Donald Trump and US politics

I've already heard a sampling of O'Keefe's CNN tapes today. They are being released unedited (and are pretty scruffy, as a result). =^[.]^=

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

You do know that O'Keefe has gotten in trouble numerous times for dishonestly editing his footage in order to defame people, right? It's pretty much his modus operandi. I'd be very careful trusting just about anything he releases.

He's never gotten in trouble for that. It's been claimed multiple times, but always by O'Keefe's targets and their media apologists. He has been arrested... for entering a federal building under false pretenses, aka lying about his identity while undercover.

I took a class in video editing, I've edited video for public access television (like Wayne's World but much lamer), I know what you can go with it, and I haven't seen anything from O'Keefe that isn't quality work. You should give a watch to everything he releases.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn

I don't know about you, but when you go to an interview in a suit and tie, then intercut that interview to make it seem like you were in a pimp suit and hawking prostitutes, that smacks as dishonest.

Perhaps he's only been taken to court once. There are countless examples of where his videos are dishonestly edited.

MediaMatters has done a fairly good job of pointing out the various points at which O'Keefe uses dishonest editing techniques to take statements out of context, change meanings, and otherwise misrepresent what is happening; it's worth a look.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn

then intercut that interview to make it seem like you were in a pimp suit and hawking prostitutes

MediaMatters

No! Don’t deal with it like those sheeple do. Come on! What you’re feeling is premature enlightenment. This is your evidence, this is your primary source. It’s right here! And you’re off somewhere missing it.

You have to consider the possibility that the mainstream media doesn't like you. They never wanted you. In all probability, they hate you. This is not the worst thing that can happen... We don't need them.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

I've already heard a sampling of O'Keefe's CNN tapes today. They are being released unedited (and are pretty scruffy, as a result). =^[.]^=

do you have any link? I'd like to listen :3



Btw the Guardian lost all credibility long ago after so many anti white and racist reportage.

"

diablofdb wrote:

do you have any link? I'd like to listen :3

cnnleaks.com

"

We are serving these audio files on the Amazon S3. Currently the audio player which plays these audio files is experiencing a very heavy load, so it may time out or not load. Please bear with us and the audio files will load more easily over the next few hours as traffic slows down.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

MediaMatters has done a fairly good job of pointing out the various points at which O'Keefe uses dishonest editing techniques to take statements out of context, change meanings, and otherwise misrepresent what is happening; it's worth a look.

Media matters was founded by the same guy who owns ShareBlue and founded Correct The Record

These groups do the same thing you accuse Okeefe of but on the opposite side of the political spectrum and on a massive scale with hundreds of millions of dollars of collective funding

I don't read breitbart, and I don't fully trust Okeefe, but sometimes the words he catches slipping out of peoples' mouths are pretty uhhh... wild(?)

I'm not telling you who to trust or not trust I guess, but bias exists everywhere

Such is life huh :)

I didn't read everything that you guys wrote, I just took a quick look at the last pages. But I guess there is no harm if I give my opinion even though I didn't read everything.

When I hear identity politics I remember this:

https://extranewsfeed.com/stop-calling-it-identity-politics-its-civil-rights-50ef9bdfda09#.7sw0odcn8

I think I read as soon as it was posted and I agree with most of it.

People use "Identity Politics" as synonymous of something bad because it's not related to everybody (or at least that is the impression that I have), but let's say a specific group has a problem, that problem shouldn't be addressed unless it affects everyone else? Or the key to solve such problem is to pretend that it's not happening to a small group, but to everyone? Well I don't think that works since if you try to cheat people in believing that something is happening to them when it's not, the most likely outcome is them finding it out.

Also I don't think that is better to avoid talk about people's differences and their possible problems, that's like that thing in the army "Don't ask, Don't Tell". Avoiding don't seems like a way to solve a problem, understanding seems better to me, I mean, if you have enough adults talking about it, sooner or latter the discussion is bond to bear some fruits right?

I really don't think it's good to dismiss stuff, people argue that Trump won because the white working class felt left out, and some attribute that to excess of focus on "identity politics", fair enough, people shouldn't ignore the white working class, but there is really a need to dismiss "identity politic" when it comes up? Lots of people working folks, lets do some multi-tasking.

"

soneka101 wrote:

When I hear identity politics I remember this:

https://extranewsfeed.com/stop-calling-it-identity-politics-its-civil-rights-50ef9bdfda09#.7sw0odcn8

I think I read as soon as it was posted and I agree with most of it.

I disagree. In my view, that article attempts to normalize identity politics while accusing its opponents of racism.

The article states: "Identity politics refers to the political interests of women, minorities, and other marginalized groups in American politics." Which already raises the question: are women and ethnic minorities currently marginalized? We have men wanting to be women and white people wanting to be black in our society; I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that, but it speaks against the idea that these groups are without their own comparative advantages.

But even if marginalization is a current problem, identity politics is not the way to move forward. The sentence quoted asserts that identity politics is in the political interest of marginalized groups, but that isn't the definition. The definition of identity politics is politics that discriminates for or against a particular non-ideological group — that is, a group wherein its members do not choose membership, where members just are members. For example, affirmative action is identity politics — it is discrimination for ethnic minorities and women, and against white men. Another example is black people being seen as either Democrats or "race traitors." White supremacy is also identity politics, albeit not associated with the Left — it is discrimination for whites, against ethnic minorities; however, identity politics usually refers to the leftist variety.

Leftist identity politics is based upon the assumption that majority-favoring identity politics poses both a clear and present danger to those it would discriminate against. Leftist identity politics is racism, sexism, bigotry — but favoring minorities, so as to (supposedly) provide an equal and opposite reaction. It is fighting fire with fire, and without an opposing racism, sexism, or bigotry to fight against, it has no raison d'être. For this reason, the identity politics movement must continually identify mainstream society as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc; in the absence of such claims, leftist identity politics would itself be unprovoked racism, sexism, and heterophobia. It is, then, no wonder that they've unironically coined the term "micro-aggression" to pounce on even the slightest behavior as evidence of pervasive bigotry within society. Exaggeration and jumping at shadows are in their self-interest.

The problem with this strategy is that the opposing identity politics movement behaves the same way. With militant feminism growing in popularity and advocating the "extinction of the white male," misogynist identity politics can point to it as something to be fought against with misogyny. With Black Lives Matter rioting and claiming that whites are genetically inferior, white supremacists can point to it as a consequence of allowing equal rights to black people; Nathan Spencer becoming a recognizable name isn't a coincidence. Even the horrible anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany was justified by a false narrative of the Jews as economic oppressors in control of banks — that is, as a racially self-serving threat to ethnic Germans. Racism is not an effective weapon against racism; much like literally fighting fire with fire, figuratively doing so just makes things worse. Leftist identity politics and its predictable and unfortunate effects have escalated racial tension and set us back decades.

The way forward is not Black Lives Matter, but saying all lives do. It's not feminism, but the affirmation of both sexes as vital contributors to the continuation of humanity. It's not the LGBTQ+ lobby, but the refusal to attach significance to what other people do in the bedroom (unless one intends to join them). It is not identity politics, but the fundamental rejection of such bigotry, wherever one sees it, regardless of on which side it manifests.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn

then intercut that interview to make it seem like you were in a pimp suit and hawking prostitutes

MediaMatters

No! Don’t deal with it like those sheeple do. Come on! What you’re feeling is premature enlightenment. This is your evidence, this is your primary source. It’s right here! And you’re off somewhere missing it.

You have to consider the possibility that the mainstream media doesn't like you. They never wanted you. In all probability, they hate you. This is not the worst thing that can happen... We don't need them.

You'll have to excuse me for not being able to watch youtube videos at my previous location. I thought by this point it was common knowledge that the ACORN footage was manipulated in a quite frankly disgusting way. I can't find the raw footage at the moment. If you care to, you can dredge it up. Let's just say there's a reason he had to pay $100,000 to the employee in question. Similarly, when the Columbia Journalism Review talks about how O'Keefe dishonestly manipulated two hours of video footage from NPR down to 15 minutes of out-of-context snippets, you'll have to excuse me when I take a respectable news outlet's word for it, rather than spend all day poring over both videos. I have more important shit to do. This is what the media is here for. And unlike O'Keefe, The Guardian and the Columbia Journalism Review never had to pay out $100,000 in a libel suit for dishonestly editing news footage.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The problem with this strategy is that the opposing identity politics movement behaves the same way. With militant feminism growing in popularity and advocating the "extinction of the white male," misogynist identity politics can point to it as something to be fought against with misogyny. With Black Lives Matter rioting and claiming that whites are genetically inferior, white supremacists can point to it as a consequence of allowing equal rights to black people; Nathan Spencer becoming a recognizable name isn't a coincidence. Even the horrible anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany was justified by a false narrative of the Jews as economic oppressors in control of banks — that is, as a racially self-serving threat to ethnic Germans. Racism is not an effective weapon against racism; much like literally fighting fire with fire, figuratively doing so just makes things worse. Leftist identity politics and its predictable and unfortunate effects have escalated racial tension and set us back decades.

The way forward is not Black Lives Matter, but saying all lives do. It's not feminism, but the affirmation of both sexes as vital contributors to the continuation of humanity. It's not the LGBTQ+ lobby, but the refusal to attach significance to what other people do in the bedroom (unless one intends to join them). It is not identity politics, but the fundamental rejection of such bigotry, wherever one sees it, regardless of on which side it manifests.

You really need to read this Cracked article. Everyone here should, because the anti-feminist and alt-right movements have adopted essentially every element in that playbook as a battering ram, and people here are buying into every single part of it wholesale (not to say the left doesn't do it too).

Case in point:

"

Focus On Their Most Frivolous Complaints (And Most Unlikable Members)

[...]

There was a minor furor on the Internet when the movie Mad Max: Fury Road debuted, resulting in headlines like "Mad Max: Fury Road draws the ire of men's rights activists," with the articles talking about how the "the community" of men's rights types was up in arms over the film and organizing a boycott due to the fact that it contained some supposedly feminist messages among the constant stream of deformed people getting obliterated in car crashes (hint: Mad Max is actually not the main character).

I laughed when I saw those headlines and retweeted the articles. Ha, these MRA dipshits will get mad about anything! But a few days later, a slight amount of digging revealed that, despite the fact that those headlines implied a massive nationwide movement, the "boycott" was actually one single crazy person complaining about the movie in a blog post at a fringe men's rights website. The guy is not prominent in the movement in any way -- he spends his time posting YouTube videos that struggle to surpass 2,000 views. So why did the blogosphere trumpet his ramblings as if he was the most prominent spokesperson for the movement? Because he made the movement look ridiculous.

See, by highlighting the silliest of complaints from a group, you inoculate the audience against any real complaints that might come along later, creating a knee-jerk dismissal any time, say, a male reasonably complains about how even men get screwed by gender roles or when another has a legitimately fucking horrible story to tell. "Ha," the people will say, "these are the same guys who cried over Mad Max having a female hero!" No, they're not, unless we're literally talking about Aaron Clarey. "Who?" Exactly.

Tell me, what jumps out at you more about Black Lives Matter, a disparate, unled coalition? Is it the march in Seattle where protest organizers emphasized the importance of the police and discouraged hate against them? Was it any number of the hundreds of peaceful protests? Or was it the stupid thing one guy said? What do you think of when you think of feminism - the people fighting to make it harder to get away with rape, or the person who said "exterminate white men" (and I have no idea where you got the idea that this was somehow "on the rise")? It's easy to pick out crazy people from any mass movement. This is used to discredit legitimate movements, and you (and many others) are falling for it. Don't.