Donald Trump and US politics

What actually happened:
1. O'Keefe and Giles entered ACORN offices, him in khakis and her scantily clad. They explained that Giles was involved in prostitution and wanted business advice. They received answers which advised breaking the law.
2. Later, O'Keefe dressed as a pimp and added that footage to the intro.

In regards to point #2, okay, yeah. But it doesn't really refute #1. As with many things political, Wikileaks has been edited to preserve the mainstream narrative.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

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.

I haven't read your article, but I'll reply to this straight-away.

I didn't intend to give the impression that racial tension has risen to such an extent that the majority have hate in their hearts. Most people are good and open-minded on the issues of race, gender and orientation. As I implied earlier, I do not think there is a major problem with marginalization of groups in Western civilization at present, and that goes for both minority and majority groups. There is some, and of that some some is worth fighting, but there always will be some; like friction, it cannot be reduced to zero; micro-aggressions are inherent. The racists represent vocal minorities on the fringes receiving disproportionate attention. On that point, I agree that we shouldn't fall for sensationalism.

However, by that same logic, I feel most of the peaceful protests by BLM aren't exactly "legitimate." The peaceful ones are covered by First Amendment rights and I don't think they're illegal or anything, but I disagree with the underlying premise that discrimination against blacks is a widespread issue, within the police or otherwise. A few bad apples, yes, probably; fringe cops. I consider it sensationalist on their part to generalize such fringes onto the mass.

Additionally, although anti-white racism is still fringe, there is a cultural double standard which has allowed it to grow, which has in turn made it more difficult to contain pro-white racism. There's a popular misconception of "he can't be a racist, he's black." When a white nationalist posts some hateful stuff on Twitter, they're promptly banned; when one of these fringe elements says white people are genetically inferior, they're not. This controversy gap, this inequality in outrage, has allowed this group to grow from virtual non-existence a decade ago to a noticable minority.

In other words, my point wasn't the value of the current point on the graph, but the slope of the line. Until we start identifying this fringe as enemy, not merely eccentric, it's only going to take us to worse places. The groups that do not actively produce such bigotry, but who give it a pass or sweep it under the rug, are dangerous.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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

"Normalize"?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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.

Dude, that is just wrong in so many levels. Assuming that "men wanting to be women" has to do with the benefits that come with it is wrong, I think I can say for certain that is more a matter of identity than a matter of liking the benefits that comes with it.

About white man wanting to become black I won't discuss because I honestly never saw such a thing, I once saw Chris Rock saying that he would change places with a white poor dude if he could, but well, I considered just a joke.

About marginalization, my english is not 100%, but that seems to be a strong word, I wouldn't say that everyone that engage in "identity politics" are being marginalized, but I would say that some certainly are.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/15/riz-ahmed-typecast-as-a-terrorist

^This was written before the "ban", if that guy said that he feels that he is being marginalized, I would agree with him.

But even their problems aren't big enough to say they have been marginalized, if they see struggles in their day-to-day life I believe is within their rights to find ways to solve such problems. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", wasn't it? Trying to solve such problems isn't pursuit of happiness? Also just because they have benefits, it doesn't mean that they have to give up their right to fix the setbacks that they suffer.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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.

This is just your perspective on it right? If not got any source on this? Because the definition of it on wikipedia is quite different. I hope you are not picking a word and putting a label based on the way you see things related to that word. (ex: This is not a woodcutters's axe, this is a back scratcher because I saw lots of people using it to scratch their backs / ex2: Using only the recent activities of one movement to define it whole can be quite inaccurate, since recent activities might be different than the principles that founded the actual movement / ex3: You can't say that the definition of conservationism is to be orange because the conservatives you know want to become orange).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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.

You astound me, Fight fire with fire? It's impossible for a group advocate for their own rights without becoming an "ist", or "phobic"? I mean, when people were asking for the right to gay marriage, all of them were being heterophobic? If I believe my race is being targeted by cops and that makes me afraid, if I fight for a change I'm being racist? Even when I want the rights just as the same of the other races, no more no less?

Let's say there is a group in the future, where the majority of such group actively seeks to harm another group, if the group that is being harmed speaks about it without including all the other groups in the attack which only his group is suffering, he is being an "ist"/"phobic"?

If you are only advocating to a group you belong to without the intent of harming other groups you aren't being "racist", "somethingphobic", etc, you are being "tribalist"(from tribalism, don't know the right word), and is possible to do that.

"

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.

Man, honest and serious question: When you see a group that is politically related, you determine their message only by the actions of their extremists? Or you do that only with left-leaning groups?

Because for me it seems that if we take away the extremists we fix half of the problem, because if you ask for your rights without being an asshole, there won't be conflict unless the other side is an asshole or hyper-sensitive about another groups asking for their rights.(asking for your rights it doesn't mean that you will get what you want, but people can always talk to find a common ground)

About "normalizing" "identity politics", there is nothing to normalize, advocating for a specific group is normal, racism, homophobia, etc, is not normal, and you can say that such a things can be related with "identity politics", but they aren't one and the same with "identity politics".

What I'm seeing here is like we see with "fake news", fake news started as definition of fabricated news, and now we see people using to describe biased news, I think the term is "misappropriation of a word", really, is just hijacking a word and giving a whole new meaning just so you can trow it around in a way that benefits your narrative.

Imagine we are in an alternate reality, for 1000 years, all government officials have been orange, male, old, and rich, the populations is a melting pot, but for some reason we can't get a purple, or green representative in the government, is it wrong to call out on that? The right thing to do is just to shut-up and wait, pretend there is nothing wrong?
-

Look I disagree with you (a lot), but I don't think you are a bad dude. I do think that you maybe is spending a lot of time in anti-liberal websites.

There are good liberals too man, they are you know..... people, most of them just want the right thing to everyone, and they don't have secret plans to destroy the world or anything like that.

If we pick only the bad sides of everything we will get rid of lots of good stuff too man '~'

"

soneka101 wrote:

You astound me, Fight fire with fire? It's impossible for a group advocate for their own rights without becoming an "ist", or "phobic"? I mean, when people were asking for the right to gay marriage, all of them were being heterophobic? If I believe my race is being targeted by cops and that makes me afraid, if I fight for a change I'm being racist? Even when I want the rights just as the same of the other races, no more no less?

First off, I want you to imagine a group of white people arguing for better treatment of white people. Would such a group be perceived to be racist? And if so, why would a group of black people arguing for better treatment of black people be viewed differently, if but for the "fight fire with fire" principle?

When one group truly is being oppressed, and another group isn't, then the first group may be arguing for rights or privileges that the second group already has. In that context, it might seem just for the first group to argue exclusively for benefits to their own group. However, the truly just argument is to have those rights and privileges for ALL. It is, in fact, the abandonment of identity as a criterion for rights and privileges, rather than its embrace, which lends credibility and bestows righteousness upon such movements. It's not "gays should have a right to marriage" so much as "everyone should have a right to marriage."

I just thought about the "all lives matter" thing:

*Black people start dying left and right on the streets*

"We need to protest! Bring awareness to this!"

*draws "ALL LIVES MATTERS!" sign*

"Now we are ready!!" *Goes to the streets*

"Hey guys, whatchadoin'?"

"We are protesting! ALL LIVES MATTERS!!!"

"That's silly, I think pretty much everyone knows that"

"No man, I mean 'ALL LIVES MATTERS' you know!" *wink* *wink*

"There is something on your eye?"

"COME-ON DUDE, BLACK PEOPLE ARE DYING!"

"AH-HA! Gotcha!! You and your hidden agenda, pretending to care about everyone when all you care is about yourselves, bunch of hypocrites I say!!!"

"

soneka101 wrote:

long comment

have you ever thought about working for GGG and writing the patch note for them for 3.0.0

black lives don't matter to #BLM unless they are killed by a white person, or a cop and their death can be used to push a political agenda

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

First off, I want you to imagine a group of white people arguing for better treatment of white people. Would such a group be perceived to be racist? And if so, why would a group of black people arguing for better treatment of black people be viewed differently, if but for the "fight fire with fire" principle?

When one group truly is being oppressed, and another group isn't, then the first group may be arguing for rights or privileges that the second group already has. In that context, it might seem just for the first group to argue exclusively for benefits to their own group. However, the truly just argument is to have those rights and privileges for ALL. It is, in fact, the abandonment of identity as a criterion for rights and privileges, rather than its embrace, which lends credibility and bestows righteousness upon such movements. It's not "gays should have a right to marriage" so much as "everyone should have a right to marriage."

The first example, it seems that the problem is not to ask, it seems the problem is the way we perceive the one that is asking, isn't? If we don't judge the group, but only the problem they are facing, and what they are asking we can avoid all this isn't?

The second example, how would you go if such right is already given in theory, but is not being enforced, in that case there is no way to avoid calling out the differences right?

I see the merits of asking rights for everyone, but I don't think it can be used for everything, and I don't think it makes, "asking for your group" invalid, like would people really get mad at guys in wheelchair if they asked for rights to their group?

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

soneka101 wrote:

long comment

have you ever thought about working for GGG and writing the patch note for them for 3.0.0

Do you want 3.0.0 with lot's of bugs? Because that's how you get 3.0.0 with lots of bugs.

"

Manocean wrote:

black lives don't matter to #BLM unless they are killed by a white person, or a cop and their death can be used to push a political agenda

Said the spokesperson of BLM.

Oh, and dude, we are talking about something else here, I'm sure you can go back bashing black people when we finish here.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

I haven't read your article, but I'll reply to this straight-away.

I didn't intend to give the impression that racial tension has risen to such an extent that the majority have hate in their hearts. Most people are good and open-minded on the issues of race, gender and orientation. As I implied earlier, I do not think there is a major problem with marginalization of groups in Western civilization at present, and that goes for both minority and majority groups. There is some, and of that some some is worth fighting, but there always will be some; like friction, it cannot be reduced to zero; micro-aggressions are inherent. The racists represent vocal minorities on the fringes receiving disproportionate attention. On that point, I agree that we shouldn't fall for sensationalism.

So far we seem to be in agreement.

"

However, by that same logic, I feel most of the peaceful protests by BLM aren't exactly "legitimate." The peaceful ones are covered by First Amendment rights and I don't think they're illegal or anything, but I disagree with the underlying premise that discrimination against blacks is a widespread issue, within the police or otherwise. A few bad apples, yes, probably; fringe cops. I consider it sensationalist on their part to generalize such fringes onto the mass.

There are loads of studies examining the myriad ways in which African-Americans get shafted by the system. There's a reason there's such a massive gap in how much white people and black people trust the police. There are a lot of reasons that African-Americans suffer from such huge achievement, income, and wealth gaps, and it doesn't really tend to boil down effectively to culture or genetics. The idea that we're somehow "past" racism (and yes, this does include things like subconscious biases against African-Americans) is absurd. We've done the research. We know better. The question is not "is this happening" or "is this a problem" but "what can we do to fix it", and the fact that so many people still are hung up on the first two problems is disturbingly reminiscent of the "debate" on climate change.

"

Additionally, although anti-white racism is still fringe, there is a cultural double standard which has allowed it to grow, which has in turn made it more difficult to contain pro-white racism. There's a popular misconception of "he can't be a racist, he's black." When a white nationalist posts some hateful stuff on Twitter, they're promptly banned; when one of these fringe elements says white people are genetically inferior, they're not. This controversy gap, this inequality in outrage, has allowed this group to grow from virtual non-existence a decade ago to a noticable minority.

In other words, my point wasn't the value of the current point on the graph, but the slope of the line. Until we start identifying this fringe as enemy, not merely eccentric, it's only going to take us to worse places. The groups that do not actively produce such bigotry, but who give it a pass or sweep it under the rug, are dangerous.

Noticeable is easy. Significant? Meaningful? By all means, let's do something about them! But let's not pretend that somehow this makes up some substantial portion of the populace. The reason these people don't face much outrage is that historically and currently, they have zero power. They are a tiny fringe minority, and have absolutely no historical backing.