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
But this isn't a discussion of that thing. I don't even think anyone's referenced what exactly it was. No one wants to have another 20 page argument on it. If a mod wants to thump me for this, feel free to and I'll post a revised version trying to awkwardly tiptoe around the subject, but just to clarify this is not a discussion of said subject.
From what I've seen, the meme thing seems to be partly exclusionary. Like, the Pepe meme makes no sense. It's not really funny, or standout or anything. It's just a green guy. There are a lot of alt-right memes like that where it's actually difficult to recognize it as a meme, because it's a totally random thing that has nothing to do with the topic. No one's going to jump in and start memeing with Pepe unless they know what the deal with it even is, and the alt-right certainly isn't going to explain.
But it is, the moment you mention it as a negative thing you're including it in the discussion, and other posters aren't allowed to challenge your characterisation of it as a negative thing because the subject is banned.
I've actually checked with the mods multiple times that the ban isn't "a ban on talking about it unless you're just making a passing bash at it that other posters aren't allowed to disagree with" and it's not.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
x4 Still, when one can successfully put enough stigma on a topic in order to have it indirectly deemed wrongthink and banned from certain social hubs in order to promote "reasonable discourse", then the existential threat is most definitely real. I mean, how long before Trump - after leaving office - gets banned from being brought up here by gung-ho mods who come up with the usual bad faith justifications for it?
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:18:08 AM by nervmeister
Mr. Ellison was a high-profile backer of Mr. Sanders’s presidential campaign, and Mr. Sanders has been rallying support for Mr. Ellison’s D.N.C. bid. Already a polarizing figure among Democrats, he ignited new controversy this week by saying the party needed to “go beyond identity politics.”
“It’s not good enough for someone to say: ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” Mr. Sanders told students in Boston on Sunday, a comment widely seen as a criticism of Mrs. Clinton. “No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.”
This call for an economic-centered brand of liberalism is what galvanized so many of his supporters, but his blunt language also served to remind some Democrats of the divisive primary race. There is little appetite for a replay of that fight in the D.N.C. race, which will be decided by members of the committee when they gather in February for their winter meeting.
Seems the White House has my same concerns
I want Bernie as far away from DNC leadership as possible.
New Survey coming this weekend!More like the moderation got tired of cleaning up heated arguments on the subject and put a moratorium on it for an undisclosed period of time.
I...didn't even want to get into The Topic That Shall Not Be Named. I was just trying to point out that it would be a mistake to think the net savvy people who spreads toxic memes and false news on their social network are 16 year olds who can't vote...
Those people can vote and they are voting. And even though they may be a small proportion of the population, their ability to create false information that spreads well makes them a bigger danger than their numbers would indicate.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:25:36 AM by nightwyrm_zero
X4 It's not deemed wrongthink, the ban makes no moral judgment on Gamergate either way and means we're not allowed to make moral judgments even in passing on it, I've actually checked that with the mods.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:22:09 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI also didn't intend to paint it as a negative. It's just irrevocably connected with the internet backlash against PC culture. That's what it was. If that didn't seem clear at first, I'm making it more clear now. It was a backlash against a perceived intrusion of social justice and PC culture into a space where it was unwelcome. It was large, and made lots of noise, and after it calmed down many more movements against various perceived intrusions of PC culture into society would rise up, be they directly connected to the original movement or not.
In any case, I wouldn't quite call 4chan an immensely destructive force for evil either.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:24:48 AM by InAnOdderWay
and again I disagree with how you're characterising it but can't lay out my argument because the subject is banned. Do you see why it's a full ban now? Because every time it's mentioned in any context of having caused anything people who disagree have to shut their mouths and simply allowed whoever came first to characterise it however they wish.
@Tactical Fox 88: Maybe I'm being a bit naive about this, but this conflict between these two wings of the Democratic party seems really unnecessary, and I don't like the implication that focusing more on the economy necessitates throwing minorities to the wind.
I have referenced The Hashtag that Must Not Be Named by name before in this thread in a discussion with Fighter before and it was allowed to pass. I was explicit in bringing it up as context relating to the alt-right, not as the topic itself.
I do not propose trying to push it any further than that.
It's viewed as a necessity because it's viewed as a conflict between shoring up Union/Industrial Job workers vs Emphasizing Minority Identify Politics (combined with Sympathetic White Yuppies). There's some autopsy speculation that Hillary lost on the Rust Belt via traditionally white factory/union/miner workers who will back Democrats typically but are hair trigger likely to bolt Republican if they feel Republicans are offering a better deal or if Democrats are ignoring them in favor of too may benefits to minorities and throwing them to the wind.
Vox has another autopsy speculation,
that Hillary got screwed due to further collapse of the old staunch Union bloc in the area due to further grinding via automation and Right to Work policies whittling down the old reliable base. So Democrats, who have traditionally relied on working with the Union bosses to get things done might need to do more direct on the ground communication in the future that they're not used to doing if the unions have eroded that badly.
The Democrats need to find a way to gently break the news to those workers that a) their jobs aren't coming back, b) it's due to automation and the free market and NOT due to the EPA, and c) the Democrats are willing to help them and their children find different paths.
HRC wouldn't have been able to do it though. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people in the Rust Belt blame NAFTA for their losses — and Bill Clinton was the one who signed it. HRC's not-entirely-reassuring rejection of the TPP — another free trade agreement — didn't help either.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:48:42 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI would compliment the mods on that. This forum is a place where you can have civil, factual and elaborate discussions on many different topics (not all of them, but a large number). Trump's entire shtick was to be insulting, to ignore facts, and to be barely literate. He is the polar opposite of what this forum stands for.
Of course he became popular with intolerant trolls, that's what he is to the core. The issues with Gamergate and then Trump is that those were political topics - before that, the most discussed topics were apolitical, which allowed people with vastly different perceptions of right and wrong to coexist. But when you start talking politics in a place that has zero civility rules and whose motto is to provoke, provoke, provoke...then you get to the realization that some people cannot coexist.
Which is why I think "PC culture" is just a vast joke. There is no such thing, just like there is no "sports culture" or "TV culture". It's just that, like everywhere else, some people claim that they are the only ones to properly represent their group (they aren't). It's exactly like the "America" that is supposed to be made great again.
Anyway, if in 4 years Trump gets banned as a topic...then it means he didn't get re-elected. So it's a good thing! Also, it means no nuclear apocalypse so far.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:49:00 AM by Julep
A lot of people took Trump's rudeness and lack of shame to be signs of honesty, despite him lying like a rug. They loved it when he mocked and insulted the people they hated, especially HRC.
A lot of people took HRC's civility and attempts to choose her words carefully to be signs of shiftiness, despite her being more or less honest most of the time. Though of course the one time she slipped and called a bunch of his supporters deplorable, they flipped their shit.
edited 23rd Nov '16 6:54:19 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThat article on the previous page (the one where the reporter visits a Trump supporter) proves two things: One, the GIFT theory; and two, it's arguable that what you type online is who you REALLY are- for better or worse. In this case, worse.
@the article about fundamentalism of rural america: It's not exactly inaccurate from my understanding, but the problem is if they really won't listen what are we to do? Wait for them to die off and/or that their situation gets bad enough that they have no choice but to move to the cities and realize that they're wrong?
edited 23rd Nov '16 7:29:49 AM by Draghinazzo
edited 23rd Nov '16 7:45:08 AM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!

edited 23rd Nov '16 6:10:07 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran