This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2timspalding
Make America Argentina Again
3davidgn
>2 timspalding: A more perceptive quip than you would ever be willing to own completely.
6barney67
As someone with Italian blood, I feel some kinship with that country. I have not tried Argentinian food yet.
7RickHarsch
Barney, I teach in Italy, in Trieste, and have two Livorno folk staying the weekend if you have anything Italianate you would like to convey.
8Carnophile
A lot of Mexicans object to the US’s immigration laws and policies. Okay, let’s adopt those of Mexico!
9timspalding
>8 Carnophile:
Make America Mexico Again.
But, hold on. I'm thinkin' pretty soon you'll let us know how Russia handles things!
Make America Mexico Again.
But, hold on. I'm thinkin' pretty soon you'll let us know how Russia handles things!
10John5918
Sorry to see Argentina taking such a retrograde step. Meanwhile, some of the poorest countries in the world, including Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia, are hosting literally millions of refugees.
12Carnophile
>9 timspalding: Make America Mexico Again.
Well, it's hard to judge if we should follow Mexico's lead on immigration, isn't it? Which Mexican immigration policy should we adopt? The one they want us to adopt or the one they adopt for themselves? So confused! :(
Well, it's hard to judge if we should follow Mexico's lead on immigration, isn't it? Which Mexican immigration policy should we adopt? The one they want us to adopt or the one they adopt for themselves? So confused! :(
13Carnophile
From the movie Being There:
Q: What do you think of the President's economic policy?
A: Which policy?
Q: What do you think of the President's economic policy?
A: Which policy?
15barney67
>14 timspalding: I've gone over this so many times.
Let me ask you, seriously. Do you where those words come from, who wrote them and when, and whether they represent an American law? Do you believe those words are a law, should be a law, both, or what?
I know you must know this. But if you do, then why do you bring it up? I'm not being sarcastic. I really am curious. Because I just don't get why this point keeps coming up.
Let me ask you, seriously. Do you where those words come from, who wrote them and when, and whether they represent an American law? Do you believe those words are a law, should be a law, both, or what?
I know you must know this. But if you do, then why do you bring it up? I'm not being sarcastic. I really am curious. Because I just don't get why this point keeps coming up.
16Carnophile
>14 timspalding:
Ooooh, an inscription on a statue. Given to us by another country, no less. You got me there, dude!
Ooooh, an inscription on a statue. Given to us by another country, no less. You got me there, dude!
18timspalding
Let me ask you, seriously. Do you where those words come from, who wrote them and when, and whether they represent an American law? Do you believe those words are a law, should be a law, both, or what?
No, they aren't law. There are many American ideals and creeds which aren't law. The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address, the National Anthem, the Gettysburg Address, the "I have a Dream" speech, etc.
But just because they aren't law doesn't mean America isn't based on them, or that I must stand by while an ignorant and malicious politician rubs excrement all over them.
Am I the only one who finds this statement offensive?
I'm less offended by some guy's sexist fantasy about Argentinians than about shutting our doors to refugees, discriminating against Muslims, etc. But it's all part of the shit sandwich.
No, they aren't law. There are many American ideals and creeds which aren't law. The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address, the National Anthem, the Gettysburg Address, the "I have a Dream" speech, etc.
But just because they aren't law doesn't mean America isn't based on them, or that I must stand by while an ignorant and malicious politician rubs excrement all over them.
Am I the only one who finds this statement offensive?
I'm less offended by some guy's sexist fantasy about Argentinians than about shutting our doors to refugees, discriminating against Muslims, etc. But it's all part of the shit sandwich.
19jjwilson61
>17 John5918: Am I the only one who finds this statement offensive?
I just assumed it was a joke that I didn't get.
I just assumed it was a joke that I didn't get.
20alco261
>4 barney67: You forgot the 40% annual inflation rate. >6 barney67: Given that this post is factual with respect to ethnic background I find >15 barney67: odd in the extreme. Perhaps you haven't read much U.S. history but just about 100 years ago the view of many U.S. citizens towards Italians was equivalent to the current view of many U.S. citizens with respect to refugees, Muslims, etc. If you doubt this just google "anti-Italian immigration" and read all about it. As for the quote itself - the issue, as >18 timspalding: has noted, is about ideals and principles and not about law or who wrote those words or why they wrote them.
21Carnophile
I'm seconding barney's "Just send us your women." Only the hot ones, though.
If lefties find it "offensive," that's a bonus.
If lefties find it "offensive," that's a bonus.
22Carnophile
>18 timspalding: But just because they aren't law doesn't mean America isn't based on them
We weren't given the statue until a century after our country was founded.
The inscription wasn't appended to it until 1903.
We weren't given the statue until a century after our country was founded.
The inscription wasn't appended to it until 1903.
23John5918
>21 Carnophile:
Not sure what you mean by "lefties". This strike me as being rather dismissive and offensive towards women regardless of their political leanings.
Not sure what you mean by "lefties". This strike me as being rather dismissive and offensive towards women regardless of their political leanings.
24timspalding
Not sure what you mean by "lefties". This strike me as being rather dismissive and offensive towards women regardless of their political leanings.
You're not going to get an apology out of him.
You're not going to get an apology out of him.
25barney67
"There are many American ideals and creeds which aren't law. The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address, the National Anthem, the Gettysburg Address, the "I have a Dream" speech, etc."
This is worth thinking about. I don't want to give an impulsive reply.
Obviously, I don't consider Emma Lazarus's poem an American law. Nor do I believe it is a secular creed worth following or elevating into an Absolute that all of us must follow regardless of circumstance or situation. I don't give it the same weight as the Declaration of Independence, but I understand the distinction.
Lazarus was a Communist and atheist and so she wanted secular creeds to give her life meaning, and she wanted the rest of us she think like her, too. She Who Must Be Obeyed. Tim understands the distinction between law and creed. I doubt most Americans do. They feel they have to obey the big statue with the big words. That's the statue of Liberty, I guess. She Who Must Be Obeyed.
Not a bad name, though. Emma Lazarus. Sounds like a Star Trek name.
At some point, probably public school teacher, or someone in the press, or a relative or friend, impressed upon Americans Lazarus's idea, and did so in such an effective way that it became rooted, and soon sprouted into an obsession. There's also a certain amout of guilt attached to disagreeing with it, which no one enjoys. Better to alleviate the guilt by agreeing with it than to risk the terrible discomfort of guilt by disageeing with it.
This is worth thinking about. I don't want to give an impulsive reply.
Obviously, I don't consider Emma Lazarus's poem an American law. Nor do I believe it is a secular creed worth following or elevating into an Absolute that all of us must follow regardless of circumstance or situation. I don't give it the same weight as the Declaration of Independence, but I understand the distinction.
Lazarus was a Communist and atheist and so she wanted secular creeds to give her life meaning, and she wanted the rest of us she think like her, too. She Who Must Be Obeyed. Tim understands the distinction between law and creed. I doubt most Americans do. They feel they have to obey the big statue with the big words. That's the statue of Liberty, I guess. She Who Must Be Obeyed.
Not a bad name, though. Emma Lazarus. Sounds like a Star Trek name.
At some point, probably public school teacher, or someone in the press, or a relative or friend, impressed upon Americans Lazarus's idea, and did so in such an effective way that it became rooted, and soon sprouted into an obsession. There's also a certain amout of guilt attached to disagreeing with it, which no one enjoys. Better to alleviate the guilt by agreeing with it than to risk the terrible discomfort of guilt by disageeing with it.
26RickHarsch 
>24 timspalding: You would know--you are among the very worst on this site when it comes to admitting your mistakes. I wish all that faith you claim on the Aussie Catholic scandal thread was not the only evident quality you've taken from your religion--evident here, I mean. But I am lately lost on doctrine: know thyself as I know it comes secularly, so perhaps your own knowing of the self comes through knowing your deity, in which case your confusion of yourself with said deity is more easy to understand.
27Carnophile
>24 timspalding: You're not going to get an apology out of him.
It's almost as if Carnophile doesn't take lefty "I'm offended!" rhetoric seriously! If you can imagine!
PS: I'm offended by the more than half the stuff lefties say. No apologies yet! Sad!
It's almost as if Carnophile doesn't take lefty "I'm offended!" rhetoric seriously! If you can imagine!
PS: I'm offended by the more than half the stuff lefties say. No apologies yet! Sad!
29RickHarsch
If I am on ignore, then you would not respond. What I am posting is that your posts are hypocritical and cowardly. If you continue those weird obsessions in your posting I will respond as I feel the need. If you happen to be the person your posts suggest, we would say you have a stick up your ass, one, and, two, you are arrogant though not of nimble mind.
Spalding put me on ignore. Ouch.
Spalding put me on ignore. Ouch.
30John5918
>24 timspalding: You're not going to get an apology out of him
I'm not asking for one. But I've often heard from women, including posters on LT, that they wish men would challenge sexist and misogynist comments from other men. I have simply done so here.
I'm not asking for one. But I've often heard from women, including posters on LT, that they wish men would challenge sexist and misogynist comments from other men. I have simply done so here.
31barney67
>30 John5918: Those women you know? Ignore them. They're not the kind of people you want to know.
32John5918
>31 barney67:
Well, thank you. I think your own words illustrate my point far more eloquently than I can.
Well, thank you. I think your own words illustrate my point far more eloquently than I can.
33barney67
>32 John5918: I happen to think that calling people Nazis and mentally ill is more offensive than joking to send us your beautiful women. No contest. But then I rarely get offended, though I do get annoyed. Getting offended should disappear when we become adults. There must be an age where you stop caring so much about hurt feelngs.
34John5918
>33 barney67:
Thank you. Firstly, I have no idea what you are talking about with Nazis nor the mentally ill - I don't believe I have used those terms.
Secondly, I did not say I was (subjectively) offended, I said these words are (objectively) "offensive" to certain groups. There is a difference.
Thirdly, using offensive language against groups who have been discriminated against, while claiming it is just "joking", is a continuation of that discrimination. When I was a kid we used to make offensive jokes about the Irish, black people, women, gays, Biafrans and people from other marginalised groups. I thought society had moved on and that it was nowadays understood how such "jokes" do not simply cause "hurt feelings" but reinforce discrimination and marginalisation.
Edited to add:
Note also that your dismissive language is aimed at a whole group of people who have no choice about who they are. That is very different from an individual or a group who have chosen to be part of that group, and who can justifiably be criticised for their chosen behaviour rather than for who they are.
Thank you. Firstly, I have no idea what you are talking about with Nazis nor the mentally ill - I don't believe I have used those terms.
Secondly, I did not say I was (subjectively) offended, I said these words are (objectively) "offensive" to certain groups. There is a difference.
Thirdly, using offensive language against groups who have been discriminated against, while claiming it is just "joking", is a continuation of that discrimination. When I was a kid we used to make offensive jokes about the Irish, black people, women, gays, Biafrans and people from other marginalised groups. I thought society had moved on and that it was nowadays understood how such "jokes" do not simply cause "hurt feelings" but reinforce discrimination and marginalisation.
Edited to add:
Note also that your dismissive language is aimed at a whole group of people who have no choice about who they are. That is very different from an individual or a group who have chosen to be part of that group, and who can justifiably be criticised for their chosen behaviour rather than for who they are.
35barney67
I was referring to other threads, not anything you said.
"using offensive language against groups who have been discriminated against, while claiming it is just "joking", is a continuation of that discrimination."
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Total illogic. What group hasn't been discriminated against? For that matter, what person?
You fail to distinguish between talk and action. Even a seriously intended insult is still just an insult. Insults about race are so common they hardly meaning anything anymore. They ought to bounce right off us. They have always been around and they always will be. If you want to tilt against windmills, go ahead. But don't volunteer the rest of us for your quixotic, faux-moral crusade.
I would also like to know, since so much else is against the law, when is humor next? Only liberal political humor will be allowed, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. If you call that humor.
"using offensive language against groups who have been discriminated against, while claiming it is just "joking", is a continuation of that discrimination."
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Total illogic. What group hasn't been discriminated against? For that matter, what person?
You fail to distinguish between talk and action. Even a seriously intended insult is still just an insult. Insults about race are so common they hardly meaning anything anymore. They ought to bounce right off us. They have always been around and they always will be. If you want to tilt against windmills, go ahead. But don't volunteer the rest of us for your quixotic, faux-moral crusade.
I would also like to know, since so much else is against the law, when is humor next? Only liberal political humor will be allowed, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. If you call that humor.
36southernbooklady
>17 John5918: Am I the only one who finds this statement offensive?
I wonder how guys will feel when all those hot Argentinian women get here and then aren't at all interested in them. :)
I wonder how guys will feel when all those hot Argentinian women get here and then aren't at all interested in them. :)
37timspalding
The women of Argentina are considered "hot" in America because the country is beauty- and youth-obsessed. The whole culture is distorted by it. The anorexia numbers are through the roof, and, despite being still relatively poor, has one of the highest rates of plastic surgery in the world.
Personally, I find the whole phenomenon sad, immoral and profoundly unattractive. "Hot" is the least important thing out there. You, me, barney and everyone else is going to feed the worms too soon to worry about whether our ass is an inch too wide or our foreheads have a wrinkle.
Personally, I find the whole phenomenon sad, immoral and profoundly unattractive. "Hot" is the least important thing out there. You, me, barney and everyone else is going to feed the worms too soon to worry about whether our ass is an inch too wide or our foreheads have a wrinkle.
38jjwilson61
>35 barney67: I don't know where you live, but I can't remember the last time I heard a racial insult.
ETA: In real life that is, not counting this forum or on tv.
ETA: In real life that is, not counting this forum or on tv.
39Carnophile
>37 timspalding: The women of Argentina are considered "hot" in America because the country is beauty- and youth-obsessed. The whole culture is distorted by it.
Sweeping generalization about an entire Latin American country. So nauseatingly racist.
Sweeping generalization about an entire Latin American country. So nauseatingly racist.
40Carnophile
From now on, I'm going to refer to you as "Tim, the guy who said the whole culture of Argentina is distorted."
41Carnophile
>37 timspalding: Personally, I find the whole phenomenon sad, immoral and profoundly unattractive.
Quick, to the Bat-phone! (Dials frantically.) Argentina? Listen, Tim Spalding says you're immoral! And profoundly unattractive! Get your act together, for God's sake!
Quick, to the Bat-phone! (Dials frantically.) Argentina? Listen, Tim Spalding says you're immoral! And profoundly unattractive! Get your act together, for God's sake!
42davidgn
>39 Carnophile: Sweeping generalization about an entire Latin American country. So nauseatingly racist.
Argentina is predominantly populated by European immigrant populations, with many other immigrant admixtures, and a few small surviving communities of native indigenous peoples (plus many others of indigenous South American ancestry who have immigrated from surrounding countries). Much like the U.S., it's a melting pot of heterogeneous peoples. So unless you want to call someone who makes sweeping generalizations about the culture of the United States "racist," you're barking up the wrong tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Argentina
Argentina is predominantly populated by European immigrant populations, with many other immigrant admixtures, and a few small surviving communities of native indigenous peoples (plus many others of indigenous South American ancestry who have immigrated from surrounding countries). Much like the U.S., it's a melting pot of heterogeneous peoples. So unless you want to call someone who makes sweeping generalizations about the culture of the United States "racist," you're barking up the wrong tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Argentina
43Carnophile
Argentina, according to Tim: Sad, distorted, immoral, and profoundly unattractive.
Thank you so much for taking me and barney to school about our "offensive" attitude toward (blah blah).
Thank you so much for taking me and barney to school about our "offensive" attitude toward (blah blah).
45debavp
@43 carnophile--did you deliberately leave out the word phenomenon from Tim's quote?? If so,there's probably a job for you in the White House communications office!!
46Carnophile
From the Tim Spalding Twitter account:
Visited lots of countries in the Americas. Met with Temer, Lombardi, Bachelet. Fantastic people. Doing great things for that region.
Visited lots of countries in the Americas. Met with Temer, Lombardi, Bachelet. Fantastic people. Doing great things for that region.
47Carnophile
Not Argentina, though. Their culture is totally distorted. Lame!
48Carnophile
Upcoming trade deal: We are going to be so tough on that lame country, Argentina. So immoral.
49Carnophile
Argentina. Profoundly unattractive country. Sad!
50John5918
>35 barney67: You fail to distinguish between talk and action. Even a seriously intended insult is still just an insult.
Ever heard of hate speech and incitement? One of the things we have experienced in Rwanda and are currently dealing with in South Sudan is hate speech as a precursor to ethnic violence and genocide. Obviously I'm not suggesting that there is going to be genocide in the USA, but your artificial distinction between talk and action is patently wrong. Already in the USA and UK we have seen a marked upsurge in violence (action) against ethnic minorities following the rhetoric of Trump and Brexit (talk).
Insults about race are so common they hardly meaning anything anymore. They ought to bounce right off us.
Those are the excuses of the insulter, not the feelings of the ones who are actually insulted.
And I think in one of my earlier posts I pointed out that they were common a few decades ago when you and I were growing up, but that generally society has moved on since then and thankfully they are no longer so common, and when they do occur they are often challenged.
don't volunteer the rest of us for your quixotic, faux-moral crusade.
I have pointed out something you said (and you have since reinforced it with your own words) which I and many others consider to be offensive. I'm not sure how that is "volunteering the rest of us" for anything.
Quixotic? We shall see. But there does seem to have been a marked reduction in racist insults being used in a commonplace and "joking" way over the last few decades, and when they do occur they are often challenged. Of course those who intend to deliberately insult and offend will always continue to deliberately insult and offend.
Faux-moral? Well, call me old-fashioned, but I think it's rather moral to be concerned about the feelings of people who are dismissed and insulted.
Ever heard of hate speech and incitement? One of the things we have experienced in Rwanda and are currently dealing with in South Sudan is hate speech as a precursor to ethnic violence and genocide. Obviously I'm not suggesting that there is going to be genocide in the USA, but your artificial distinction between talk and action is patently wrong. Already in the USA and UK we have seen a marked upsurge in violence (action) against ethnic minorities following the rhetoric of Trump and Brexit (talk).
Insults about race are so common they hardly meaning anything anymore. They ought to bounce right off us.
Those are the excuses of the insulter, not the feelings of the ones who are actually insulted.
And I think in one of my earlier posts I pointed out that they were common a few decades ago when you and I were growing up, but that generally society has moved on since then and thankfully they are no longer so common, and when they do occur they are often challenged.
don't volunteer the rest of us for your quixotic, faux-moral crusade.
I have pointed out something you said (and you have since reinforced it with your own words) which I and many others consider to be offensive. I'm not sure how that is "volunteering the rest of us" for anything.
Quixotic? We shall see. But there does seem to have been a marked reduction in racist insults being used in a commonplace and "joking" way over the last few decades, and when they do occur they are often challenged. Of course those who intend to deliberately insult and offend will always continue to deliberately insult and offend.
Faux-moral? Well, call me old-fashioned, but I think it's rather moral to be concerned about the feelings of people who are dismissed and insulted.
51timspalding
Sweeping generalization about an entire Latin American country. So nauseatingly racist.
Ooh, I'll give you another one. America is distorted by an unhealthy focus on beauty too. But wait, there more. American culture is distorted by endemic racism too! (I think this makes me racist about racism, in your book.)
But wait, I'll add that modern conservatism has problems thinking straight about the distinction between cultural criticism, generalizations, and bigotry.
Ooh, I'll give you another one. America is distorted by an unhealthy focus on beauty too. But wait, there more. American culture is distorted by endemic racism too! (I think this makes me racist about racism, in your book.)
But wait, I'll add that modern conservatism has problems thinking straight about the distinction between cultural criticism, generalizations, and bigotry.
52prosfilaes
>51 timspalding: But wait, I'll add that modern conservatism has problems thinking straight about the distinction between cultural criticism, generalizations, and bigotry.
I don't think that modern liberalism is doing a whole lot better, or indeed people as a whole. They're weaponized in arguments, blurring the lines a lot. And they're hard to separate; there's a continuum from bigotry to cultural criticism, and there's a whole history of stupid "cultural criticism"/"bigotry" towards the new generation published in respectable magazines. On the other side, Losing My Cool would be judged pretty heavily if it was written by a white outsider.
I don't think that modern liberalism is doing a whole lot better, or indeed people as a whole. They're weaponized in arguments, blurring the lines a lot. And they're hard to separate; there's a continuum from bigotry to cultural criticism, and there's a whole history of stupid "cultural criticism"/"bigotry" towards the new generation published in respectable magazines. On the other side, Losing My Cool would be judged pretty heavily if it was written by a white outsider.
53timspalding
>52 prosfilaes:
I agree with you. Indeed, I think it's one of the worst problems with liberalism--the inability to distinguish between a generalization that appropriately simplifies, and is to be understood only on those terms, and a generalization that inappropriately applies something (either false or true) to individuals.
If you like, it's the difference between "DC has crappy schools" and assuming that because someone went to DC public schools, they are uneducated. Or, if you like, it's the distinction between "global Islam has a problem with extremism," which is true, and "Muslims are terrorists," which is both false and bigoted.
I have no knowledge of Losing my Cool, FWIW.
I agree with you. Indeed, I think it's one of the worst problems with liberalism--the inability to distinguish between a generalization that appropriately simplifies, and is to be understood only on those terms, and a generalization that inappropriately applies something (either false or true) to individuals.
If you like, it's the difference between "DC has crappy schools" and assuming that because someone went to DC public schools, they are uneducated. Or, if you like, it's the distinction between "global Islam has a problem with extremism," which is true, and "Muslims are terrorists," which is both false and bigoted.
I have no knowledge of Losing my Cool, FWIW.
54prosfilaes
>53 timspalding: I have no knowledge of Losing my Cool, FWIW.
It's a quite interesting book that might well be worth your time. A lot of the issue might be described by its subtitle: Losing My Cool: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-hop Culture. It's somewhat scathing towards what it calls "Hip-hop Culture", and basically argues that taking it too literally is the downfall of a lot of blacks.
It's a quite interesting book that might well be worth your time. A lot of the issue might be described by its subtitle: Losing My Cool: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-hop Culture. It's somewhat scathing towards what it calls "Hip-hop Culture", and basically argues that taking it too literally is the downfall of a lot of blacks.
55Carnophile
>51 timspalding:
Tim: “Argentinian spics suck!”
(Gets called out on it.)
“Uh... but the U.S. sucks too! So I’m totally not bigoted!”
LOL.
Tim: “Argentinian spics suck!”
(Gets called out on it.)
“Uh... but the U.S. sucks too! So I’m totally not bigoted!”
LOL.
56timspalding
>55 Carnophile:
Oh, no I think the beauty culture is worse in Argentina.
I'll be on the watch, now. if you make some criticism of any county's culture, I'll call it bigotry. Fair's fair. And bullshit is bullshit.
Oh, no I think the beauty culture is worse in Argentina.
I'll be on the watch, now. if you make some criticism of any county's culture, I'll call it bigotry. Fair's fair. And bullshit is bullshit.
57Carnophile
>56 timspalding: I'll be on the watch, now. if you make some criticism of any county's culture, I'll call it bigotry.
You've gotta be fucking kidding me. That's all *you lefties* ever do. You say everything's bigotry! (Racist, misogynist, etc., etc., etc.) You constantly fling around irresponsible accusations of bigotry.
Now you're suddenly finding you don't like being forced to eat the shit sandwich you made? Too. Fucking. Bad.
You'll eat it, Tim. And you'll like it.
You've gotta be fucking kidding me. That's all *you lefties* ever do. You say everything's bigotry! (Racist, misogynist, etc., etc., etc.) You constantly fling around irresponsible accusations of bigotry.
Now you're suddenly finding you don't like being forced to eat the shit sandwich you made? Too. Fucking. Bad.
You'll eat it, Tim. And you'll like it.
58Carnophile
And this will continue until I get a glimmering that some lefty, somewhere, starts to think, "Huh. Maybe constantly calling everyone a bigot for no reason wasn't such a great thing to be normalizing."
59RickHarsch
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
>57 Carnophile: You have no credibility if you cannot even approximate the political locus of your interlocuters. Ask Tim Spalding if he is 'lefty'. He's not even close. He would probably identify himself as something along the lines of a moderate Republican. I would call myself left of Che Guevara. My concerns begin with income inequality. Most anti-racists I know run a spectrum from left to moderate/centrist, with a sprinkling of Republicans. I would classify you as a floating right wing, reactionary unapologetic bigot.
60John5918
>59 RickHarsch:
I was also very surprised to see Tim incuded as a "lefty". I have found Tim to be right of centre, albeit certainly not far right.
>58 Carnophile: constantly calling everyone a bigot for no reason
I suspect that if ever we found ourselves constantly calling everyone a bigot for no reason we would indeed have to think again. But disagreeing with individuals and (shock! horror!) actually asking them for evidence and reasoning for their attacks on certain classes of people is not "constantly calling everyone a bigot for no reason".
I was also very surprised to see Tim incuded as a "lefty". I have found Tim to be right of centre, albeit certainly not far right.
>58 Carnophile: constantly calling everyone a bigot for no reason
I suspect that if ever we found ourselves constantly calling everyone a bigot for no reason we would indeed have to think again. But disagreeing with individuals and (shock! horror!) actually asking them for evidence and reasoning for their attacks on certain classes of people is not "constantly calling everyone a bigot for no reason".
62Carnophile
>61 timspalding: I'm not a racist...
...said the person who called Argentina distorted, sad, immoral and profoundly unattractive.
...said the person who called Argentina distorted, sad, immoral and profoundly unattractive.
63Carnophile
Posts 59 and 60 above dispute that Tim is politically leftist. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is honestly erroneous and not just blowing smoke, it mistakes Tim's average politics over the last 8 years or so with his current politics. Recently, he's undergone a very noticeable shift.
65RickHarsch
What race is Argentine again?
Is Spalding a left leaning anti-Argentine?
>63 Carnophile: I can't argue with you there, as I've only witnessed about five years of his rather conservative posts. Truly, you are a different kind of conservative, what I would call and issue-oriented conservative, ranging in rabidity from issue to issue, but generally if there's an side to an issue that calls for high-swinery, it calls for thee. Spalding is more fundamentally, more groundedly, conservative. If an issue calls for him, he will stroll up to it, give it a sniff, perhaps spit towards it, and rapidly disappear holding his nose.
Is Spalding a left leaning anti-Argentine?
>63 Carnophile: I can't argue with you there, as I've only witnessed about five years of his rather conservative posts. Truly, you are a different kind of conservative, what I would call and issue-oriented conservative, ranging in rabidity from issue to issue, but generally if there's an side to an issue that calls for high-swinery, it calls for thee. Spalding is more fundamentally, more groundedly, conservative. If an issue calls for him, he will stroll up to it, give it a sniff, perhaps spit towards it, and rapidly disappear holding his nose.
66timspalding
>63 Carnophile:
On the contrary, I would feel fairly comfortable within the large-tent Republican party of some years ago--I was a Republican until the Republican primaries, when I cast my last vote, washed my hands of it all, and de-registered.
We are seeing one of those once-in-a-generation-or-two party realignments. To some extent with the Tea Party, but in earnest since Trump, we've seen the breakdown of the Party's classic wings--"Establishment," social conservatives, libertarian conservatives, etc.--under a unified banner of hostility, bigotry and know-nothingness. I was never a social conservative, but it's notable how Trump's recent Join Session speech didn't even throw them a bone. It was all crude, big-man, big-government nationalism now. It's shocking, dispiriting, and disgusting to me how the Party has fallen in line behind this posturing, hateful, moral and intellectual wreck. Now we've got religious tests at the border, open admiration of a Russian autocrat, and a special White House office to produce regular lists of crimes committed by immigrants. Shame on everyone who brought this about.
One can only hope that incompetence, a renewed sense of decency, and, I suspect, evidence of collusion with the Russians, save our country from him. But the Trumpified Republican party is probably here to stay. Shame on them above all.
On the contrary, I would feel fairly comfortable within the large-tent Republican party of some years ago--I was a Republican until the Republican primaries, when I cast my last vote, washed my hands of it all, and de-registered.
We are seeing one of those once-in-a-generation-or-two party realignments. To some extent with the Tea Party, but in earnest since Trump, we've seen the breakdown of the Party's classic wings--"Establishment," social conservatives, libertarian conservatives, etc.--under a unified banner of hostility, bigotry and know-nothingness. I was never a social conservative, but it's notable how Trump's recent Join Session speech didn't even throw them a bone. It was all crude, big-man, big-government nationalism now. It's shocking, dispiriting, and disgusting to me how the Party has fallen in line behind this posturing, hateful, moral and intellectual wreck. Now we've got religious tests at the border, open admiration of a Russian autocrat, and a special White House office to produce regular lists of crimes committed by immigrants. Shame on everyone who brought this about.
One can only hope that incompetence, a renewed sense of decency, and, I suspect, evidence of collusion with the Russians, save our country from him. But the Trumpified Republican party is probably here to stay. Shame on them above all.
67RickHarsch
Wow, lots of flags. I still think there should be a flag of a different color, a flag with no concomitant punishment, for posting bad faith comments, or behaving here in general in bad faith. I am amazed that I can't call Carnophile a bigot. I don't think it is an attack on his person because he does not hide from it in his posts. In this case it's no worse than calling me a leftist.
68davidgn
>66 timspalding: evidence of collusion with the Russians
Rest assured, we'll continue to find it in spades -- whether it exists or not.
Rest assured, we'll continue to find it in spades -- whether it exists or not.
69RickHarsch
>66 timspalding: You're setting yourself up for such puerile cheap shots as 'Alex Jones is calling'
70lriley
One of the issues I had with Hillary was her belligerence to the Russians. I'm pretty sick and tired of all our overseas adventures and all the drum beating that goes along with it. Her campaign IMO would have been a much better one if she would have focused more on domestic issues--but it's those pesky domestic issues like affordable health care, infrastructure reinvestment, clean air and water and the improving of our employment picture that no major party politician really wants to address seriously because their big donors will abandon them so.....
Tim, who only believes in big party politics---well there's only one place left to go if he's dropped the GOP and that's the democrats who are in disarray. I think the general view then is he would be a lefty but I'm sorry the general view is not mine and IMO he is very much not a lefty--more like a center rightist and the democrats do have a lot of those. You've found your new home.
As for the flags--I don't know....the flag thing is just goofy to me. Does someone keep track of all that?
Tim, who only believes in big party politics---well there's only one place left to go if he's dropped the GOP and that's the democrats who are in disarray. I think the general view then is he would be a lefty but I'm sorry the general view is not mine and IMO he is very much not a lefty--more like a center rightist and the democrats do have a lot of those. You've found your new home.
As for the flags--I don't know....the flag thing is just goofy to me. Does someone keep track of all that?
71Carnophile
>66 timspalding:
You deny that you're leftist and then post 66 is a blast of boilerplate extreme-left talking points!
For example:
I suspect, evidence of collusion with the Russians
FFS Tim, you're running through the fever swamps naked, baying at the moon.
And the sad thing is, you're so far into the fever swamps, you don't even realize that you're in the fever swamps!
You deny that you're leftist and then post 66 is a blast of boilerplate extreme-left talking points!
For example:
I suspect, evidence of collusion with the Russians
FFS Tim, you're running through the fever swamps naked, baying at the moon.
And the sad thing is, you're so far into the fever swamps, you don't even realize that you're in the fever swamps!
72Carnophile
#67
Ho ho ho ho holy shit! I really got under your skin, didn't I?
It's always so surprising/interesting to me when this happens without my even trying.
Ho ho ho ho holy shit! I really got under your skin, didn't I?
It's always so surprising/interesting to me when this happens without my even trying.
73RickHarsch
If you'd like to think so.
74timspalding
You deny that you're leftist and then post 66 is a blast of boilerplate extreme-left talking points!
The interesting thing here isn't that Carnophile thinks I'm wrong, but his argument is that Trump-Russia ties are an "extreme left" talking point. At this point, certain segments of the population are simply beyond questions of truth and falsehood--the difficult business of weighing facts and thinking through arguments--and rely purely on who says what, and whether they're political friends or foes. If Trump, Fox News, Breitbart or Alex Jones says something, they believe it; it's Gospel to them. If most Democrats--and for that matter not a few Conservatives who aren't Trumpians--say so, they call it "extreme left" and don't.
The interesting thing here isn't that Carnophile thinks I'm wrong, but his argument is that Trump-Russia ties are an "extreme left" talking point. At this point, certain segments of the population are simply beyond questions of truth and falsehood--the difficult business of weighing facts and thinking through arguments--and rely purely on who says what, and whether they're political friends or foes. If Trump, Fox News, Breitbart or Alex Jones says something, they believe it; it's Gospel to them. If most Democrats--and for that matter not a few Conservatives who aren't Trumpians--say so, they call it "extreme left" and don't.
75RickHarsch
>74 timspalding: What I find interesting is that left and right have become associated with minutiae. Whatever someone thinks about Trump's ties with Russia, there is no telling whether the person is left or right. If Trump is guilty of financial malfeasance, then he is, and wanting him punished for it is not a subject for the political spectrum. If someone suspects that the Russian involvement in the election is all hype, that, too, is a position that lacks definition.
Regarding racism, if it is still a left of center issue that's a shame.
Regarding racism, if it is still a left of center issue that's a shame.
76Carnophile
>74 timspalding: At this point, certain segments of the population are simply beyond questions of truth and falsehood
I like the unintentional zen of this statement.
I like the unintentional zen of this statement.
77RickHarsch
>71 Carnophile:
Here is the list of Spalding's 'leftist' thoughts: 'Now we've got religious tests at the border, open admiration of a Russian autocrat, and a special White House office to produce regular lists of crimes committed by immigrants.' The sounds to me like standard issue anti-fascist thinking. That implies that right of Spalding is fascist in Carnophile's view, which implies...
Here is the list of Spalding's 'leftist' thoughts: 'Now we've got religious tests at the border, open admiration of a Russian autocrat, and a special White House office to produce regular lists of crimes committed by immigrants.' The sounds to me like standard issue anti-fascist thinking. That implies that right of Spalding is fascist in Carnophile's view, which implies...
78krolik
People can change their minds. Often a good thing, too. Boxes are tiring.
But if we can wind back some of the personal conflict here--I have a more general question for Carnophile.
I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that you were a libertarian. Now I have the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that you're more OK now with a statist leader.
We've argued a bunch of times in the past, but I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I'm simply wondering if, in the current context, your thinking has changed, and if so, why? It might clarify some matters.
Personal stuff aside...any thoughts you care to share?
But if we can wind back some of the personal conflict here--I have a more general question for Carnophile.
I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that you were a libertarian. Now I have the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that you're more OK now with a statist leader.
We've argued a bunch of times in the past, but I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I'm simply wondering if, in the current context, your thinking has changed, and if so, why? It might clarify some matters.
Personal stuff aside...any thoughts you care to share?
79Carnophile
>78 krolik: I had thought (perhaps incorrectly) that you were a libertarian. Now I have the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that you're more OK now with a (non-libertarian) leader.
I’ve been wondering if anyone was going to notice that.
I was a libertarian, until quite recently. But libertarianism is as dead as a doornail, for the next two generations at least.
Why? Because for several decades the left has tried to make all politics identity politics. (Race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Particularly race.) They attempted this diligently, energetically, patiently, and with impressive focus and discipline.
They succeeded.
Ideas-based politics is done. It’s all race, etc., from now on.
Sure, people will continue to object to the surveillance state and so forth. But that sort of thing is now the frosting on the cake; it’s no longer the cake. The cake is identity politics.
While there were signs earlier, November 8, 2016, was the first time the U.S. left really got a taste of their own success in turning politics to identity.
“Why didn’t it reduce Trump’s support when we argued, e.g., that his economic policies would be suboptimal?”
Because the left worked industriously for several decades to make that sort of thing politically irrelevant.
C. S. Lewis: All find what they truly seek. They do not always like it.
I’ve been wondering if anyone was going to notice that.
I was a libertarian, until quite recently. But libertarianism is as dead as a doornail, for the next two generations at least.
Why? Because for several decades the left has tried to make all politics identity politics. (Race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Particularly race.) They attempted this diligently, energetically, patiently, and with impressive focus and discipline.
They succeeded.
Ideas-based politics is done. It’s all race, etc., from now on.
Sure, people will continue to object to the surveillance state and so forth. But that sort of thing is now the frosting on the cake; it’s no longer the cake. The cake is identity politics.
While there were signs earlier, November 8, 2016, was the first time the U.S. left really got a taste of their own success in turning politics to identity.
“Why didn’t it reduce Trump’s support when we argued, e.g., that his economic policies would be suboptimal?”
Because the left worked industriously for several decades to make that sort of thing politically irrelevant.
C. S. Lewis: All find what they truly seek. They do not always like it.
80Carnophile
Re-reading the above, I don't think I was clear enough. The above is about what's going on in the Western world in general right now. My person political evolution, which is what you asked about, krolik, is not exactly this, but it's closely connected to it.
I may write more later, but it's dinner time here.
I may write more later, but it's dinner time here.
81timspalding
>79 Carnophile:
I appreciate Carnophile's candor. It's a journey I've seen a number follow, including my brother. As the alt-right's answer to a serious blog/magazine put it:
My own politics have a lot of libertarianism in it. But it comes from a deep commitment to liberal principles--the founding principles of the United States--not in whose ox is gored, or any sort of "critique" of everything that's wrong with everyone but me and mine. So, I believe in things like free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom to live, love and think as you like, due process, checks and balances, citizen control of state power, etc. And, with the Founders, I also believe that government office is best held by public servants with intellectual heft, competence and civic virtue. If you believe in that, Trumpism is a greasy turd. I certainly don't think any of the Founding Fathers would have seen anything in it, although Burr might have seen an opportunity.
Lastly, I put much down to simple ignorance. Nobody ever lost money betting against the intelligence of the American People. But some sort of dam has broken, between social media and the rise of culture war. it's depressing to see such a large swath of the American people earnestly parroting nonsense about certain topics, especially Islam. Not infrequently, liberals defend Islam in ways that are equally false. Over all comes not bigotry and tolerance, but simple stone-cold ignorance. We have the president we deserve--one who watches FoxNews all day long, and literally never reads a book.
I appreciate Carnophile's candor. It's a journey I've seen a number follow, including my brother. As the alt-right's answer to a serious blog/magazine put it:
"Many of us, including myself, moved through libertarianism on our way to the alt-right. It is one of our best-recruiting grounds; filled with free-thinkers who already realize that something is terribly wrong with the way our society is run, but still believing the democratic principle of “limited government” and seeing concentrated power as the main evil to be avoided."To me, "I used to believe in the power of human freedom, but now I'm a racist" speaks not of a sensible evolution, but of a degradation and unmasking. Anyone interested in human freedom always knew that some percentage of those who said they wanted the government to do less were mostly motivated by sticking it to black people. But it's depressing how many.
My own politics have a lot of libertarianism in it. But it comes from a deep commitment to liberal principles--the founding principles of the United States--not in whose ox is gored, or any sort of "critique" of everything that's wrong with everyone but me and mine. So, I believe in things like free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom to live, love and think as you like, due process, checks and balances, citizen control of state power, etc. And, with the Founders, I also believe that government office is best held by public servants with intellectual heft, competence and civic virtue. If you believe in that, Trumpism is a greasy turd. I certainly don't think any of the Founding Fathers would have seen anything in it, although Burr might have seen an opportunity.
Lastly, I put much down to simple ignorance. Nobody ever lost money betting against the intelligence of the American People. But some sort of dam has broken, between social media and the rise of culture war. it's depressing to see such a large swath of the American people earnestly parroting nonsense about certain topics, especially Islam. Not infrequently, liberals defend Islam in ways that are equally false. Over all comes not bigotry and tolerance, but simple stone-cold ignorance. We have the president we deserve--one who watches FoxNews all day long, and literally never reads a book.
82prosfilaes
>79 Carnophile: To quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy:
In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair. His speech there contained the phrase "I believe in states' rights" and was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Reagan's campaigns used racially coded rhetoric, making attacks on the "welfare state" and leveraging resentment towards affirmative action. Dan Carter explains "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose." During his 1976 and 1980 campaigns Reagan employed stereotypes of welfare recipients, often invoking the case of a "welfare queen" with a large house and a Cadillac using multiple names to collect over $150,000 in tax-free income. Aistrup described Reagan's campaign statements as "seemingly race neutral" but explained how whites interpret this in a racial manner, citing a DNC funded study conducted by CRG Communications. Though Reagan didn't overtly mention the race of the welfare recipient, the unstated impression in whites' minds were black people and Reagan's rhetoric resonated with Southern white perceptions of black people.
Aistrup argued one example of Reagan field-testing coded language in the South, was a reference to an unscrupulous man using food stamps as a "strapping young buck." Reagan, when informed of the offensive connotations of the term, defended his actions as a nonracial term that was common in his Illinois hometown. Ultimately, Reagan never used that particular phrasing again. According to Ian Haney Lopez the "young buck" term changed into "young fellow" which was less overtly racist. "'Some young fellow' was less overtly racist and so carried less risk of censure, and worked just as well to provoke a sense of white victimization."
Ever since Nixon ran against Humphrey, identity politics have been a big part of Republican politics, even if the Republicans had to use coded language.
In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair. His speech there contained the phrase "I believe in states' rights" and was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Reagan's campaigns used racially coded rhetoric, making attacks on the "welfare state" and leveraging resentment towards affirmative action. Dan Carter explains "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose." During his 1976 and 1980 campaigns Reagan employed stereotypes of welfare recipients, often invoking the case of a "welfare queen" with a large house and a Cadillac using multiple names to collect over $150,000 in tax-free income. Aistrup described Reagan's campaign statements as "seemingly race neutral" but explained how whites interpret this in a racial manner, citing a DNC funded study conducted by CRG Communications. Though Reagan didn't overtly mention the race of the welfare recipient, the unstated impression in whites' minds were black people and Reagan's rhetoric resonated with Southern white perceptions of black people.
Aistrup argued one example of Reagan field-testing coded language in the South, was a reference to an unscrupulous man using food stamps as a "strapping young buck." Reagan, when informed of the offensive connotations of the term, defended his actions as a nonracial term that was common in his Illinois hometown. Ultimately, Reagan never used that particular phrasing again. According to Ian Haney Lopez the "young buck" term changed into "young fellow" which was less overtly racist. "'Some young fellow' was less overtly racist and so carried less risk of censure, and worked just as well to provoke a sense of white victimization."
Ever since Nixon ran against Humphrey, identity politics have been a big part of Republican politics, even if the Republicans had to use coded language.
83krolik
>79 Carnophile:
Thanks for taking the trouble to answer.
Sounds like we'll have plenty to disagree about in the future!
I'll start with just one detail: I wrote "statist" (and not "non-libertarian").
Thanks for taking the trouble to answer.
Sounds like we'll have plenty to disagree about in the future!
I'll start with just one detail: I wrote "statist" (and not "non-libertarian").
84John5918
>74 timspalding: At this point, certain segments of the population are simply beyond questions of truth and falsehood--the difficult business of weighing facts and thinking through arguments--and rely purely on who says what, and whether they're political friends or foes. If Trump, Fox News, Breitbart or Alex Jones says something, they believe it; it's Gospel to them. If most Democrats--and for that matter not a few Conservatives who aren't Trumpians--say so, they call it "extreme left" and don't.
Lies, propaganda and fake news: A challenge for our age (BBC)
There is a large proportion of the population in the US living in what we would regard as an alternative reality... They share things with each other that are completely false. Any attempt to break through these bubbles is fraught with difficulty as you are being dismissed as being part of a conspiracy simply for trying to correct what people believe...
Lies, propaganda and fake news: A challenge for our age (BBC)
There is a large proportion of the population in the US living in what we would regard as an alternative reality... They share things with each other that are completely false. Any attempt to break through these bubbles is fraught with difficulty as you are being dismissed as being part of a conspiracy simply for trying to correct what people believe...
85RickHarsch
>81 timspalding:
'My own politics have a lot of libertarianism in it. But it comes from a deep commitment to liberal principles--the founding principles of the United States--not in whose ox is gored, or any sort of "critique" of everything that's wrong with everyone but me and mine. So, I believe in things like free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom to live, love and think as you like, due process, checks and balances, citizen control of state power, etc. And, with the Founders, I also believe that government office is best held by public servants with intellectual heft, competence and civic virtue. If you believe in that, Trumpism is a greasy turd. I certainly don't think any of the Founding Fathers would have seen anything in it, although Burr might have seen an opportunity.
Lastly, I put much down to simple ignorance. Nobody ever lost money betting against the intelligence of the American People. But some sort of dam has broken, between social media and the rise of culture war. it's depressing to see such a large swath of the American people earnestly parroting nonsense about certain topics, especially Islam. Not infrequently, liberals defend Islam in ways that are equally false. Over all comes not bigotry and tolerance, but simple stone-cold ignorance. We have the president we deserve--one who watches FoxNews all day long, and literally never reads a book.'
That's all very well said, but how do you square all that with your cheap shots at Iriley, for instance; refusing to engage an intelligent poster, not a dumb or brainwashed one, instead hurling such cheap shots as 'Alex Jones called'?
'My own politics have a lot of libertarianism in it. But it comes from a deep commitment to liberal principles--the founding principles of the United States--not in whose ox is gored, or any sort of "critique" of everything that's wrong with everyone but me and mine. So, I believe in things like free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom to live, love and think as you like, due process, checks and balances, citizen control of state power, etc. And, with the Founders, I also believe that government office is best held by public servants with intellectual heft, competence and civic virtue. If you believe in that, Trumpism is a greasy turd. I certainly don't think any of the Founding Fathers would have seen anything in it, although Burr might have seen an opportunity.
Lastly, I put much down to simple ignorance. Nobody ever lost money betting against the intelligence of the American People. But some sort of dam has broken, between social media and the rise of culture war. it's depressing to see such a large swath of the American people earnestly parroting nonsense about certain topics, especially Islam. Not infrequently, liberals defend Islam in ways that are equally false. Over all comes not bigotry and tolerance, but simple stone-cold ignorance. We have the president we deserve--one who watches FoxNews all day long, and literally never reads a book.'
That's all very well said, but how do you square all that with your cheap shots at Iriley, for instance; refusing to engage an intelligent poster, not a dumb or brainwashed one, instead hurling such cheap shots as 'Alex Jones called'?
86Carnophile
>81 timspalding: To me, "I used to believe in the power of human freedom, but now I'm a racist" speaks...
One of my main points in 79 was that this sort of spew is no longer effective.
You are in the most regrettable position of all Pro & Con leftists, because your hard turn to the left was so recent. You are in the position of a person who bought into an asset bubble right at its peak.
In some dim way you sense this, I think, which is why your tone has become markedly more angry lately.
>82 prosfilaes: I don’t necessarily mind reading that Wall O Text, but use the blockquote tag instead of the italics tag, or something.
>83 krolik: I wrote "statist" (and not "non-libertarian").
Of course. I assume that, as a leftist, you simply can’t help certain things. And you are forgiven.
One of my main points in 79 was that this sort of spew is no longer effective.
You are in the most regrettable position of all Pro & Con leftists, because your hard turn to the left was so recent. You are in the position of a person who bought into an asset bubble right at its peak.
In some dim way you sense this, I think, which is why your tone has become markedly more angry lately.
>82 prosfilaes: I don’t necessarily mind reading that Wall O Text, but use the blockquote tag instead of the italics tag, or something.
>83 krolik: I wrote "statist" (and not "non-libertarian").
Of course. I assume that, as a leftist, you simply can’t help certain things. And you are forgiven.
87krolik
>86 Carnophile:
Ah. Should I assume that, as the kind of person you are, your quotations are not to be trusted for accuracy?
Ah. Should I assume that, as the kind of person you are, your quotations are not to be trusted for accuracy?
88Carnophile
>87 krolik:
Heh. I was waiting for you to take your mask off.
As to the quote, the alteration was in parentheses, as is standard practice to indicate an alteration to a quote.
Heh. I was waiting for you to take your mask off.
As to the quote, the alteration was in parentheses, as is standard practice to indicate an alteration to a quote.
89Carnophile
PS, 81: To me, "I used to believe in the power of human freedom, but now I'm a racist" speaks not of a sensible evolution...
“You’re racist!” said the guy who called Argentina sad, immoral, and profoundly unattractive.
“You’re racist!” said the guy who called Argentina sad, immoral, and profoundly unattractive.
90davidgn
>89 Carnophile: Not to put too fine a point on it, but since you insist: Argentina is basically full of white people. I'm not sure what race you're -isting on about, but your willful ignorance is hilarious.
"Mexicans descend from the Aztecs, Peruvians from the Incas … Argentines from boats."
"Mexicans descend from the Aztecs, Peruvians from the Incas … Argentines from boats."
91krolik
>88 Carnophile:
My my. The original used parentheses, actually. If you really want to resort to pedantry, the standard practice calls for brackets.
Trolls are so sloppy nowadays.
My my. The original used parentheses, actually. If you really want to resort to pedantry, the standard practice calls for brackets.
Trolls are so sloppy nowadays.
92timspalding
“You’re racist!” said the guy who called Argentina sad, immoral, and profoundly unattractive.
It's also remarkable how you've internalized the fascist tendency to repeat a simple lie, until someone believes it.
It's also remarkable how you've internalized the fascist tendency to repeat a simple lie, until someone believes it.
93timspalding
I largely agree with P. J. O'Rourke here--the Reason podcast. O'Rourke is another guy who's turned "sharply to the left" by believing exactly what he believed before, and not being a racist.
P.J. O'Rourke on Trump, Populism, and "How the Hell Did This Happen?" Reason Podcast
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/reason-podcast-pj-orourke
P.J. O'Rourke on Trump, Populism, and "How the Hell Did This Happen?" Reason Podcast
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/reason-podcast-pj-orourke
94Carnophile
>91 krolik: The original used parentheses, actually. If you really want to resort to pedantry, the standard practice calls for brackets.
What are you talking about? You didn't enclose the word statist in any kind of delimiters.
And you can't use brackets in LT because that cues up an attempt at a touchstone.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's also remarkable how you've internalized the fascist tendency to repeat a simple lie, until someone believes it.
I get that you're wincing with regret over post 37. But what are you going to do? Think before posting next time, maybe.
What are you talking about? You didn't enclose the word statist in any kind of delimiters.
And you can't use brackets in LT because that cues up an attempt at a touchstone.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It's also remarkable how you've internalized the fascist tendency to repeat a simple lie, until someone believes it.
I get that you're wincing with regret over post 37. But what are you going to do? Think before posting next time, maybe.
95Carnophile
>90 davidgn: ...willful ignorance...
From Wikipedia, the source you liked so much in #42, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#Demographics :
Or is your point that in 55 I should have characterized Tim as saying not just “Argentinian spics suck!” but “Argentinian spics, wops, and indigenous people suck!”
Whatever. Maybe consult your own source next time and you'll do better, Mr. “willful ignorance.”
From Wikipedia, the source you liked so much in #42, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#Demographics :
Therefore, most Argentines are descended from the 19th- and 20th-century immigrants... The majority of these European immigrants came from Italy and Spain. The majority of Argentines descend from multiple European ethnic groups, primarily of Italian and Spanish descent (over 25 million individuals in Argentina, almost 60% of the population have some partial Italian origins)...In other words, Tim is harshing South American Latinos/Hispanics/whatever the PC term is now. As I said. At least as bad, he said, "The whole culture is distorted by it," so he's including that "18% of different indigenous ethnicities." Overall: Racist as fuck.
A study conducted on 218 individuals in 2010 by the Argentine geneticist Daniel Corach, has established that the genetic map of Argentina is composed by 79% from different European ethnicities (mainly Spanish and Italian ethnicities), 18% of different indigenous ethnicities...
Or is your point that in 55 I should have characterized Tim as saying not just “Argentinian spics suck!” but “Argentinian spics, wops, and indigenous people suck!”
Whatever. Maybe consult your own source next time and you'll do better, Mr. “willful ignorance.”
96Carnophile
So now in this thread we have at least one racist and at least one racist apologist. Yikes.
97timspalding
You're fooling nobody but yourself.
98Carnophile
...said the person who made several sweeping insulting generalizations about an entire Latin American country.
99prosfilaes
>79 Carnophile: I was a libertarian, until quite recently. But libertarianism is as dead as a doornail, for the next two generations at least.
I find this bizarre. Irrationally, my beliefs are connected to what's popular, but when rationally justifying them, there has to be good reasons for changing them, and if the best I could say was they weren't in fashion, I'd have to deeply analyze them and either revert to my previously supported positions or find good rational ground I could justify my new ones. Popular or not should not be relevant to the positions one holds (though it might well be relevant to the political actions one takes.)
I find this bizarre. Irrationally, my beliefs are connected to what's popular, but when rationally justifying them, there has to be good reasons for changing them, and if the best I could say was they weren't in fashion, I'd have to deeply analyze them and either revert to my previously supported positions or find good rational ground I could justify my new ones. Popular or not should not be relevant to the positions one holds (though it might well be relevant to the political actions one takes.)
100timspalding
>99 prosfilaes:
I think the point is somewhat subtler than popularity, but the realization that there's a larger argument afoot. One might, for example, say, in the late 1930s, that American arguments about the New Deal belonged on the shelf for a while. The real issue wasn't the TVA, but the impending conflict with fascism. In this case, the argument seems to be that arguments about liberty and big government need to be downplayed for a while, so that bigots of good can join together to use big government to destroy the lives and liberty of brown people.
I think the point is somewhat subtler than popularity, but the realization that there's a larger argument afoot. One might, for example, say, in the late 1930s, that American arguments about the New Deal belonged on the shelf for a while. The real issue wasn't the TVA, but the impending conflict with fascism. In this case, the argument seems to be that arguments about liberty and big government need to be downplayed for a while, so that bigots of good can join together to use big government to destroy the lives and liberty of brown people.
101Carnophile
>100 timspalding: Only "brown people" who are so vulgar and ill-bred as to succumb to the temptations of "beauty culture," and otherwise presume to behave in ways that Tim Spalding has clearly stated that he doesn't approve of.
But seriously... >99 prosfilaes: You don't worry about marginal tax rates when Nazis are shooting at you.
But seriously... >99 prosfilaes: You don't worry about marginal tax rates when Nazis are shooting at you.
104prosfilaes
>101 Carnophile: You're just repeating >100 timspalding:. We're not deal with the Third Reich or Imperial Japan, though. In >79 Carnophile: you complained about "identity politics", which is a horse of an entirely different color. Identity politics is a political argument about how to weight the value of political acts, and it's best responded to with political arguments about how to weigh the value of political acts. A pure libertarian should appreciate the value of identity politics in protecting the freedom of those most likely to have laws passed against them, and not respond by taking a version of identity politics that gives up basically the only libertarian feature of identity politics.
105timspalding
Piece on Rep. King's racist tweet, recommended by Ross Douthat, another Conservative who has "moved wildly to the left," and attracted massive amounts of scorn for it, by believing exactly what he believed before and not being a racist.
Why is the American far-right so obsessed with Europe?
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-king-tweet-geert-wilders-europe-immigration...
I don't agree that the US "success" with immigration is "largely a matter of how immigrants have been selected to come to the United States." Because similar success attends--and has attended--immigrants from many contexts. We aren't a nation of seething Irish ghettos because we allowed unskilled Irish people in. We let almost everyone in--just about the only real disqualifiers were nasty crowd diseases, and even then we gave immigrants a chance to recover before rejecting them finally. Yet the Irish are now as prosperous as anyone. There are equally many recent immigrants with little to "offer" at the border who are making, and whose children are making, lives at least as productive as those of native-born Americans.
Rather, you have to look at the static nature of European society generally, and their shallow ideals of nationhood. You can't integrate large numbers of foreigners if your labor system is inflexible and geared to give every white person a guaranteed job. And it's hard to integrate people into a country whose whole justification for being is narrowly ethno-linguistic or even entho-religio-linguistic.
Why is the American far-right so obsessed with Europe?
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-king-tweet-geert-wilders-europe-immigration...
"I think the answer is that American nationalists tend to oppose immigration for reasons that are fundamentally racist. They want white people to have more babies and fewer minorities to come here. But the facts on the ground in the United States are not useful for arguing that case without explicit appeals to racism. So they obsess over Europe, where immigration has created more problems and birth rates are more dire."
I don't agree that the US "success" with immigration is "largely a matter of how immigrants have been selected to come to the United States." Because similar success attends--and has attended--immigrants from many contexts. We aren't a nation of seething Irish ghettos because we allowed unskilled Irish people in. We let almost everyone in--just about the only real disqualifiers were nasty crowd diseases, and even then we gave immigrants a chance to recover before rejecting them finally. Yet the Irish are now as prosperous as anyone. There are equally many recent immigrants with little to "offer" at the border who are making, and whose children are making, lives at least as productive as those of native-born Americans.
Rather, you have to look at the static nature of European society generally, and their shallow ideals of nationhood. You can't integrate large numbers of foreigners if your labor system is inflexible and geared to give every white person a guaranteed job. And it's hard to integrate people into a country whose whole justification for being is narrowly ethno-linguistic or even entho-religio-linguistic.
106Carnophile
>103 timspalding: Argentina is the whitest country in South America.
“There are lots of darker-skinned countries I also could have slagged off, but didn’t!”
Good defense!
“There are lots of darker-skinned countries I also could have slagged off, but didn’t!”
Good defense!
107Carnophile
81, 93, 105:
I like how the guy who called an entire Latin American country “immoral” and “profoundly unattractive” is calling other people racist.
I like how the guy who called an entire Latin American country “immoral” and “profoundly unattractive” is calling other people racist.
108Carnophile
#102, 104
Me: “You don't worry about marginal tax rates when Nazis are shooting at you.”
Tim and pros: “But dude, it’s not literally true that there are Nazis shooting at you!”
LOL. Brilliant. You two are in fine form today.
Me: “You don't worry about marginal tax rates when Nazis are shooting at you.”
Tim and pros: “But dude, it’s not literally true that there are Nazis shooting at you!”
LOL. Brilliant. You two are in fine form today.
109Carnophile
>104 prosfilaes: A pure libertarian should...
At that point I stopped reading.
One, because I'm not a "pure libertarian," and two, because even if I were, I wouldn't pay attention to your lil ole opinions on what libertarians should do.
But let’s get back to the real problem: There are still Latin Americans who think they have the right to make decisions without consulting Tim Spalding first! A lot of them even think they have the right to make decisions without first consulting any white U.S. leftist at all!
At that point I stopped reading.
One, because I'm not a "pure libertarian," and two, because even if I were, I wouldn't pay attention to your lil ole opinions on what libertarians should do.
But let’s get back to the real problem: There are still Latin Americans who think they have the right to make decisions without consulting Tim Spalding first! A lot of them even think they have the right to make decisions without first consulting any white U.S. leftist at all!
