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.
jasper76 wrote: 4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
And the fact that conservatives consider this a reason to vote for Trump shows how dysfunctional the whole conservative side is. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to have a university host you as a speaker, and the "OMG THEY DIDNT INVITE MY FAVORITE BESTEST FRIEND EVAR TO SPEAK" outrage from conservatives is just plain ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: It is what it is. People don't like that stuff, that's where they saw the country headed under Democratic leadership, so they voted against it.
This isn't saying good things about the level of awareness and intelligence of Trump voters then, given that all the safe spaces/trigger warnings/etc have to do with private citizens making choices about what rules to set for their personal property, not government policy. Voting for Trump isn't going to make any of that stuff change.
From my perspective, things like trigger warnings and safe spaces are antithetical to what I perceive as the function of higher education.
And just what function is that? Offending people in some bizarre masochistic ritual of seeing how much of a everyone can be before students drop out?
De-platforming speakers obviously has free speech implication, and I am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
How can you be a free speech absolutist if you don't support the right to say "nah, we don't feel like inviting you"?
It's hard to argue that conservatives are dysfunctional when they just won power over all branches of our federal government.
And I'm not talking about people not inviting people to speak. I'm talking about when they are invited to speak, and some uprising from progressive students and faculty who can't stand the idea of opposing viewpoints get the speaker shut down after they were invited (Richards Dawkins). Or having students from a conservative group invite a conservative speaker to an event, and in come progressive bullies to physically shut it down (Milo Whatever)
I don't question these institutions right to hire and fire whoever they want, but I don't personally find recent actions to be conducive to free speech.
As for conservative opposition to progressive culture in general, it is what it is. Whether it's wise or unwise or hypocritical or whatever, it exists and I seriously doubt it's going away any time soon.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/21 02:45:47
jasper76 wrote: It's hard to argue that conservatives are dysfunctional when they just won power over all branches of our federal government.
They won because a lot of voters are part of the dysfunctional mess, combined with the usual alternating cycles of power for the two parties favoring the republicans. It remains to be seen how long their hold on power lasts now that they actually have to govern instead of screaming "OBAMA SUCKS REPEAL OBAMA" at their rabid hordes, and all the promises they made during the campaign season are revealed to be blatant lies.
And I'm not talking about people not inviting people to speak. I'm talking about when they are invited to speak, and some uprising from progressive students and faculty who can't stand the idea of opposing viewpoints get the speaker shut down after they were invited (Richards Dawkins). Or having students from a conservative group invite a conservative speaker to an event, and in come progressive bullies to physically shut it down (Milo Whatever)
Sounds like you aren't such a free-speech absolutist after all, given these complaints about people exercising their right to speak and objecting to conservative speakers.
I don't question these institutions right to hire and fire whoever they want, but I don't personally find recent actions to be conducive to free speech.
That's because you don't understand what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking. It does NOT mean that private organizations (universities, forums, social media companies, etc) have to provide you with a platform to speak from, or can't change their minds about doing so once they give you an invitation. Milo and Dawkins have not lost any right to speak just because a particular university didn't provide them with an audience.
As for conservative opposition to progressive culture in general, it is what it is. Whether it's wise or unwise or hypocritical or whatever, it exists and I seriously doubt it's going away any time soon.
It exists, I acknowledge this. However, it's a sign of the sheer lunacy of a lot of conservative voters that the reaction to "OMG SOMEONE IS WRONG ON TUMBLR!!!!" is "vote for the guy who is going to screw you over so he can give all his rich friends more money".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It exists, I acknowledge this. However, it's a sign of the sheer lunacy of a lot of conservative voters that the reaction to "OMG SOMEONE IS WRONG ON TUMBLR!!!!" is "vote for the guy who is going to screw you over so he can give all his rich friends more money".
This is probably one of the most amusing, and depressingly accurate, metaphors for...more than a few people I know or am related to
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
jasper76 wrote: It's hard to argue that conservatives are dysfunctional when they just won power over all branches of our federal government.
They won because a lot of voters are part of the dysfunctional mess, combined with the usual alternating cycles of power for the two parties favoring the republicans. It remains to be seen how long their hold on power lasts now that they actually have to govern instead of screaming "OBAMA SUCKS REPEAL OBAMA" at their rabid hordes, and all the promises they made during the campaign season are revealed to be blatant lies.
And I'm not talking about people not inviting people to speak. I'm talking about when they are invited to speak, and some uprising from progressive students and faculty who can't stand the idea of opposing viewpoints get the speaker shut down after they were invited (Richards Dawkins). Or having students from a conservative group invite a conservative speaker to an event, and in come progressive bullies to physically shut it down (Milo Whatever)
Sounds like you aren't such a free-speech absolutist after all, given these complaints about people exercising their right to speak and objecting to conservative speakers.
I don't question these institutions right to hire and fire whoever they want, but I don't personally find recent actions to be conducive to free speech.
That's because you don't understand what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech means that the government can not censor you or punish you for speaking. It does NOT mean that private organizations (universities, forums, social media companies, etc) have to provide you with a platform to speak from, or can't change their minds about doing so once they give you an invitation. Milo and Dawkins have not lost any right to speak just because a particular university didn't provide them with an audience.
As for conservative opposition to progressive culture in general, it is what it is. Whether it's wise or unwise or hypocritical or whatever, it exists and I seriously doubt it's going away any time soon.
It exists, I acknowledge this. However, it's a sign of the sheer lunacy of a lot of conservative voters that the reaction to "OMG SOMEONE IS WRONG ON TUMBLR!!!!" is "vote for the guy who is going to screw you over so he can give all his rich friends more money".
Listen, if you want universities to be echo chambers where ideas opposed to progressive culture are supressed, more power to you I suppose. I do not agree, and I don't think these behaviors we've been discussing foster much respect for free speech amongst students, and in fact do the opposite.
I don't know what TUMBLR is. I assume from context it's a progressive website.
Believe it or not, it's possible for someone to just disagree with progressivism and vote according to their opinions, and not be a lunatic.
jasper76 wrote: Listen, if you want universities to be echo chambers where ideas opposed to progressive culture are supressed, more power to you I suppose.
I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that your definition of "free speech" is incorrect. Making universities progressive echo chambers is not a violation of free speech. Making universities conservative echo chambers is not a violation of free speech.
And, in any case, this "suppression" is highly overstated. In an official policy context most of the time it consists of little more than saying "donkey-caves are not welcome here", and students criticizing their fellow students have no power to force anyone to comply with their demands.
I do not agree, and I don't think these behaviors we've been discussing foster much respect for free speech amongst students, and in fact do the opposite.
That's because your definition of "free speech" has nothing to do with reality.
I don't know what TUMBLR is. I assume from context it's a progressive website.
It's a social media website with a lot of progressive users. Conservatives have a habit of pulling quotes from some random user's posts, often from someone with single-digit readers and no meaningful power or influence, as a supposed sign of everything wrong with the world.
Believe it or not, it's possible for someone to just disagree with progressivism and vote according to their opinions, and not be a lunatic.
I would dispute that in a lot of cases. And it's certainly not possible to go from "SOMEONE ON TUMBLR WANTS TRIGGER WARNINGS ON TUMBLR POSTS" to "elect Trump" without being severely out of touch with reality. Trump has no power to change any of these things, so voting for him as a result of disliking those elements of "progressive culture" is demonstrating, at best, a complete lack of understanding of how the US government works.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/21 04:08:31
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
TUMBLR is basically a microblogging site that has garnered a reputation amongst some groups, fairly or unfairly, as the Stormfront equivalent of the left. That's where you'll find the two or three actual nutzos claiming to be trigender-pyrofoxes from forest-rainbow world who *need* to clarify your pronouns and think all "cis het people" should die, but most of their stuff is really totally normal and the truly crazy stuff really is nowhere near as big as some make it out to be, though it does exist.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/21 04:08:51
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
@Peregrine: Do you think if a conservative speaker is invited to campus, and progressives crowd the stage, intimidate the speaker was th threats of violence, and shut down his platform is conducive to the principal of free speech? If you think so, I respectfullby disagree. I find it rather chilling, bordering on fascistic.
Your losing me with the TUMBLR stuff. I never made a connection between TUMBLR and Trump voters. The main point I was trying to make is lots of Trump voters are turned off by progressive culture, and that was part of the dynamic as to why some people chose to vote for Trump, or against Clinton.
I'd also add that your choice of incendiary words like "lunacy" and phrases like "severely out of touch with reality" aren't going to win over too many conservatives, but perhaps you are not interested in winning over conservatives.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/21 04:18:34
jasper76 wrote: So you think if a conservative speaker is invited to campus, and progressives crowd the stage, intimidate the speaker was th threats of violence, and shut down his platform is conducive to the principal of free speech? If you think so, I respectfullby disagree. I find it rather chilling, bordering on fascistic.
Threatening violence is a criminal act and should be punished appropriately. However, that's not what we're talking about in most cases.
The main point I was trying to make is lots of Trump voters are turned off by progressive culture, and that was part of the dynamic as to why some people chose to vote for Trump, or against Clinton.
Which, as I said, is not a reasonable thing to do. Neither Clinton nor Trump have any power to change these things, so allowing a dislike for trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc to influence your voting choices is a completely irrational act. It's just mindless "RAR TUMBLR BAD" rage overcoming rational choices about government policy, and a sign that something is badly wrong with US conservatives if it actually happened at any meaningful rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'd also add that your choice of words like "lunacy" and phrases like "out of touch with reality" aren't going to win over too many conservatives, but perhaps you are not interested in winning over conservatives.
I'm not interested in winning over the people those words apply to because nothing is going to win them over, just like I don't have any interest in being careful not to hurt a KKK member's delicate feelings by calling them a racist. The fact that the truth hurts and people would rather continue being wrong than admit it does not make the truth any less true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/21 04:19:46
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
From what I get from conservatives, many believe that the Democrats have become champions of and advocates for progressive culture. If they oppose that culture, I don't think ots unreasonable to vote against its proponents.
Incidentally, I'm only using the phrase "progressive culture" to distinguish the modern left from classical liberalism. I'm happy just to use progtessivism if it comes across better.
I'm not interested in winning over the people those words apply to because nothing is going to win them over, just like I don't have any interest in being careful not to hurt a KKK member's delicate feelings by calling them a racist. The fact that the truth hurts and people would rather continue being wrong than admit it does not make the truth any less true.
Fair enough.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/21 04:25:58
jasper76 wrote: From what I get from conservatives, many believe that the Democrats have become champions of and advocates for progressive culture.
And this is why they are not dealing with reality. The democrats have zero power to influence things like trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc because those things are done by private organizations, not by government mandate. Voting against democrats is not going to stop those aspects of "progressive culture" in any way. Anyone who believes otherwise is severely limited in their understanding of how the US government works.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
jasper76 wrote: From what I get from conservatives, many believe that the Democrats have become champions of and advocates for progressive culture.
And this is why they are not dealing with reality. The democrats have zero power to influence things like trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc because those things are done by private organizations, not by government mandate. Voting against democrats is not going to stop those aspects of "progressive culture" in any way. Anyone who believes otherwise is severely limited in their understanding of how the US government works.
Perhaps your correct that voting in Trump will have no effect on the current state of progressivism in education. Maybe being in charge of the Department of Education could have some effect, but I honestly don't know enough about what DoEd is all about. Progressivism is more than just education, though. Wealth redistribution, legal and illegal immigration, abortion, freedom of religion,vetc are all hot button issues with conservatives as well, and ones that certainly can be affected by the new administration and the new Congress.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/21 04:39:51
4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
Dawkins goes off the deep end about supporting christian militias to wipe the muslims out in Africa and Yiannopoulus starts harrassment drives against people and outs trans people with name and picture in public speeches to mock them. That's why those guys are unpopular.
jasper76 wrote: Maybe being in charge of the Department of Education could have some effect, but I honestly don't know enough about what DoEd is all about.
It can't change anything here. There is no way the federal government is going to impose a policy of "you must invite conservative speakers" on state-owned or private schools.
Affirmative action
Ah yes, I'll grant that this is something that electing Trump can limit, but the fact that conservatives care so much about ending it (especially with no alternative to replace it) doesn't say good things about them.
wealth redistribution
You mean like taxing ordinary people to pay for huge gifts to the companies owned by major campaign donors? Or is wealth redistribution only a problem when it's going to help the poor?
legal and illegal immigration
Also doesn't say good things about conservatives. And it's not going to happen, in any case. Too much money is at stake with companies that depend on the labor of illegal immigrants. The wall is not going to be built, mass deportations are not going to happen (at least beyond a token attempt to generate publicity), and anyone who voted for Trump thinking that he is going to stop illegal immigration is not dealing with reality. Trump is going to make a big show of "build the wall", then listen to his campaign donors, drop the subject, and find a way to blame the democrats for it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
4. I was more talking about guest speakers at universities being de-platformed. Some college banned Richard Dawkins, protestors showing up to silence Milo Whats-His-Name, etc.
Dawkins goes off the deep end about supporting christian militias to wipe the muslims out in Africa.
Source please?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Peregrine: I feel like you are constantly putting me in the position of defending conservatives and their ideas. But I'm not a conservative, so it's not my place to argue the merits of their positions, so I'm not biting anymore.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/01/21 04:48:29
Yeah, when we're talking actual professional trolls, it's hard to see there being an issue. A Yiannopoulos or Coulter isn't really showing up somewhere to have an honest academic debate over political philosophy and policy, they're there to rile up a gak storm. Maybe it's internal bias, but I honestly cannot think of an equivalent individual on the other side of the political spectrum to a Yiannopoulos.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/21 10:30:46
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
jasper76 wrote: @Peregrine: I feel like you are constantly putting me in the position of defending conservatives and their ideas.
You're the one who started off by saying that conservatives are being reasonable in voting for Trump because of trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc. If you want to concede that conservatives are not reasonable and stop defending them I'll gladly take that concession.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
jasper76 wrote: @Peregrine: I feel like you are constantly putting me in the position of defending conservatives and their ideas.
You're the one who started off by saying that conservatives are being reasonable in voting for Trump because of trigger warnings/safe spaces/etc. If you want to concede that conservatives are not reasonable and stop defending them I'll gladly take that concession.
I actually started off by saying that Trump voters voting purely out of "feth you libtards" was an oversimplification...but whatever.
Mitochondria wrote: I don't know where anyone gets the idea that because something is repealed it must be replaced.
Sometimes you just need to get rid of the garbage.
And sometimes the thing being repealed is arguably flawed, but accomplishes a necessary goal. In that case you can repeal the thing, but you need to have an alternative to replace it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
sebster wrote: So Paul Ryan is talking about his big plan to replace Obamacare. Instead of subsidies for insurance he want tax credits. Ryan seemed oblivious that the subsidies in ACA are tax credits. This is meant to be the smart guy in the Republican party everyone. Holy fething gak.
Any how, the other big idea is to get rid of the income section of the subsidy. So assuming the overall subsidy total is the same, what Ryan is planning is to massively reduce the subsidy for low income people in order to give money to high income earners.
Good job white working class, once again you voted to have less money so wealthy people can have more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him.
The party of personal responsibility won't even take responsibility for the man they nominated and elected.
sebster wrote: So Paul Ryan is talking about his big plan to replace Obamacare. Instead of subsidies for insurance he want tax credits. Ryan seemed oblivious that the subsidies in ACA are tax credits. This is meant to be the smart guy in the Republican party everyone. Holy fething gak.
Any how, the other big idea is to get rid of the income section of the subsidy. So assuming the overall subsidy total is the same, what Ryan is planning is to massively reduce the subsidy for low income people in order to give money to high income earners.
Good job white working class, once again you voted to have less money so wealthy people can have more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love this. Trump's winning is everybody's fault but the people who paved the way for him.
The party of personal responsibility won't even take responsibility for the man they nominated and elected.
Well, looks like I might loose my health care.
Thank god im healthy and the worst thing I have is a slight knee problem.
But atleast people that make more than enough money to get by dont have to pay their fair share.
So what I got is that they made one cost go down by splitting it into two costs, which are distributed in a manner that offers less aid to those who need it most, but that first number went down so its a win!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/21 08:27:39
Just been revisiting some of the stuff Trump said yesterday.
His goal to tackle extreme Islamist terrorists gets no argument from me, but I wonder how Trump will react when one of his advisors briefs him about Saudi Arabia...
And his call to bring the jobs back home is another goal that gets no argument from me, but having read and watched a ton of stuff about robots and automation, and its effects on society, those jobs are unlikely to ever come back...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
His goal to tackle extreme Islamist terrorists gets no argument from me, but I wonder how Trump will react when one of his advisors briefs him about Saudi Arabia...
Too bad his policies will result in opposite result. Extreme terrorism will just increase. He's not going to fix problem. He's going to fuel more of them. Just what the world needs...More extremists...
The more he acts the more crap comes out. One would assume eventually he couldn't make things worse but so far every action he does makes it even worse.
everyone can be before students drop out?
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
Legion: Dark Angels 
