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.
Stuff like this makes me glad of this thread's impending demise. It's really just noise at this point.
The frustrating thing is that it could be easily solved with a bit of self-discipline. if someone's arguing in bad faith for page after page after page after page after page, just refute the low-effort talking point ONCE for the benefit of the audience, and then move on. Don't address the "butbutbut!!!!!" response, don't engage, just let them declare victory and move on so that the adults can talk.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
Bran Dawri wrote: Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, by European standards, the Democrats would be right-wing, the Republicans far right.
And something I've wanted to say for a while that gets completely overrun by the "us vs them" narrative: It's entirely possible for someone to hold left-leaning views on some items, and right-leaning on others (ie, left on climate change, right on immigration, for instance). But of course, if all you're interested in is pushing your ideology, that is not a very convenient position and so must be glossed over before people begin to think there can be such silly things as rational dialogue and, I dunno, a little give and take.
Just so we are clear - socialism is a far left concept on the political spectrum.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Stuff like this makes me glad of this thread's impending demise. It's really just noise at this point.
The frustrating thing is that it could be easily solved with a bit of self-discipline. if someone's arguing in bad faith for page after page after page after page after page, just refute the low-effort talking point ONCE for the benefit of the audience, and then move on. Don't address the "butbutbut!!!!!" response, don't engage, just let them declare victory and move on so that the adults can talk.
Lol - arguing in bad faith. Another term that has lost all meaning due to being thrown around to describe anyone that disagrees with leftist concepts - just like the term racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, ect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: It’s easy to use big words if we ignore their meaning.
Are you denying that socialism is a far left concept? Do you know what ad hominem is? You are just now guilty of it by undermining my intelligence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/15 13:39:31
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
AdeptSister wrote: Also, I truly believe that even if there was a Trump "N-word" tape and it was released, it would change nothing. We just need to accept that while the number of people who identify themselves as republicans shrinks, he will always have support and the "true conservatives" will never revolt to try to reclaim their party. Why should they if the get what they want?
I definitely agree that it would change nothing because I think most people know what sort of person Trump is. After all, the dude did settle a series of housing discrimination lawsuits in the 70s, how much of a stretch is it to say that a dude who did racist stuff might say racist things, too? This is a guy who claimed the central park 5 were guilty even after DNA cleared them. And so on, and so forth, why list them all.
My interest is that he's already survived so many career-ending political snafus.... I want to see if he can unambiguously cross one of the last really red lines in terms of political discourse, and see the resultant handwaving. Would this finally be the thing? I don't think so. I don't think the thing even exists anymore. But I want to know.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/15 13:45:05
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
AdeptSister wrote: Also, I truly believe that even if there was a Trump "N-word" tape and it was released, it would change nothing. We just need to accept that while the number of people who identify themselves as republicans shrinks, he will always have support and the "true conservatives" will never revolt to try to reclaim their party. Why should they if the get what they want?
I definitely agree that it would change nothing because I think most people know what sort of person Trump is. After all, the dude did settle a discrimination lawsuit in the 70s, how much of a stretch is it to say that a dude who did racist stuff might say racist things, too? This is a guy who claimed the central park 5 were guilty even after DNA cleared them. And so on, and so forth, why list them all.
My interest is that he's already survived so many career-ending political snafus.... I want to see if he can unambiguously cross one of the last really red lines in terms of political discourse, and see the resultant handwaving. Would this finally be the thing? I don't think so. I don't think the thing even exists anymore. But I want to know.
Do we think this is just a blip, or will this be the new normal? What will it take for a return to decorum?
AdeptSister wrote: I find the thread to be helpful to get concrete information and a better understanding of certain demographics. While there are some who do not argue in good faith, some actually provide a good counter perspective.
Also, I truly believe that even if there was a Trump "N-word" tape and it was released, it would change nothing. We just need to accept that while the number of people who identify themselves as republicans shrinks, he will always have support and the "true conservatives" will never revolt to try to reclaim their party. Why should they if the get what they want?
Seriously - Open your eyes for a minute. The DNC was caught right handed using anti-Semitic language to describe Bernie sanders. I guess it just doesn't count because "Russia did it".
You are right though - it probably wouldn't change anything. Because..."words."
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
The Democratic Party \= socialist.
In fact, if anything, what happened to Sanders proves that the Democratic Party is more right than left, as they actively sabotaged his campaign.
And you didn't even begin to address my main points, so what was the point of that reply again?
AdeptSister wrote: Do we think this is just a blip, or will this be the new normal? What will it take for a return to decorum?
Widespread rioting, maybe, for the short term. Otherwise I think only the passage of a lot of time.
How has change ever really happened in the US? Actual question because I'm not sure. In the short term, in the last couple of decades, it only seems to happen as a response to intense rioting with the resultant fatalities - LA riots after Rodney King, Ferguson, Crown Heights.
There are some non-violent shifts that happen too, all of a sudden, and I don't know why they "stick" - like sexual harassment awareness in the workplace after the Clarence Thomas confirmation, #MeToo (if it lasts)... that kind of thing. Maybe this is a line of questioning for a sociologist or a historian.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/15 14:10:19
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
d-usa wrote: It’s easy to use big words if we ignore their meaning.
So let's discuss the political spectrum. What constitutes being far left or far right? Would we say someone who is an anarchist is as far left as you can go and that someone who supports fascism/some sort of non alterable hierarchy is far right?
I would say anarchism is the farthest left, then communism, then socialism (while recognising that there is no agree definition of socialism.) Social-democracy, where most European countries are, is the centre. We then move into the right wing.
The leftest wing of the Democratic Party is in the social-democracy area.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would say anarchism is the farthest left, then communism, then socialism (while recognising that there is no agree definition of socialism.) Social-democracy, where most European countries are, is the centre. We then move into the right wing.
The leftest wing of the Democratic Party is in the social-democracy area.
I can generally agree to most of that. So what are the degrees of the right? I think one problem we are having right now is that once we get slightly right of center most people don't have a word to differentiate between the different variants of conservatism. It just jumps from centrist to conservatives to alt right/nazi which isn't very descriptive.
How much did the LA Riots change anything? It did a lot of damage in lives and economics, but did provide lasting change in national policing? It feels like it did not, especially after the DOJ reports on Ferguson and Baltimore, but I am not sure.
LA riots: How 1992 changed the police By Regan Morris
BBC News, Los Angeles
The Los Angeles riots erupted on 29 April 1992 after four white police officers were acquitted over the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King. Anger led to days of looting and burning, 54 deaths and $1bn (£610m) of damage to the city. A state of emergency was declared in South Central Los Angeles.
In the wake of the riots the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was forced to change.
The grainy black and white footage of King's beating offered proof of what the black community had been complaining about for decades - police brutality.
Some LAPD officers reporting on disturbances in the black communities of South Los Angeles in 1992 used code to describe disturbances in their areas: NHI - "No Humans Involved".
Members of the predominantly white, male police force said it was "gallows humour" and regularly described the African-Americans they were meant to protect and serve as "monkeys" and "gorillas".
An independent commission to investigate the King beating detailed a culture of racism and abuse within the LAPD, where excessive force was not only tolerated but often covered up by fellow officers in a code of silence.
"With the Rodney King beating and the riots, that was the beginning of the end of the old imperial LAPD. Because LAPD had a very arrogant, 'we're above the law' attitude," says Connie Rice, a civil rights lawyer.
"It was the first time the black community's complaints couldn't be denied and swept under the rug."
The commission, led by future US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, depicted an out of control LAPD with rogue officers beating suspects and bragging about it over patrol cars' communication systems.
The report published the messages to illustrate the King beating was not an isolated incident. It noted that LAPD management monitored the messages but did nothing about the abuse.
Some memorable messages include:
"I hope there is enough units to set up a pow-wow around the susp so he can get a good spanking and nobody see it."
"I obviously didn't beat this guy enough. He got right back up and is still being obnoxious."
"The last load went to a family of illegals living in the brush along side the pas frwy [Pasadena Freeway]… I thought the woman was going to cry … so I hit her with my baton."
Caught on camera While the use of excessive force was not uncommon, what made the Rodney King beating unusual is that it was captured on camera.
The footage - and the ensuing outrage - forced the LAPD to change radically. But change did not come overnight.
When the Christopher Commission released its report and recommended ways to reduce racism, sexism and the use of excessive force, some officers reportedly held a bonfire party to show what they thought of the findings.
The LAPD was about 68% white in 1992. When the riots broke out, Bernard Parks, now an LA city councillor, was LAPD Deputy Chief - the highest ranking African-American officer on the force at the time.
"The big battle inside of LAPD was people trying to determine where they came out on the side of whether it was appropriate or inappropriate using force on Rodney King. There was a lot of tension around that," says Mr Parks.
"There were those who thought, 'Hey, what happened to Rodney King, he deserved it, he was running from the police. If he hadn't have done that the police wouldn't have done what they did.'
"And there were others, like myself, who said, this is inappropriate. No matter what happened before the camera came on, it couldn't justify what you saw on the tape."
Mr Parks, who became chief of police in 1997, says the video led to changes within the LAPD and that the community's complaints were ultimately taken more seriously.
Many of the Christopher Commission recommendations focused on boosting multiculturalism in the police force, so that the officers would better reflect the communities they patrol. The force has slowly shifted from a paramilitary style to more interactive, community policing.
Officers who were once appraised by the number of the arrests they made are now encouraged to prevent trouble before it happens, says Connie Rice, who has moved from "constantly suing" the LAPD to working with them.
"I've even got a parking space there," laughs Ms Rice, who has been working with the LAPD on a programme placing 50 police officers in four housing projects.
"Their job is to help communities become healthy so crime plummets in those housing projects. These cops will get promoted for demonstrating how they avoid arresting a kid."
Changing South Central While Rodney King may have been the catalyst that sparked the Los Angeles riots, the conditions in South Los Angeles are arguably what caused them.
The area was dominated by gangs and a lack of education, jobs and opportunity. Crack cocaine use was rife and young people often found joining gangs like the Bloods or Crips their safest bet for a future.
The neighbourhood has changed a lot in 20 years.
The crime rate is down. And the area is now called South Los Angeles and proudly boasts neighbourhood names, rejecting the toxic "South Central" and all its connotations of ghettos and violence.
The population is now mostly Hispanic, not African-American.
But much is still the same. South LA is still poor and struggling with gangs and a lack of opportunity.
While much inside and out of the LAPD has improved, Mr Parks says it is naive to think riots could not happen again, especially when there is such a chasm between the rich and poor in the city.
People who say they predicted the riots are kidding themselves, he said.
It is amazing how much this still applies for certain urban areas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Would it be fair to say that both the Republican and Democratic party are in the Authoritarian Right square, with the Democratics closer to the center axis?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/15 14:16:31
Wow, this thread is mostly pointless naval gazing.
In other actual political news, former a presidential candidate and two term governor of Akan Tim Pawlenty lost in his comeback to a fellow Republican. Of note, T-Paw was not a Trumper and was a key player in de-railing former Gov. Jesse Ventura.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/15 14:20:13
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Xenomancers wrote: Wow Ouze. The Dems literally had a runner up candidate (which probably should have won - if not for the DNC cheating him) Who is actually a socialist. You are pretty disconnected from reality.
Taken as a whole by their national platform and the bulk of their candidates, the US Democratic party would be pretty solidly centrist in literally any other developed nation. It's only by the standards of the modern US Republican party that anyone would label the Democratic party as a whole "far left".
A couple mild socialists, advocating largely on national healthcare, does not a far left or socialist party make.
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.
Bran Dawri wrote: The Democratic Party \= socialist.
In fact, if anything, what happened to Sanders proves that the Democratic Party is more right than left, as they actively sabotaged his campaign.
And you didn't even begin to address my main points, so what was the point of that reply again?
Sanders was an Independent who tried to hijack the Democratic Party. He's back to his Independent status.
Just pointing this out. He went on their ticket, but he's not "of the Party".
Well I can see why my statements would be confusing - you live in an alternate reality. You should listen to the Sam Harris podcast Waking up. I think you need to wake up.
Seeing as this is internet, sarcasm can be easy to miss... You're not actually sarcastic, are you ?
Yes, by European standards the US is fairly right-wing. To the US, Europe is fairly left-wing. It's just a matter of perception and neither side is inherently correct.
How much did the LA Riots change anything? It did a lot of damage in lives and economics, but did provide lasting change in national policing? It feels like it did not, especially after the DOJ reports on Ferguson and Baltimore, but I am not sure.
No, I suppose not upon reflection. Maybe just for a decade or so. Maybe less. So I guess I'm back to "I don't really know"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/15 14:50:01
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Xenomancers wrote: Wow Ouze. The Dems literally had a runner up candidate (which probably should have won - if not for the DNC cheating him) Who is actually a socialist. You are pretty disconnected from reality.
Sanders was and is not exactly popular with the Democratic establishment, because his ideology is counter to theirs. And that's with him just being a democratic socialist, not an outright socialist. Any leftist probes into the Democratic Party come from the grassroots and are viciously fought by its establishment. So the party itself definitely isn't leftist.
Compared to Canada, both US parties are right of our traditional "right" party, that is the Progressive Conservative party, and they are typically centre-right. Liberals are centre-left. NDP are moderately left, and then you move out to the fringe parties like the Green Party (Heavy Environmental focus) and further out you get the Communist party of Canada and similar groups.
On the Right-er side, the Partie Quebecois is a moderate Right party, though their focus is "Nationalist" policy and a desire to have Quebec, our primarily French province, be a sovereign nation, though that rhetoric has calmed somewhat in recent years. We had, and occasionally produce, a further Right wing party that is in the realms of "US Centrist" policy, which has been known as the Reform Party, Alliance Party, Wild Rose... These tend to spring up in our Prairie provinces like Alberta.
US Politics, both the Democratic and Republican, are too far right for Canadians, as a people, to elect. The Partie Quebecois has been our official opposition in the past (2nd place party) and the Reform / Alliance party may have been official opposition at one time or another, but I don't remember it. Good 'ole Preston Manning. Usually, you have the Liberal party or Conservative party as the ruling party, and either their counterpart or NDP / PQ as the opposition.
For example, a party would never be elected that proposed private health care. They haven't, to the best of my recall, even made official opposition when running with that as part of their platform. Even partially privatized health care would be political suicide in Canada, on a national level, anyhow.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would say anarchism is the farthest left, then communism, then socialism (while recognising that there is no agree definition of socialism.) Social-democracy, where most European countries are, is the centre. We then move into the right wing.
The leftest wing of the Democratic Party is in the social-democracy area.
I personally really dislike the camps concept to the political spectrum which is generally always misrepresented to be most positive to a favored camp.
Looking at what you want to achieve or your ideological perspective is better. I think if people spent more time looking at how and what they believe we might spend less time worrying about politics as a team sport and more about what needs to be achieved or not.
Bran Dawri wrote: Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, by European standards, the Democrats would be right-wing, the Republicans far right.
And something I've wanted to say for a while that gets completely overrun by the "us vs them" narrative: It's entirely possible for someone to hold left-leaning views on some items, and right-leaning on others (ie, left on climate change, right on immigration, for instance). But of course, if all you're interested in is pushing your ideology, that is not a very convenient position and so must be glossed over before people begin to think there can be such silly things as rational dialogue and, I dunno, a little give and take.
We've been at this point for a while now, too many people are hardcore Party loyalists who view politics as a zero sum game. Party are held to ever increasingly counter productive purity standards and any politician that even openly suggests he/she is willing to work out a compromise with the other Party is vilified by their own Party and shunned by the other. The US government is literally built to force compromise, we have a House to represent the needs of the People (intended to have a representative for every 30k people), a Senate to represent the needs of the State (until we wrecked that with the 17th amendment), a President to consider the needs of the nation as a whole, and a Supreme Court to ensure that the government only operated within the confines of the law. Now we have pretty much none of it operating as intended and it's not just going to magically fix itself some day.
We have our two Parties that must always oppose each other on everything no matter how internally inconsistent those positions become and they're backed by Party bases that increasing view the other Party as an evil dire threat to the country. There are tens of millions of voters that would never cross the aisle and vote for presidential candidates of the opposing party so there's no incentive for Parties to moderate themselves. There's a growing number of people who aren't being adequately represented. If I'm pro gay marriage and pro gun there's no party that takes both of those positons. If I want the Federal government to require employers to use the e-Verify system but I don't want stupid fething wall which Party shares that position? If you're pro choice and you want to empower parents with government supplied vouchers to allow them to take their kids out of failing public schools, which Party is right for you? There's plenty of reasonable people in the electorate that agree with positions both Parties hold but there's virtually no hope in us seeing both Parties working together to compromise on pragmatic solutions to problems anytime soon so problems will fester and worsen while both Parties try to pin more blame on the other for electoral gains instead of working together to make the country better.
Well I can see why my statements would be confusing - you live in an alternate reality. You should listen to the Sam Harris podcast Waking up. I think you need to wake up.
I had Wake Up Sheeple on my bingo card. This counts, right?
Bran Dawri wrote: The Democratic Party \= socialist.
In fact, if anything, what happened to Sanders proves that the Democratic Party is more right than left, as they actively sabotaged his campaign.
And you didn't even begin to address my main points, so what was the point of that reply again?
So rightism is synonymous with campaign sabotage? I level with you and admit that probably is more true than not over the last few decades. However - what is going on right now is exactly the opposite.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Bran Dawri wrote: Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, by European standards, the Democrats would be right-wing, the Republicans far right.
And something I've wanted to say for a while that gets completely overrun by the "us vs them" narrative: It's entirely possible for someone to hold left-leaning views on some items, and right-leaning on others (ie, left on climate change, right on immigration, for instance). But of course, if all you're interested in is pushing your ideology, that is not a very convenient position and so must be glossed over before people begin to think there can be such silly things as rational dialogue and, I dunno, a little give and take.
We have our two Parties that must always oppose each other on everything no matter how internally inconsistent those positions become and they're backed by Party bases that increasing view the other Party as an evil dire threat to the country. There are tens of millions of voters that would never cross the aisle and vote for presidential candidates of the opposing party so there's no incentive for Parties to moderate themselves. There's a growing number of people who aren't being adequately represented. If I'm pro gay marriage and pro gun there's no party that takes both of those positons. If I want the Federal government to require employers to use the e-Verify system but I don't want stupid fething wall which Party shares that position? If you're pro choice and you want to empower parents with government supplied vouchers to allow them to take their kids out of failing public schools, which Party is right for you? There's plenty of reasonable people in the electorate that agree with positions both Parties hold but there's virtually no hope in us seeing both Parties working together to compromise on pragmatic solutions to problems anytime soon so problems will fester and worsen while both Parties try to pin more blame on the other for electoral gains instead of working together to make the country better.
I think a lot of Americans would like compromise again. Democracy only works with compromise. I do not know how we can get back there until we at least come to a consensus about reality, though. Can we compromise on reality?
I think a lot of Americans would like compromise again. Democracy only works with compromise. I do not know how we can get back there until we at least come to a consensus about reality, though. Can we compromise on reality?
Based on approval ratings of the President, Congress, their actual politician, polling on key issues, etc. I am going to say....NO.
That is a big part of the problem and a lot of people are profiting on making sure reality stays unclear.
Edit: This has probably been true through much of American History.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/15 15:40:26
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Xenomancers wrote: Wow Ouze. The Dems literally had a runner up candidate (which probably should have won - if not for the DNC cheating him) Who is actually a socialist. You are pretty disconnected from reality.
Taken as a whole by their national platform and the bulk of their candidates, the US Democratic party would be pretty solidly centrist in literally any other developed nation. It's only by the standards of the modern US Republican party that anyone would label the Democratic party as a whole "far left".
A couple mild socialists, advocating largely on national healthcare, does not a far left or socialist party make.
The political spectrum does not change as more countries around the world become more leftist.
The scale stays the same. To argue that US democrats are not becoming more socialist is just idiotic as well.
Lets take a look at their main platforms -
*Redistribution of wealth
*Redistribution of power
*Socialized healthcare
*Universal basic income
These are socialist concepts - it can not be argued against.
Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would say anarchism is the farthest left, then communism, then socialism (while recognising that there is no agree definition of socialism.) Social-democracy, where most European countries are, is the centre. We then move into the right wing.
The leftest wing of the Democratic Party is in the social-democracy area.
I personally really dislike the camps concept to the political spectrum which is generally always misrepresented to be most positive to a favored camp.
Looking at what you want to achieve or your ideological perspective is better. I think if people spent more time looking at how and what they believe we might spend less time worrying about politics as a team sport and more about what needs to be achieved or not.
Certainly - I don't align with any party. The decision between the two is easy for me though. The party that taxes me less and puts less restrictions on my day to day. It's the easiest decision in the world to make.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/15 15:51:33
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
3500+
3300+
1000
1850
2000 
