - and everything in between.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I haven't seen to many SJW's advocating for "safe spaces" in the Dakka Dakka OT politics threads, we do have...lots of "'dem liberals/leftists" comments however.

I've seen people complain about SJWs advocating safe spaces far in excess of the proposed advocation from the supposed advocates.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I haven't seen to many SJW's advocating for "safe spaces" in the Dakka Dakka OT politics threads, we do have...lots of "'dem liberals/leftists" comments however.

I've seen people complain about SJWs advocating safe spaces far in excess of the proposed advocation from the supposed advocates.

I've seen POTUS Elect advocate for them, but I guess he didn't know it was just "dressing room" talk.

Steelmage99 wrote:


You keep conflating the ideology and the people who hold them.

He's simply refusing to split the damn hair.

One cannot simultaneously proclaim agreement/belief in an ideology while removing themselves from being measured by their stated thoughts.

Are people seriously trying to pass judgment on an abstract like religion? Everything you say you hate about Islam is based not on the religion but the way in which it is used by people. Rather than hate the religion, which is like saying you hate music because of the way some people make it, why not hate the individuals because of their practice? Then you can actually be specific as to who and what you don't like.

BTW, with all the "I hate Islam" talk going around I haven't heard one explanation of what you hate about it. What do you hate about Islam that is some how not attached to an individual's actions? As you seem to need to separate the religion and the person it shouldn't be a big deal to answer that question. Though, and here's a spoiler, you can't. That's because all this mioncing of words is just a vain attempt to cover up your own bigotry.

As I 've said before, it's OK to hate unreasonably. Just own that. Be honest about it. Don't be a wimp and so afraid of pissing people off.

ender502

 sebster wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Hey man, I got to live with that "gift".

Sorry my post was harsh, I do have sympathy for people who will be living with that gift, such as yourself.

Thing is, at this point I see Trump as just another Republican, albeit one who's got no interest in hiding the con job.

Given the importance of the USA to the world's economy, and as leader of the Free World, to use a loose term, everyone has got to live with Trump.

It is already clear that Trump is going to be the most corrupt and incompetent President since Warren Harding.

Oh, and in doing some research I ran across this quote from General Mattis.

Before you go further I recommend conservatives stop and just skip over this post.

Seriously, I am warning you.

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act." - General Mattis

I warned you. I did. Sorry if your vision of the man has been destroyed.

This man can in no way be sec def for Trump. He doesn't really seem into killing innocents.

ender502

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Given the importance of the USA to the world's economy, and as leader of the Free World, to use a loose term, everyone has got to live with Trump.

It is already clear that Trump is going to be the most corrupt and incompetent President since Warren Harding.

"May we live in interesting times" :/

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

Pence: I wasn't offended by 'Hamilton' incident, boos are 'what freedom sounds like'.

The good cop/bad cop nature of Pence and Trump will be an amusing way of them countering their critics.

No. It just makes Trump look like a thin-skinned impetuous fool.

Trump had a great opportunity to walk the walk as well as talk the talk about uniting the USA and stuff. As President Elect it is what he is supposed to do. Instead he went off on a brief Twitter jag whining about respect and blah blah and so on.

What a sad excuse for a soon to be head of state of the USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

However, he has proven that money isn't necessary to become president (ironically) and that if you are smart you can just camouflage inside of stupid statements to gain the White House. Meaning that any American can become president now, no matter how inexperienced you are and how little you understand about the position your trying to gain, as long as you also pander to people you are good to go.

I still wonder about that. Sure, the fancy charts show he and his campaign didn't spend as much as Clinton, but arguably he got just as much, if not more, media coverage as she did. He just didn't have to pay for all the free media he got. I bet if it were possible to somehow calculate how much media coverage (tv news, internet, print, etc,) each candidate got, and assign some standard dollar value to it, I suspect it would show Trump did outspend Hillary (just not with his money). But, that is just my suspicion.

@thread: Also, can we maybe move on from the religious stuff before we get the red text?

The normal estimate is that editorial coverage is worth 10 times the same amount of space of advertising. In other words, if Trump got a cover page, it's worth at least 10 full page ads (a lot more, actually, because you can't advertise on the front page.)

 ender502 wrote:
As you seem to need to separate the religion and the person it shouldn't be a big deal to answer that question. Though, and here's a spoiler, you can't.

I am going to avoid turning this into a discussion on religion, and simply respond in kind with; "Of course we can" and leave it at that.

Anyway, Trump's idea is nothing to do with religion. He just wants to register all Islamic people.

Perhaps he should make them wear a green crescent on their clothes so the rest of us can easily identify them.

This will make it easier for shop keepers and other businesses to refuse service, in accordance with Mike Pence's principles.

 ender502 wrote:
Oh, and in doing some research I ran across this quote from General Mattis.

Before you go further I recommend conservatives stop and just skip over this post.

Seriously, I am warning you.

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act." - General Mattis

I warned you. I did. Sorry if your vision of the man has been destroyed.

This man can in no way be sec def for Trump. He doesn't really seem into killing innocents.

ender502

I guess all the innocents that died as collateral damage in drone strikes and bombing campaigns authorized by the Obama administration don't count? Or does Obama fit your definition of a "conservative"?

 ender502 wrote:
Oh, and in doing some research I ran across this quote from General Mattis.

Before you go further I recommend conservatives stop and just skip over this post.

Seriously, I am warning you.

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act." - General Mattis

I warned you. I did. Sorry if your vision of the man has been destroyed.

This man can in no way be sec def for Trump. He doesn't really seem into killing innocents.

ender502

What are you trying to say?

I'm confused.

I really like Mattis.

 whembly wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
Oh, and in doing some research I ran across this quote from General Mattis.

Before you go further I recommend conservatives stop and just skip over this post.

Seriously, I am warning you.

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act." - General Mattis

I warned you. I did. Sorry if your vision of the man has been destroyed.

This man can in no way be sec def for Trump. He doesn't really seem into killing innocents.

ender502

What are you trying to say?

I'm confused.

I really like Mattis.

I think he's implying that Trump would be fine with killing civilians, and as such a general who's against that would not be ideal for him.
Which is pretty hyperbolic, and I'm pretty sure the president doesn't directly control the military. At least that's how it was during WW2, iirc.
As Sun Tzu once wrote "He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign"
Even if he does, having a more rational SoD would be beneficial, if Trump does lose his temper.

He also seems to be implying that everyone who's for Trump is super into civilians getting killed, and as such a general who seeks to be prevent that would be disappointing.
So..rule 1 breach I guess?

 whembly wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
Oh, and in doing some research I ran across this quote from General Mattis.

Before you go further I recommend conservatives stop and just skip over this post.

Seriously, I am warning you.

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act." - General Mattis

I warned you. I did. Sorry if your vision of the man has been destroyed.

This man can in no way be sec def for Trump. He doesn't really seem into killing innocents.

ender502

What are you trying to say?

I'm confused.

I really like Mattis.

I'm a bit confused, too. I don't know much of anything about Mattis, but that quote alone would suggest he would be a ... less impulsive influence on Trump? Trump is already impulsive. His national security advisor is supposedly the same. We would definitely need the SoD to be a more stabilizing influence over those two. Basically, we don't need a Curtis LeMay in all three positions.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
Oh, and in doing some research I ran across this quote from General Mattis.

Before you go further I recommend conservatives stop and just skip over this post.

Seriously, I am warning you.

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act." - General Mattis

I warned you. I did. Sorry if your vision of the man has been destroyed.

This man can in no way be sec def for Trump. He doesn't really seem into killing innocents.

ender502

I guess all the innocents that died as collateral damage in drone strikes and bombing campaigns authorized by the Obama administration don't count? Or does Obama fit your definition of a "conservative"?

Considering that Trump has called for innocents to die and not just sadly as collateral damage. I'd say yes there is a difference

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway, Trump's idea is nothing to do with religion. He just wants to register all Islamic people.

Perhaps he should make them wear a green crescent on their clothes so the rest of us can easily identify them.

This will make it easier for shop keepers and other businesses to refuse service, in accordance with Mike Pence's principles.

Its probably not going to happen. The first attempt by Bush failed.

 Ustrello wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
Oh, and in doing some research I ran across this quote from General Mattis.

Before you go further I recommend conservatives stop and just skip over this post.

Seriously, I am warning you.

"If in order to kill the enemy you have to kill an innocent, don’t take the shot. Don’t create more enemies than you take out by some immoral act." - General Mattis

I warned you. I did. Sorry if your vision of the man has been destroyed.

This man can in no way be sec def for Trump. He doesn't really seem into killing innocents.

ender502

I guess all the innocents that died as collateral damage in drone strikes and bombing campaigns authorized by the Obama administration don't count? Or does Obama fit your definition of a "conservative"?

Considering that Trump has called for innocents to die and not just sadly as collateral damage. I'd say yes there is a difference

So actually killing innocents isn't as bad as a policy directed at killing innocents that has yet to be implemented in any way?

Steelmage99 wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
As you seem to need to separate the religion and the person it shouldn't be a big deal to answer that question. Though, and here's a spoiler, you can't.

I am going to avoid turning this into a discussion on religion, and simply respond in kind with; "Of course we can" and leave it at that.

hahahaha.

Priceless.That;s about what I figured. Get challenged? Back down. The only thing better would be if someone said the source has a liberal bias.

ender502

Except the question specifically brings up whether the US military would refuse illegal orders. To which Trump says no, they would not even if they were illegal.

So, you are once again wrong.

Except that again ITS HYPERBOLE. Another interesting question in regards to this is why the left is so willing to believe this hyperbole while we have examples of Extrajudicial assassination of US citizens abroad. (BTW I support those as well, an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant regardless of nationality)

SemperMortis wrote:
Except that again ITS HYPERBOLE. Another interesting question in regards to this is why the left is so willing to believe this hyperbole while we have examples of Extrajudicial assassination of US citizens abroad. (BTW I support those as well, an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant regardless of nationality)

Before we go any further here, can we agree on who Trump is? Is he a loud guy who uses hyperbole all the time to make a good show of things, or is he an honest guy who always tells it like it is? Because the characterization of Trump seems to go back and forth depending on whether or not a particular thing he said is something people want to defend.

 Peregrine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Except that again ITS HYPERBOLE. Another interesting question in regards to this is why the left is so willing to believe this hyperbole while we have examples of Extrajudicial assassination of US citizens abroad. (BTW I support those as well, an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant regardless of nationality)

Before we go any further here, can we agree on who Trump is? Is he a loud guy who uses hyperbole all the time to make a good show of things, or is he an honest guy who always tells it like it is? Because the characterization of Trump seems to go back and forth depending on whether or not a particular thing he said is something people want to defend.

This actually would be nice.

On the one hand we have people praising Trump for his "straight talk" (which is the biggest load of bs I've ever heard, coming from a straight talk family myself I can assure you that straight talk is anything but straight).

On the other hand we have people who dismiss Trump's words as hyperbolic, bluster, or bafoonery. Just the ravings of a guy playing to his base, making it rather odd how easily his most inflammatory statements are dismissed.

One hand falls silent while the other speaks, and neither make any attempt to reconcile the contradictory nature of the candidate they both hold up. It's really very confusing. Almost like a game of political bait and switch, where both sides buy into a lie for the sole sake of being able to jointly bemoan someone else...

 ender502 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
As you seem to need to separate the religion and the person it shouldn't be a big deal to answer that question. Though, and here's a spoiler, you can't.

I am going to avoid turning this into a discussion on religion, and simply respond in kind with; "Of course we can" and leave it at that.

hahahaha.

Priceless.That;s about what I figured. Get challenged? Back down. The only thing better would be if someone said the source has a liberal bias.

ender502

You can believe whatever you like.

 ender502 wrote:
Are people seriously trying to pass judgment on an abstract like religion? Everything you say you hate about Islam is based not on the religion but the way in which it is used by people. Rather than hate the religion, which is like saying you hate music because of the way some people make it, why not hate the individuals because of their practice? Then you can actually be specific as to who and what you don't like.

BTW, with all the "I hate Islam" talk going around I haven't heard one explanation of what you hate about it. What do you hate about Islam that is some how not attached to an individual's actions? As you seem to need to separate the religion and the person it shouldn't be a big deal to answer that question. Though, and here's a spoiler, you can't. That's because all this mioncing of words is just a vain attempt to cover up your own bigotry.

As I 've said before, it's OK to hate unreasonably. Just own that. Be honest about it. Don't be a wimp and so afraid of pissing people off.

ender502

Curiously, no one has actually said they hate Islam (at least I don't think so, maybe). But rather I defend someone's ability to hate an ideology without being called a bigot because to be a bigot requires an irrational intolerance, not simply an intolerance. If you're going to start calling people bigots for simply disliking other ideologies then you can call almost everyone a bigot because we all disagree on at least some things.

If you don't think there's good reasons for someone to potentially hate Islam (or almost any organised religion for that matter) then I think that says more to your lack of insight.

Also I defend someone's ability to dislike a religion without being called a racist, because religion transcends race. Obviously if someone is against the actual race and not the religion then they're a racist, but it's disingenuous to conflate disliking a religion with being a racist in and of itself.

I've shied away from giving the laundry list of reasons I think are valid for hating Islam because this is a politics thread rather than a religious one. If you'd like to start another thread (I'd be impressed if it doesn't get insta-locked) or would like me to PM you a non-exhaustive list, sure. I was hoping people would realise that by the basic definition of a bigot you can hate a religion while not being a bigot and you can hate a religion without hating all the people who follow it, honestly I thought it was so basic that everyone would understand, my apologies Surely everyone has one or more family members that does or has done something they don't like but it doesn't mean you start hating that family member, or maybe it does for you guys?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If you don't think there's good reasons for someone to potentially hate Islam (or almost any organised religion for that matter) then I think that says more to your lack of insight.

I would counter propose that a religion with over a billion adherents is so monolithic that to declare a universal hate towards it requires a remarkable lack of insight, wild brush strokes, and heaping helpings of stereotypes. Maybe it's not racism, but it's still discriminatory. People in the US can't even define "Sharia" accurately (evidence by its constant misuse even in professional news media), so you'll find my sense that there is any real insight into the Islamic faith beyond the vaguest notions of it leaves me... unconvinced.

 LordofHats wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If you don't think there's good reasons for someone to potentially hate Islam (or almost any organised religion for that matter) then I think that says more to your lack of insight.

I would counter propose that a religion with over a billion adherents is so monolithic that to declare a universal hate towards it requires a remarkable lack of insight, wild brush strokes, and heaping helpings of stereotypes. Maybe it's not racism, but it's still discriminatory. People in the US can't even define "Sharia" accurately (evidence by its constant misuse even in professional news media), so you'll find my sense that there is any real insight into the Islamic faith beyond the vaguest notions of it leaves me... unconvinced.

One can of course criticize a religion as a whole assuming one addresses core concepts that transcends ,or is shared by all, denominations of a given religion.

Steelmage99 wrote:
One can of course criticize a religion as a whole assuming one addresses core concepts that transcends ,or is shared by all, denominations of a given religion.

The reality is you'd have as hard a time finding something worth criticizing as transcendent in Islam as you'd have in Christianity. It's a huge religion. Even in agreeing on seemingly simple things like the Five Pillars*, you're going to end up with different interpretations.

And if we all had a dime for everytime Christians went to war in the past over the choice of "one with" and "one in."

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
Are people seriously trying to pass judgment on an abstract like religion? Everything you say you hate about Islam is based not on the religion but the way in which it is used by people. Rather than hate the religion, which is like saying you hate music because of the way some people make it, why not hate the individuals because of their practice? Then you can actually be specific as to who and what you don't like.

BTW, with all the "I hate Islam" talk going around I haven't heard one explanation of what you hate about it. What do you hate about Islam that is some how not attached to an individual's actions? As you seem to need to separate the religion and the person it shouldn't be a big deal to answer that question. Though, and here's a spoiler, you can't. That's because all this mioncing of words is just a vain attempt to cover up your own bigotry.

As I 've said before, it's OK to hate unreasonably. Just own that. Be honest about it. Don't be a wimp and so afraid of pissing people off.

ender502

Curiously, no one has actually said they hate Islam (at least I don't think so, maybe). But rather I defend someone's ability to hate an ideology without being called a bigot because to be a bigot requires an irrational intolerance, not simply an intolerance. If you're going to start calling people bigots for simply disliking other ideologies then you can call almost everyone a bigot because we all disagree on at least some things.

If you don't think there's good reasons for someone to potentially hate Islam (or almost any organised religion for that matter) then I think that says more to your lack of insight.

Also I defend someone's ability to dislike a religion without being called a racist, because religion transcends race. Obviously if someone is against the actual race and not the religion then they're a racist, but it's disingenuous to conflate disliking a religion with being a racist in and of itself.

I've shied away from giving the laundry list of reasons I think are valid for hating Islam because this is a politics thread rather than a religious one. If you'd like to start another thread (I'd be impressed if it doesn't get insta-locked) or would like me to PM you a non-exhaustive list, sure. I was hoping people would realise that by the basic definition of a bigot you can hate a religion while not being a bigot and you can hate a religion without hating all the people who follow it, honestly I thought it was so basic that everyone would understand, my apologies Surely everyone has one or more family members that does or has done something they don't like but it doesn't mean you start hating that family member, or maybe it does for you guys?

I agree that it would probably be instalocked.

Religions are, by their nature, irrational things. They depend on people suspending reason. Critiques of "religion" are themselves irrational because they attempt to frame an irrational concept within a construct of reason. So dislike of a religion can never be rational. You can say you hate Christianity because of the psalms. But you might as well say you hate it because of the lack of flying spaghetti monsters. Both are equally valid statements when dealing with something that is, at its core, irrational.

I don't think they actually hate islam (someone used that phrase a couple of pages back as i recall). I think it is just code for racial/cultural bigotry. Which is fine. Hate away. Hate away for whatever reason you want. Just own it and be honest about it.

I think itis very fair to say that people (myself included) hate the acts that have been taken in the name of islam. But again, you could say that about christianity and spaghetti monsters too. So where does that leave you? Hating the people and actions. Those are the only rational target for hate. But top be that specific demands one heck of a lot of knowledge and effort. It also starts to make the world a lot more grey. And that is not something the "i hate islam" folks care to hear about. Why? Because the moment they must explain the rational basis for their hate of either the religion OR the actions means they are open to the same level and type of criticism. And in the conservative echo chamber their is no place for that type of critical lense to be turned back upon the viewer.

Now how does this all tie back to politics? Glad you asked.... Words have meaning and weight. When you run for presidennt they have more weight. When you win, well..as the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet those words have more weight. As Trump embraces ever further fringe figures and idealogues he is sending a very clear statement to the world about how he feels, how he will act and how America will act. So all of the anti-islamic hyperbole has a consequence. Those words have weight. The president is less free than the average citizen because they must be careful what they say lest they create real probelms.

ender502

 ender502 wrote:

Religions are, by their nature, irrational things. They depend on people suspending reason. Critiques of "religion" are themselves irrational because they attempt to frame an irrational concept within a construct of reason.

You have yourself just given a rational critique of Religion.

I mean, I agree with you over the impossibility of "hating" a religion yet not hating the religious. But your here argument is just plain moosepoop. I rationally dislike Dark Age paganism because I rationally come to the conclusion that sacrificing family members every 9 years is, rationally, dumb as feth.

It is entirely possible to dislike something, even heavily, and yet not do anything about it. That's the very definition of tolerance, i.e., to allow that which we dislike. The problem comes from believing yourself free of bias or prejudice on the basis of the simple heuristics of claiming to dislike the religion, not the concept.