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
To be fair, on the flip side, there is a perfect solution fallacy involving legislation. Sure, just passing laws isn't going to work, but it is a major part of the process. To put it this way, it's currently the law that black people should have the same rights as white people. This presents a theory of how society should work and codifies a specific agenda into the state.
That law definitely has an impact on American culture. Hell, it's part of why there's such a commotion made at racial profiling and police brutality-it's because they're breaking the law.
Similarly such laws create a major stigma around racism itself. Someone who is openly racist is defying the ideological precepts related to a very important law. Despite racism still being a major problem in the US, flat-out declaring that minorities are inferior to you is seen rather similarly to spitting on the Statue of Liberty while declaring that tea is better than coffee and soccer better than football.
Leviticus 19:34
x5 False dicotomies are false for a reason. One thing that Trump supporters tend to do, is assume that we are upset specifically because Hillary lost, because they feel that way about Trump, and project that onto us.
But the thing is, very few of us were fanatically attached to Hillary in the same way. Many of us liked her, and thought she would have been a decent president, but most of us have moved on.
edited 14th May '18 5:00:01 PM by megaeliz
@Raining Metal: Well, Hillary wasn't my first choice (I'm a Republican, in fact) I definitely would have preferred her over Trump. For starters, she isn't a Russian shill.
Leviticus 19:34That law definitely has an impact on American culture. Hell, it's part of why there's such a commotion made at racial profiling and police brutality-it's because they're breaking the law.
This. Police Brutality being make illegal yet tolerated is one of the reasons why is so shocking.
edited 14th May '18 5:00:07 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my countryImca's right. Laws on paper can't and won't be enforced unless popular will is behind them. Which begs the question how those laws got passed in the first place, but whatever...
Passing a law can help, when the public doesnt already have a strong position on the matter. That's how we got people to stop littering, smoking and starting forest fires. But treating someone who you perceive to be different from you as being your equal? That's much harder.
edited 14th May '18 5:02:00 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.![]()
This means that because my country is homophobic, then homosexual should be left without marriage?
Or because people like lynching criminals, then it should be legal?
People can be awful without anyone forcing them.
edited 14th May '18 5:01:54 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my countryLook, man, sometimes things are black and white. Even if we measured the cons of Hillary Clinton, the cons of Trump far outmatch them in both number and scale.
i'm tired, my friend@Kazuya: Depends on how homophobic your country is. If the majority are hard-core about it, there may not be much anyone can do, at least in the short term.
In a functioning democracy anyway, the purpose of trying to pass new legislation is to stimulate a public discussion of the issue, and hopefully persuade a plurality to accept it.
edited 14th May '18 5:04:05 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Oh, I'm well aware that Trump and his lackeys are Always Chaotic Evil. I had hoped that Trump's cabinet would have exercised some sort of control when he won the presidency. Needless to say, I was disappointed in such a predictable failure. I guess right-wingers have less of a comprehension of Stop Being Stereotypical. I do try to give different viewpoints a chance when it comes to murkier topics though, even if some people call it "Bothsiderssism".
Speaking of out scaling cons, I still remember that John Oliver metaphor about raisin cookies.
edited 14th May '18 5:07:13 PM by RainingMetal
ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.In our case it was because the US wrote the laws after WWII.... and before that because Meji wrote the laws after taking over the country.
.....
Which funnily enough mirrors how the south manages to be such a bigoted area despite laws saying they cant be, they lost a war and some one else wrote the laws for them.
Nazi Germany seems to be the only real success story about beating the ideas out of some one after beating them in conflict, every other time the ideas still exist, but they get pushed down a bit, where fighting them becomes much harder.
The good news at least is that public perception on homosexuality changes rapidly for what it is worth, a decade ago most Americans opposed it, and at the time the laws were changed 2 years ago, most support it.
edited 14th May '18 5:07:52 PM by Imca
The fun thing is that despite the backlash, it worked. Japan did become better than its Imperial Self. It still have issues, but is not like USA wanted turn them into a Tolerant paradise (and the abuses commited for American officers should never be overlooked),
Nazi Germany is a case where everyone (rightfully) guilty tripped them at a national level. Everyone wanted be sure that the Nazis never rised again in Germany.
Everyone hated the nazis, but not everyone hated Imperial Japan as much as them.
The laws instaured in the South banned slavery, but they didnt say that they should be tolerant of black people.
edited 14th May '18 5:10:41 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
Oh I am not going to argue that it is not better then it was before, but I will still contest from personal experience that it couldn't be better still if we had actually undergone the social shift to go with the equality rather then just being told "Men and women are equal now, have fun" because the later is being used to crush every attempt to start the social shifts up.
It caused massive short term gain, but at the same time, it caused lasting long term harm.
This is the thing, the USA didnt force gender equality, the USA forced "please, dont become The Empire again".
You cant say that they failed at forcing them to accept ending bigotry when the forcers never wanted do that in first place.
People justifying bigotry in the "but the law banned that, so why bother?" usually are being hypocrites that are breaking the law too.
edited 14th May '18 5:13:20 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my countryThis strikes me as an odd question, given there no longer is a Hillary to be pro- or anti- towards. She is effectively irrelevant now.
That said, during the election I was pro-Hillary because, whatever flaws she possessed, the moment she and Trump became the candidates those flaws no longer mattered.
Simply put, there is no skeleton in Hillary Clinton's closet, real or imagined, that could ever make Donald Trump look like a sane and reasonable choice and every one of Trump's Twitter Tantrums only vindicates me, as far as I'm concerned.
edited 14th May '18 5:15:19 PM by sgamer82
Oh, I'm almost certain anyone with a sane outlook would pick Hillary over Trump even if it came with a tax raise or a bill, that's basically a guarantee. When I say pro-Hillary, I mean compared to other democrat candidates. I guess this site uncovered a few bad bones from Bernie that nobody else admits or knows of, given his Sacred Cow status everywhere else. Guess there's no such thing as The Ace in real life.
Obviously, fate has dealt us the Trump Card, and we have no choice but to play it. I was merely contemplating the past.
ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.The attempt at comparing Clinton to a vaccine...you know that vaccines are not, in fact dangerous, right? That the anti-vaxx stuff has been entirely debunked?
I'm not sure what's funnier—the "merely" here or the part later on where you presumed to lecture me on how the education system works...in Canada. Where I live and teach. Hundreds of miles from where you work.
I have the authority, in online courses, to do exactly what the moderators do here, removing any language I consider problematic. That includes not only overt abuse, but also things like Holocaust denial which are, wait for it, illegal under Canadian law. For in-class stuff, I have permission to structure my participation marks however I damn well want. And if I were to go to one of my bosses and say "I don't call on Bob anymore because the first time I did he blathered on about what a great guy Hitler was," they would almost certainly back me up.
My father, as previously noted, taught high school for thirty years, was head of the history department at our high school, and was repeatedly honoured by colleagues and students for his contributions to education. He also consistently refused to call on neo-Nazis when they were in his class, because he firmly believed that protecting other students was far more important than giving the fascist a chance to be disruptive.
Your little corner of America is not the world, and the rules of education you abide by are not mine.
I think they were trying to argue getting a vaccine is itself unpleasant (IE, getting a needle stabbed into your arm and having something which causes a reaction injected into you) but prevents something far worse.
I've been wondering about the process of Germany's denazification. Specifically, what factors made it so successful that Germany was able to prevent Fascism from rising again, and if most of those factors could be replicated in the US (post Trump of course)?
edited 14th May '18 6:15:21 PM by MorningStar1337
![]()
LOL, before you were Ninja'd I was like "well, not quite yet. He just became a teacher. He did win a bronze star in Afghanistan".
edited 14th May '18 6:17:04 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

The problem is the government comes from the very people your trying to convince, they are not some magical third party entity without there own bias, but rather a reflection of society itself for the most part.
Which means that they wont bother doing so if they haven't already been convinced at the societal level first.
Which is why you need both at the same time, not one or the other.... they have to happen in parallel.
edited 14th May '18 4:57:58 PM by Imca