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.

 redleger wrote:


so you then do believe anyone for Trump is one of those key words?

Ha, no. Here's what she said. "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? "

The road to hell and all that. Yes it is I am sure believed by many that by oppressing freedom of speech and marginalizing people who happen to be born white middle class is doing the right thing, but I would like to think the "enlightened" are smarter than that. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Everyone thinks what they do is the right thing for the right reasons, otherwise they would do the other thing.

The marginalizing of white middle class is not really an actual thing. I mean, it exists, but not to the extent that professional bloggers and talking heads want to talk about it while selling ad space.

It's like never going to the beach because shark attacks.


edit: fix quote derp

 redleger wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

IME, and in retrospect, the moment Clinton lost the election was when she towed the regressive line by calling half of Trump supporters racist, sexist, islamophobic, homophobic, you name it.

People are dead sick of this gak.

I thought "telling it like it is" was a laudable quality?

It's a bit funny, I suppose, but mostly sad that our political discourse has degraded to the point that our political opponents must be horrible people.

I have been at it against the regressives pretty hard in this thread, but I do believe, at least, that they are for the most part well-meaning and think they are doing the right thing in pushing their agenda.

The road to hell and all that. Yes it is I am sure believed by many that by oppressing freedom of speech and marginalizing people who happen to be born white middle class is doing the right thing, but I would like to think the "enlightened" are smarter than that. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I think by oppressing free speech, they believe they are protecting the weak (interestingly, this can be seen as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. behavior, because it assumes that minorities, women, gays etc. are too fragile or immature to be exposed to certain words or ideas...the soft bigotry of low expectations, and all that)

The best explanation I've heard over the animus many regressives display towards straight white males is that they have bought into the Marxist dichotomy of oppressor vs. oppressed, but instead of capital vs. labor, replace with straight white males vs. everyone else.

To be objetive here, the straight white males have been opressing every other group through all our history. And even today, you just need to see what the 90% of the most rich and powerfull people of the world is.

Those are facts and hard data. Different conclusions can we encounter here: Ones see that the opresive white males have constructed a system that today still perdures and just push down every other "variant". But as I'm not a social-marxist I belive that persons are individuals with his circunstamces, so they can have totally different opinions and ideologys independent of their "group". The oppresed can be opresors with ease.

My personal opinion, is that the opresive system no longer exist in reality, but it still "here" because it works to both extremes of the political spectrum, but to different objetives.
The left push it because its the "enemy", and they can just put everyone that disagree into the opresive system to evade all reasonable cryiicism.
And the right just label all reasonable criticism to the actual injustices as "SWJ propaganda"

And BAM, here its where we live today. Reasonable people its label as a SJW for ones, and Fascist or Bigot for the others.

And where the two sides fight to eat the bigger part of the pie, the real and actual problems are still here more alive than ever. And no one want to resolve those.

Its pretty depresing, when the "avatar" of the right are actual nazis (The one that receive a Punch, I don't remember his name). disrespectfulls trolls as Milo, or a multimillonarie with the ego fragility of a 5 years old, and the "avatars" of the left are persons like Hillary Clinton that represents every that is wrong with the political class, or people that critizise christianism at the same time just dance to Islam.

 Galas wrote:
To be objetive here, the straight white males have been opressing every other group through all our history.

To play the Devil's Advocate, do you think the straight white males who bled and died in the US Civil War to free slaves were oppressing African-Americans, or liberating them?

All ethnic groups have checkered histories, good mixed with bad.

Oh yeah, thats obvious. White Straight males opressed everyone, including other White Straight males with less money

But as I said after that, I don't think we can clasiffy humanity in groups, so yeah, I was trying to say what you say. Humans are individuals and they can be better human beings or worse, independent of their "group". Black people in africa has comited no few genocides and attrocities, for example.
Just pointing to what "group" the social marxist said the oppresors in history were part of. And as you noted, the fact that other straight white males have fought against that its normally "forgotten", because that just cancel core principles of the social-marxists.


In resume: If the group of White Straight Males opress everyone, including White Straight Males... have we a case of "One group vs the rest"? Or just people with a ideology imposing that ideology into others, independent of sex, colour of skin, etc...? Social marxist defend the one. I think its very clear that its the second. But what I know. I'm just a opressive White Straight Male. I can only be an "ally"; not even a feminist

I take a different option. Stop name calling, marginalizing and labeling and talk, figure gak out and quit calling people with different ideas names. Sam Harris has been attacked many times by his fellow liberals because he said things that challenge the intellectual stance they take. Instead maybe they should not shut him down with claims of racism, and sit him down and discuss his meaning.

When you are perpetually offended you are perpetually defensive. So the answer isn't white males once did X so let's do X to them in the interest of supposed fairness, instead focus first on what's the same between everyone, the desires to do good, and work on solutions.

To be objective here, the straight white males have been oppressing every other group through all our history. And even today, you just need to see what the 90% of the most rich and powerful people of the world is.

That is how you start the subjugation of any group is to start down that path. No one should be marginalized in today's society, how about that way of thinking, crazy isn't it.

edit: got on a real keyboard.

Maybe I explain myself very bad, sorry. I was just saying that to try to explain the vision of the social-marxist or the "far left" and then explain why I don't think its that way.

My vision on this its like yours, as I have said.

White Straight Males opresed everyone in the past, thats a fact. Now, also its a fact that other white straight males have fight against those opressors, so is (At least to me) a case of a ideologic group opresing people not based in ethnic/sex/race groups, but just ideology. And in many cases that ideology opressed other people based in sex/skin colour, but it was something of ideology, not the "group" of the opressors! White Males are no part of a group that "internally" dictates that they need to oppress others. And as crazy as that sounds, that is the core principles of Social-Marxist. That people its divided in groups based in sex, skin colour, etc... and if they don't think as his group should think, they are "alienated". Thats why they call traitors to those woman that don't are feminist (Or alienated) or black people that don't support the BLM movement (Or alienated. Or inside-ni***)

Sorry if I'm explain myself in a way that you think I defend the vision of the "White Males are all opressors"

I got it, and agree. I read through a bit fast first time I think. Not all of that was focused to you either.

Still waiting on this whole oppression thing I'm supposed to be doing. I don't know who it'll be, but I'm going to get rich and make someone miserable, somehow. I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or what I'm supposed to do when I get there, but I'll figure it out.

Any of you other white guys want to let me know how you got to take credit for someone else's really bad decisions? Still stuck on this one.

 redleger wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 feeder wrote:
[

I guess. I'm not willing to invest anymore time into the hand wringing hysteria that "the left is destroying our society!" crowd is currently circle jerking themselves into a frenzy over.

Yeah, this is a weird one. Even here in the Netherlands there are people blaming "the left" for everything that's going wrong here - even though we haven't had a left-wing government in well over a decade. Well, left-wing by Dutch standards, anyway.

well in the context we are discussing, the regressive left is why Trump won the election, and rightfully so. I mean their rhetoric was wearing thin. I am not saying I wished him to win, but when you sit down and think about how it happened, his campaign didn't win on its own merits, it was handed to him by people who were feeling marginalized and called names by the far left in order to win what should have been proper discourse. You can only attempt to talk with far gone liberals so many times before you realize they only have one tool in the tool box. Feminism today is along the same lines. Hold a door for a woman, we now label you a sexist. This thread is full of regressive ideology which is in fact how Trump won the presidency.Feeder is right , we will get republican after republican unless this stops.

So you're saying the people who voted for trump, were triggered and thought trump would create a safe space for them.

Plus with texas gerrymandering laws being declared unconstitutional, it might be blue in 2020. Then the republicans will be a dead party. Trump building his wall will definetly swing the state blue as his proposed wall will put texas land on the mexico side of the boarder. Trump will be the first president to see america shrink and lose territory.

 redleger wrote:
Sam Harris has been attacked many times by his fellow liberals because he said things that challenge the intellectual stance they take. Instead maybe they should not shut him down with claims of racism, and sit him down and discuss his meaning.

Sam Harris has been accused of racism because he keeps saying really stupid racist things. It's a frequent source of frustration that people keep thinking that he has anything useful to say, or that he should represent the atheist community.

That is how you start the subjugation of any group is to start down that path. No one should be marginalized in today's society, how about that way of thinking, crazy isn't it.

Acknowledging that the dominant group is in a privileged position and may not get to keep those privileges is not the same thing as marginalizing them. Straight white men have a long way to go before they, as a group, can be considered "marginalized" by any sane definition.

sirlynchmob wrote:
... Then the republicans will be a dead party...

Not to be a jerk to you or anything, but I've been hearing that the Republicans will be a 'dead party' since before Slick Bill was sticking cigars in places they don't belong, and it hasn't happened yet. In all honesty, the most that's happened since I've heard this is we got another Democrat President- and even then everyone was howling that he couldn't do his job because of 'Republican Obstruction'.

So, sad news- the Republican Party isn't going anywhere. But with any luck, it will evolve. Here's hoping we can get the war-hawks like McCain out of the office before it's too late.

 redleger wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 feeder wrote:
[

I guess. I'm not willing to invest anymore time into the hand wringing hysteria that "the left is destroying our society!" crowd is currently circle jerking themselves into a frenzy over.

Yeah, this is a weird one. Even here in the Netherlands there are people blaming "the left" for everything that's going wrong here - even though we haven't had a left-wing government in well over a decade. Well, left-wing by Dutch standards, anyway.

well in the context we are discussing, the regressive left is why Trump won the election, and rightfully so. I mean their rhetoric was wearing thin. I am not saying I wished him to win, but when you sit down and think about how it happened, his campaign didn't win on its own merits, it was handed to him by people who were feeling marginalized and called names by the far left in order to win what should have been proper discourse. You can only attempt to talk with far gone liberals so many times before you realize they only have one tool in the tool box. Feminism today is along the same lines. Hold a door for a woman, we now label you a sexist. This thread is full of regressive ideology which is in fact how Trump won the presidency.Feeder is right , we will get republican after republican unless this stops.

I thought Hillary was the reason that Trump "won" the election (noting once again she won a lot more votes than Trump.)

 redleger wrote:
I take a different option. Stop name calling, marginalizing and labeling and talk, figure gak out and quit calling people with different ideas names.

Such as the "regressive left", eh?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 feeder wrote:
[

I guess. I'm not willing to invest anymore time into the hand wringing hysteria that "the left is destroying our society!" crowd is currently circle jerking themselves into a frenzy over.

Yeah, this is a weird one. Even here in the Netherlands there are people blaming "the left" for everything that's going wrong here - even though we haven't had a left-wing government in well over a decade. Well, left-wing by Dutch standards, anyway.

well in the context we are discussing, the regressive left is why Trump won the election, and rightfully so. I mean their rhetoric was wearing thin. I am not saying I wished him to win, but when you sit down and think about how it happened, his campaign didn't win on its own merits, it was handed to him by people who were feeling marginalized and called names by the far left in order to win what should have been proper discourse. You can only attempt to talk with far gone liberals so many times before you realize they only have one tool in the tool box. Feminism today is along the same lines. Hold a door for a woman, we now label you a sexist. This thread is full of regressive ideology which is in fact how Trump won the presidency.Feeder is right , we will get republican after republican unless this stops.

I thought Hillary was the reason that Trump "won" the election (noting once again she won a lot more votes than Trump.)

Hilary didn't have to play the card of the illiberals by painting half of her detractors as racist, homophobic, xenophobic, you name it. But she chose to. I've heard it said that she was coming off the flu when she said that, and she didn't have her appropriate filter on. That makes it even worse, because it suggests she really believes it. She was a war hawk, too cozy with big businesses and questionable governments, and that played into it, as well, I'm certain. But adopting the language of the regressive did as well, and I personally believe that is what tipped the scales. I could just feel her chances to win the election plunge after she made those comments. Same feeling I got when Romney made his 47% comment.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In any case, as with all competitions wig a winner and loser, I think the outcome is determined because both the winner won and the loser lost, and not one or the other.

She did not paint half of her detractors, she broadly suggested that half of Trumps supporters were deplorable.

Considering how many Republican supporters on this very site say they do not support Trump but rather support the GOP, she wasn't even calling half of the GOP voters deplorable either.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
She did not paint half of her detractors, she broadly suggested that half of Trumps supporters were deplorable.

Considering how many Republican supporters on this very site say they do not support Trump but rather support the GOP, she wasn't even calling half of the GOP voters deplorable either.

Still an unwise thing to do. Politics 101 - don't denigrate the voters. Clinton should have learned this from Romney, but I suppose as with many other things in life, sometimes you have to learn the lesson the hard way.

Denigrating people worked perfectly fine for Trump though.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Denigrating people worked perfectly fine for Trump though.

IIRC, Trump denigrated Mexican illegal immigrants, but they are not voters. I don't recall him denigrating any group of voters during his campaign except the individuals he was running against, and Rosie O'Donnell.

I could certainly be wrong though. That was a long and tiresome campaign season and I didn't follow the whole thing.

 jasper76 wrote:
IIRC, Trump denigrated Mexican illegal immigrants, but they are not voters.

To be perfectly honest, he simply stated what any Border Control agent or what half of the DoJ will tell you- there's a lot of criminals coming across the border.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
She did not paint half of her detractors, she broadly suggested that half of Trumps supporters were deplorable.

Thats a distinction without a difference. Calling your opposition deplorable will harden their positions and drive independents away.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
She did not paint half of her detractors, she broadly suggested that half of Trumps supporters were deplorable.

Thats a distinction without a difference. Calling your opposition deplorable will harden their positions and drive independents away.

When people are supporting Donald Trump and continue to do so after he had been recorded bragging about sexual assault, their position is already as hard as diamond.

Another key thing to remember- what probably lost Hillary a lot of votes and support was the fact that she was not credible and was untrustworthy by all legitimate standards set by the US Government when it comes to handling classified information.

The 'personal server' and handling of her classified email was the nail in her coffin. Military personnel, civilian employees, and anyone else within the government would have been led away in shackles at most, or been stripped of their security clearance and fired if they'd have done this. I know, I've seen 18-year-old Privates get their clearance stripped and booted because they sent the wrong email over the wrong network. I don't care if it wasn't 'willful', that's not important, because if you're not doing it willfully you're doing it out of incompetence- anyone else would have been held to the standard. Mrs. Clinton could not be trusted with Classified information, something that her position would have required, and to this very day I say she should never be given so much as another person's Social Security Number and home address.

And whether you believe the conspiracy theories or not, the whole 'Pizzagate' thing probably made a lot of people uncomfortable. I'm a skeptic by nature, but after looking into that I can honestly tell you that if anyone on this forum would have posted some of the stuff those folks shared- the feds would be looking through every electronic communication device and piece of real estate you owned.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Denigrating people worked perfectly fine for Trump though.

Ya it did, because hillary was right.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
When people are supporting Donald Trump and continue to do so after he had been recorded bragging about sexual assault, their position is already as hard as diamond.

Careful how you paint things like this.

"Sometimes I shoot dudes, right in the chest"

FYI- I've never killed anyone. So I'm not bragging about a Murder. As far as the Justice System has been able to prove, Mr. Trump has not sexually assaulted anyone. Only one person has made the claim, and when asked to manifest evidence- she shrinks away. She was trying to dog him to get him to settle out of court and it didn't work. It happens quite a bit with rich people in the US- which is why if you talk to extremely wealthy people, they'll generally say that you have someone else in your home when you link up with someone for 'dirty deeds', just to have a witness.

People are scummy.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
When people are supporting Donald Trump and continue to do so after he had been recorded bragging about sexual assault, their position is already as hard as diamond.

Careful how you paint things like this.

"Sometimes I shoot dudes, right in the chest"

FYI- I've never killed anyone. So I'm not bragging about a Murder. As far as the Justice System has been able to prove, Mr. Trump has not sexually assaulted anyone. Only one person has made the claim, and when asked to manifest evidence- she shrinks away. She was trying to dog him to get him to settle out of court and it didn't work. It happens quite a bit with rich people in the US- which is why if you talk to extremely wealthy people, they'll generally say that you have someone else in your home when you link up with someone for 'dirty deeds', just to have a witness.

People are scummy.

A recording of someone saying they grab women by the genitals and get away with it because they're rich and famous is not the same as what you posted. There is no other interpretation for what Trump said.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
A recording of someone saying they grab women by the genitals and get away with it because they're rich and famous is not the same as what you posted. There is no other interpretation for what Trump said.

A man making a claim with no evidence to substantiate the truthfulness, AKA 'lying to make himself seem cool' does not equate him actually committing a crime. If I had a Nickel for every time I've heard someone claim to do some criminal activity to make themselves seem like a badass around some guys, I'd be in stiff competition with Mr. Trump, financially.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
A recording of someone saying they grab women by the genitals and get away with it because they're rich and famous is not the same as what you posted. There is no other interpretation for what Trump said.

A man making a claim with no evidence to substantiate the truthfulness, AKA 'lying to make himself seem cool' does not equate him actually committing a crime. If I had a Nickel for every time I've heard someone claim to do some criminal activity to make themselves seem like a badass around some guys, I'd be in stiff competition with Mr. Trump, financially.

Thinking that committing sexual assault is cool or makes you seem cool or tough or badass should also be grounds for nobody with any morals thinking he is fit to be president.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Thinking that committing sexual assault is cool or makes you seem cool or tough or badass should also be grounds for nobody with any morals thinking he is fit to be president.

I've walked up to a woman and touched her. She allowed me to do this. Did I commit sexual assault?

FYI, before you make assumptions- I'm not a grand supporter of Mr. Trump. I actually liked Mr. Obama, even though I disagreed with quite a few things he pushed. And I'm mostly a right-leaning person, except I'm 100% for LGBT rights and stuff. Some folks have gone as far as to say I'm liberal until you start asking about my rifles, and then I go full-blown MURICA.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Thinking that committing sexual assault is cool or makes you seem cool or tough or badass should also be grounds for nobody with any morals thinking he is fit to be president.

I've walked up to a woman and touched her. She allowed me to do this. Did I commit sexual assault?

FYI, before you make assumptions- I'm not a grand supporter of Mr. Trump. I actually liked Mr. Obama, even though I disagreed with quite a few things he pushed. And I'm mostly a right-leaning person, except I'm 100% for LGBT rights and stuff. Some folks have gone as far as to say I'm liberal until you start asking about my rifles, and then I go full-blown MURICA.

if the girl was under the age of consent, like 3 of trumps accusers, than you surely did.

Trump has more accusers than both bills. clinton & cosby. At least 20 with a pending court case this year for a new one.