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
Sadly, I'm not surprised. I've been involved in environmental activism in one way or another since I was about 12, it's just not an issue that's on a lot of people's radars, or is considered unimportant in comparison to the almighty economy. And climate denialism is rampant, partly (I think) a consequence of the distrust in science fostered by Americans and others arguing against evolutionary theory. And in the age of the internet, you can support pretty much any opinion you could care to have with faulty research, as I've seen many people do. That, more than anything else is what might just end up killing us, it was never just about the Paris Accord.
Heck, why even bother having kids, really?
We seemed like we might be on the right track with the Paris Accords, but then a certain body of people went and elected a fascist bigot who had no intention of honoring them, and now the human race would appear to be completely screwed. So yay. That was a real nice Earth we had once.
Seriously, the GOP just might end up being the single most destructive organization in human history, if the damage they wind up doing to the environment is as bad as experts fear.
It's a grim thought, but that's why I have no intention of ever having children. I'd rather they not be around to see what's coming.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:49:37 AM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."I'd say what I mean but that'd get thumped from orbit, so suffice it to say that I sincerely hope that we can attribute Hanlons Razor to the past arguments and move on to people who have the vaguest idea what they're talking about.
I was just getting used to this earth too. More's the pity.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:49:55 AM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"The fact that you throw around the term SJW without any irony or contextualization makes you come off as less than credible, considering in the current day it's a term primarily bandied about by people who are, if not alt-right themselves, then their useful idiots.
@MarqFJA
Hey, practice is practice. Gotta exercise those patience muscles for when it's time to persuade rural voters to stop voting for the party that's screwing them over and dooming them to a future of coal lung.
And on that note RBluefish I know it hurts but you're indulging in exactly the kind of language we're supposed to be avoiding when doing that, not to mention you're also constantly bandying about the kind of apocalyptic hysterics I was referring to previously. It's one thing to be cynical, it's another to be a pessimist crying about how doomed we are. We have more than enough of that as it is.
Funny, going by that logic the person with the most SJW-like behavior would be you, given your preference for denialism and slothful induction over rationalism.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:59:33 AM by AlleyOop
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
That is again the kind of viewpoint that got Trump elected.
You don't understand my original view. When you label people as racist bigot scum of the earth for having slightly different values (the general standpoint of Hillary's campaign, that a vote for Trump is a vote for racism) they get tired of trying to see things your way.
Because its appropriate, its the hypocrisy of flat out denying everything someone has to say when they agree with 90% of what you have to say.
edited 20th Nov '16 6:03:20 AM by StephanReiken
"Ban Muslims," "Mexicans are rapists," "deport the immigrants" and "I think I'll fill my cabinet with white supremacists" are "slightly different views?"
Trump is a racist. When given power, he will do destructively racist things. When you vote for him, you are voting for those things to happen. It's not a difficult logic puzzle.
@Alley Oop: You did just essentially call them a "useful idiot of the alt-right" in that very same post. And acknowledging just how dire of a threat climate change poses to human civilization is not hysterics.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:57:35 AM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Even if Trump himself doesn't do things, or even if he does good things, the gabinet he elected is composed of some really morally questionable people.
I'm sorry, but Mike "Shock The Gay Away" Pence is this man's vicepresident.
Do please explain what's wrong with Hillary.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:58:11 AM by FergardStratoavis
- You agree with him wholeheartedly, thus you're actively racist.
- You don't agree with him, but at the same time don't care about what happens to the minority groups that his racism targets, thus you're passively racist.
- You don't agree with him, and for one reason or the other you don't believe that he or the GOP are serious about the racist rhetoric, in which case you're simply naive and overoptimistic.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:59:13 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I'm not trying to yell at you, or Trump voters, or anything. I'm just tired.
@Lance: That's in doubt? Who the hell is anywhere near being a contender?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I'm referring to the use of particular words like "racist", "sexist", "fascist", and "bigot", especially when strung together into the same clause, at which point it becomes interpreted by a lot of people, including those who would otherwise be sympathetic, as platitudinal buzzword overload or pure ad hominems.
Regardless of their truth value they're a lot more heavily politicized, and are terms that rural voters are especially desensitized and resistant to, than more ideologically neutral terms like "useful idiot". If you wanna do something about how to convince the Rust Belt you have to wean yourself off such terms and learn to debate without resorting to them first thing. I'm not trying to say it's wrong so much as not useful.
edited 20th Nov '16 6:37:38 AM by AlleyOop
Oh that's rich. "MUH CORRUPTION" have you SEEN the people he's pulling into his cabinet and transition team? You don't give a single goddamn fuck about corruption.
@Marq: I don't know, this is america, so I just assume there's some little known candidate from somewhere in the past that was equally awful and doesn't get mentioned because AMURRRICA
edited 20th Nov '16 6:04:50 AM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"Trump is shaping up to be a monumentally corrupt president, and is in the process of forming potentially one of the most corrupt administrations in living memory. Him and his cronies are going to spend the next 4+ years using their position to stuff their pockets.
@Alley Oop: I doubt calling someone a useful idiot is going to make them particularly likely to want to listen to what you have to say either. And while it's theoretically well and good to try to simplify your language for the sake of not scaring off rural voters - I draw the line at not using the word "racist." I'm not compromising on calling Trump a racist. It's not the end of my argument, but when we're approaching an administration that could set civil rights back decades, I am not going to go out of my way to avoid using that term.
edited 20th Nov '16 6:06:51 AM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."@Stephan Reiken 156949
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said he or his views were toxic. Simply wrong. And that isn't opinion, it's a statement of fact. The only reason he reached the conclusion he did was because he left out Trump's appointments. Include those, and there's no way it can be disputed that Trump, his policies, and his administration are and will be racist. Not his supporters, him and those he's appointed. Yes, the author of the article is misguided in his attempts to make people stop fearmongering, but that doesn't change the fact what he said is simply untrue and can be easily disproven.
And this has nothing to do with Hillary. I am simply speaking to that one article and the erroneous conclusion its author came to.
![]()
Research says there are ways to reduce racial bias. Calling people racist isn’t one of them.
edited 20th Nov '16 6:07:36 AM by CaptainCapsase

... I don't know why you guys even bother arguing for so long with someone who came across as extremely misinformed about the subjects of said argument. The mere idea that Clinton's email scandal is somehow much more morally reprehensible and unacceptable than Trump's unapologetic admission to (and in some cases bragging about) committing sexual assault should've been an immediate red flag.
edited 20th Nov '16 5:46:54 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.