Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Wow, that is quite nearly the dumbest thing I've read in a while, and I'm a guy who moderates a science group that has to deal with the odd flat earther here and there.
Leviticus 19:34Regarding the looting, there's a good interview by Isaac Chortiner with the author Vicky Osterweils
.
As is typical of Chortiner's interviews, it's kind of a take down through effective use of the Socratic Method.
One thing that stands in particular is that Osterweils seems to go back and forth as to whether she things looters are deliberately acting out of proletariat social conscience. And relatedly, she's really wedded to the idea that looting is something done by African Americans against abusive capitalists, including/especially business owners who are immigrant Americans (i.e. Jews and Koreans) in African American communities. She also explicitly compares small business owners to slave owners.
And Chortiner gets at both how she doesn't seem to consider the possibility that African American small business owners exist, and her equivocation regarding whether she thinks all small business owners are Asshole Victims.
Edit -
Edit 2 - Thank you @ nova for doing a quote block.
Edited by Hodor2 on Sep 3rd 2020 at 10:18:39 AM
@archonspeaks To be fair, it's technically true From a Certain Point of View. Though, a more accurate way of putting it is "police are the reason you have the right to ask for money for stuff, rather than just have it stolen from you at gunpoint"
@Hodor 2 The big thing to keep in mind with the idea that criminals (particularly blue-collar thieves) are "just the poor rebelling against an unjust system" is that the most common victims of such crimes...are poor people. Crooks don't try to steal from the rich, they're gonna beat up homeless people and steal piggy banks from poor children's bedrooms. And if they're white, they're probably gonna become skinheads or something like that.
Leviticus 19:34I'm reminded of Penny Arcade weirdly predicting this argument. I'm cross-posting this to Politics because it's relevant there too. Basically, they said one of the disquieting elements of the Division is that the Division's judge, jury, and execution behavior explicitly indicates that they are more interested in protecting property than people.
Conservatives do not want this country to be a democracy. They, as a party, disapprove of democracy and do everything in their power to undermine and circumvent it.
It really is that simple.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The Atlantic:
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are 'Losers' and 'Suckers' (Follow-up articles from Washington Post
and AP News
)
In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as "suckers" for getting killed.
Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, "Who were the good guys in this war?" He also said that he didn't understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.
In one account, the president told senior advisers that he didn't understand why the U.S. government placed such value on finding soldiers missing in action because they had performed poorly and gotten caught and deserved what they got, according to a person familiar with the discussion.
Trump believed people who served in the Vietnam War must be "losers" because they hadn't gotten out of it, according to a person familiar with the comments. Trump also complained bitterly to then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly that he didn't understand why Kelly and others in the military treated McCain, who had been imprisoned and tortured during the Vietnam War, with such reverence. "Isn't he kind of a loser?" Trump asked, according to the person familiar with Trump's comments.
The Atlantic also depicts a scene between Trump and Kelly at the graveside of Kelly's son, who died at 29 years old in Afghanistan, on Memorial Day 2017. Trump reportedly said, "I don't get it. What was in it for them?" A person with knowledge of the conversation confirmed this to The Post, and said Kelly came to understand that Trump couldn't grasp the concept of sacrifice for something greater than yourself.
The magazine said Trump also referred to former President George H.W. Bush as a "loser" because he was shot down by the Japanese as a Navy pilot in World War II.
Edit: Oops, looks like the Atlantic article was already posted by Parable here
.
Edited by nova92 on Sep 3rd 2020 at 9:22:14 AM
@Scubawolf: It'd be nice if we could just come out and say that the Republican Party is just openly Fascist now, but that would probably cause a bunch of outrage and pearl clutching from centrists, whom may or may not respond by declaring the Democrats Communist for balance's sake.
I wouldn't count on that as long as he keeps the standard socially reactionary rhetoric up.
Edited by Mio on Sep 3rd 2020 at 12:15:03 PM
Trump has said stuff like this before, I'm not really sure why this is supposed to be new.
And, really, I think over the years other Republicans have made it clear they don't care about Democrats' military service, even if they don't put it into such crass terms.
I guess the difference with Trump is he just doesn't limit it to Democrats, but anyone he happens to not like?
Edited by LSBK on Sep 3rd 2020 at 11:27:10 AM
The problem is fundamentally that "half of the country supports an openly fascistic or fascist-sympathetic party" is never going to be a popular statement, regardless of it being true or not. To some extent most people have a desire for "normalcy" and "fascism" is not normal, so if they accepted that they'd presumably have to do something about it, which could easily get ugly because many people they know or care about could have those kind of fascist sympathies.
To give an example from my own life (admittedly I don't live in the US but the political landscape with Bolsonaro is I think close enough to be applicable), I work at a school with mostly older white women teaching and from my experience listening to their conversations in the workplace, anytime the word "fascism" is used in a modern political context they instantly bristle and try to dismiss it, more on the idea that it would be disruptive to say that regardless of whether it's true or not.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Sep 3rd 2020 at 12:34:04 PM

So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.
And also it provides people with an imaginative sense of freedom and pleasure and helps them imagine a world that could be. And I think that's a part of it that doesn't really get talked about - that riots and looting are experienced as sort of joyous and liberatory.
On a less abstract level there is a practical and tactical benefit to looting. Whenever people worry about looting, there is an implicit sense that the looter must necessarily be acting selfishly, "opportunistically, and in excess. But why is it bad to grab an opportunity to improve well-being, to make life better, easier, or more comfortable?
Only if you believe that having nice things for free is amoral, if you believe, in short, that the current (white-supremacist, settler-colonialist) regime of property is just, can you believe that looting is amoral in itself.
White people deploy the idea of looting in a way that implies people of color are greedy and lazy, but it is just the opposite: looting is a hard-won and dangerous act with potentially terrible consequences, and looters are only stealing from the rich owners' profit margins.
And the further assumption that the looter isn't sharing her loot is just as racist and ideological. We know that poor communities and communities of color practice more mutual aid and support than do wealthy white communities—partially because they have to. .... They might just be expropriating what they would otherwise buy-liquor, for example-but it still represents a material way that riots and protests help the community: by providing a way for people to solve some of the immediate problems of poverty and by creating a space for people to freely reproduce their lives rather than doing so through wage labor.
I think Hodor is right in that the book sounds terrible and it's a fringe view being used as a cudgel against the left.