Attacks in Paris + Belgium

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Er well that's bollocks considering Trump never went on the stage.

Platform then, whatever you want to call it.

edit: ignore that, i'm seeing the one from ohio

 

[Womble98]

This protesting is playing right into Trump's narrative. The events in Chicago will give him another boost, and he will win on Tuesday. The way you beat rabble rousing is with facts not with trying to shout over the rabble rouser. All that does is convince the rabble rouser and his followers that he is right.

 

[Jockney]

This protesting is playing right into Trump's narrative. The events in Chicago will give him another boost, and he will win on Tuesday. The way you beat rabble rousing is with facts not with trying to shout over the rabble rouser. All that does is convince the rabble rouser and his followers that he is right.

Oh my God, have you been asleep for the last eight months?

 

[blade1889]

To be fair Trump has some strange ora of untouchable around him at the moment. Similar to Farage he can just brush things off and comes out the better for it.

 

[Stevencc]

Platform then, whatever you want to call it.

edit: ignore that, i'm seeing the one from ohio

"Go on back home, go back home".

That's an apt catchphrase for him to adopt.

 

[Womble98]

Oh my God, have you been asleep for the last eight months?

We'll see on Tuesday when Trump takes the next lot of states. This kind of protest is entirely counterproductive and drives people from the centre towards the extremes.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

no-one has actually came up with a way to combat trump though have they

 

[blade1889]

We'll see on Tuesday when Trump takes the next lot of states. This kind of protest is entirely counterproductive and drives people from the centre towards the extremes.

I think he was pointing out that people have been doing what you've suggested for the last year...and all Trump has done is grown in popularity. Although I dont disagree with your sentiment that this wont hurt Trump either.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

no-one has actually came up with a way to combat trump though have they

#cantstumpthetrump

 

[Tilbury]

We'll see on Tuesday when Trump takes the next lot of states. This kind of protest is entirely counterproductive and drives people from the centre towards the extremes.

He has the nomination secured already, from now on it is about November and ensuring he comes nowhere near to winning, which I am still very confident won't happen.
Whilst it will rile up his own support base, that group remains a small group in national terms and there really isn't that much room for expansion.

 

[Alty]

no-one has actually came up with a way to combat trump though have they

Perhaps I'm a bit too sanguine, but I just do not believe the American people as a whole are stupid enough to elect this guy.

Trump is taking between a quarter and half of the vote in a series of Republican primaries. Given what the man stands for, there's nothing to suggest this would translate into general election victory.

Romney got 56% of the white vote but still lost the last general election. With demographics continuing to shift and with Trump surely on to be even less popular with minority voters, what's he going to need to win a general election? 6 out of every 10 white voters? Can't see it.

 

[SUTSS]

I can't see Trump winning either. His base plus a few who will vote Republican no matter who the nominee is will get him 35%-40% of the vote but if you look at the opinion polling it looks like it'll be very difficult to get beyond that regardless of if he is up against Sanders or Clinton.

 

[Jockney]

We'll see on Tuesday when Trump takes the next lot of states. This kind of protest is entirely counterproductive and drives people from the centre towards the extremes.

It's counter-productive to stand up for your city against a racist, xenophobic, misogynistic neo-fascist? If only more cities did that Trump would be a far less palatable candidate.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Perhaps I'm a bit too sanguine, but I just do not believe the American people as a whole are stupid enough to elect this guy.

Trump is taking between a quarter and half of the vote in a series of Republican primaries. Given what the man stands for, there's nothing to suggest this would translate into general election victory.

Romney got 56% of the white vote but still lost the last general election. With demographics continuing to shift and with Trump surely on to be even less popular with minority voters, what's he going to need to win a general election? 6 out of every 10 white voters? Can't see it.

when it comes to the presidential election, sure, he'll lose. but that's just cause most of the population at large aren't so easy to fool. it's a win by default, really. what ebeneezer and mordon are failing to realise is that their much vaunted reasoned, logical debate isn't working with trump. trump is sort of a post-modernist take on politics. everything he does is a reaction to the things a very misguided and angry percent of the population hate about politics. one of those things are facts and figures and truth rather than a vague 'feeling' about how things used to be

 

[DarkSithLord]

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 4m4 minutes ago
Four people arrested in the Paris area suspected of planning a terror attack, French media report http://bbc.in/1PbV7d7

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

ahaha the s j w to skeletons plug in strikes again

also if u use that acronym unironically there's no saving u

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think you underestimate the level of social justice fucktardery out there Ian. Spend five minutes on Tumblr and you will see.

better watch out tho u fucking cishet shitlord

 

[Renegade]

Why skeletons? I have used it unironically in the past before though. I don't use it like conservatives who whip it out during every legitimate liberal protest or rally, I am pretty much liberal in regards to everything. I think it's an apt phrase to use against the people I mention in the post above, you know, the types of people who wish to strip Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream..." speech from their University halls because it's not inclusive enough, showing a shocking disregard for history and the context of his speech. There are numerous similar examples.

Social justice is obviously a good thing worth fighting for. Some people take it too far, these are the skeletons worthy of such a phrase. Fighting against something that they shouldn't be fighting against just for the sake of protest, usually to further their own reputations. Yes, I did actually type out skeletons that time Ian.

 

[Alty]

Sorry I'm lost. What is this skeletons thing about?

 

[Womble98]

when it comes to the presidential election, sure, he'll lose. but that's just cause most of the population at large aren't so easy to fool. it's a win by default, really. what ebeneezer and mordon are failing to realise is that their much vaunted reasoned, logical debate isn't working with trump. trump is sort of a post-modernist take on politics. everything he does is a reaction to the things a very misguided and angry percent of the population hate about politics. one of those things are facts and figures and truth rather than a vague 'feeling' about how things used to be

And the tactic of shouting back just as loud is really working isn't it. No, it's just driving more and more people away from the relatively unextreme to the extreme.

Alty, the skeletons thing is because there is a forum plugin changing the phrase 'S.J.W.' to skeletons.

Seriously admins what the fuck is with that? It isn't offensive so can you stop fucking with discussion. Just let people type what they want without some bullshit additions. Really puts me off using a forum when admins use their admin powers to correspond with their views on things.

 

[blade1889]

Social justice warrior

Sjw

Nope, still don't get it

 

[Womble98]

Now I'm so confused

 

[Alty]

Why skeletons? I have used it unironically in the past before though. I don't use it like conservatives who whip it out during every legitimate liberal protest or rally, I am pretty much liberal in regards to everything. I think it's an apt phrase to use against the people I mention in the post above, you know, the types of people who wish to strip Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream..." speech from their University halls because it's not inclusive enough, showing a shocking disregard for history and the context of his speech. There are numerous similar examples.

Social justice is obviously a good thing worth fighting for. Some people take it too far, these are the skeletons worthy of such a phrase. Fighting against something that they shouldn't be fighting against just for the sake of protest, usually to further their own reputations. Yes, I did actually type out skeletons that time Ian.

Did you catch Sam Harris' recent podcast in which he interviewed a university lecturer? The poor bloke went through months of hassle for having the temerity to include a video in one of his lectures that actually challenged a student's world view.

I think these are quite worrying times. People genuinely seem to believe they have a right not to be offended. Doesn't bode well for rational discourse.

 

[silkyman]

They also believe that 'being offended' = 'being right'. I absolutely disagree with the whole 'no platform' movement. If you think someone is wrong, then debate them. Don't shut them down and retreat into your own echo-chamber.

Same as the argument against filibustering. if you think you are right, win the debate.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

the argument against filibustering is that if u talk for hours and can't be interrupted until the allotted time for debate is up there's no way to win the debate

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Seriously admins what the fuck is with that? It isn't offensive so can you stop fucking with discussion. Just let people type what they want without some bullshit additions. Really puts me off using a forum when admins use their admin powers to correspond with their views on things.

as much as i like shitting on this forum it's a chrome pluggin not a forum. the millen-nials to snake people one is also fun

 

[Renegade]

Did you catch Sam Harris' recent podcast in which he interviewed a university lecturer? The poor bloke went through months of hassle for having the temerity to include a video in one of his lectures that actually challenged a student's world view.

I think these are quite worrying times. People genuinely seem to believe they have a right not to be offended. Doesn't bode well for rational discourse.

Yeah, I really enjoyed their conversation, that'd be Jonathan Haidt (I referenced him earlier in the thread). He was called out as a homophobe by one of his students for coming up with an example that challenged their belief on morality. He was discussing the morality of someone who advocates gay rights publically but that person never shares that they believe homosexuality to be disgusting. The student then put 2 + 2 together and came up with 5, because he thought that Haidt was claiming the homosexuality was disgusting. Basically he was triggered by a morality scenario with fictional character.

I found it extra baffling because I've just finished two of his books (The Righteous Mind and The Happiness Hypothesis) after a recommendation by Captain Scumbag (many thanks) and if you've even read a chapter of either you can see that his style of teaching is riddled with this type of example. He is just trying to challenge our stances on morality, whilst also showing that generally we've already made up our minds on whether something is moral before justifying our reasons. Another common example he gives in his books and that podcast:

Imagine that a brother and sister sleep together once. No one else knows, no harm befalls either one, and both feel it brought them closer as siblings. They both use contraceptives ensuring there is no chance of any offspring. Is this immoral?

Most people still answer yes, even though they have no good reason that it actually is immoral, nothing bad came from the scenario. Haidt was doing something similar with the homosexuality example. And some fucking idiot who attends his lecture knowing who he is, the topics he writes about and the examples he gives using fictional characters somehow thought he was being homophobic. Leading to months of turmoil and public criticism.

What. A. c***. These people need to be exposed as damaging to education and debate. This is where social justice gets out of line.

as much as i like shitting on this forum it's a chrome pluggin not a forum. the millen-nials to snake people one is also fun

The "cloud" to "butt" one is amazing.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en

 

[Magic]

Did you catch Sam Harris' recent podcast in which he interviewed a university lecturer? The poor bloke went through months of hassle for having the temerity to include a video in one of his lectures that actually challenged a student's world view.

I think these are quite worrying times. People genuinely seem to believe they have a right not to be offended. Doesn't bode well for rational discourse.

In my third year at Liverpool, Dolowitz basically went around the lecture hall pointing out all minorities and saying along the lines of "you'd be fucked over in the states" during one American Politics lecture. Didn't go down well with quite a few people. A lot of precious folk didn't enjoy many of his 'non-pc' methods to be fair - even less risqué things than that.

Seems to me like people are so keen to appear clean-cut, morally infallible and so far removed from anything remotely controversial these days which leaves them blinkered from reality sometimes.

 

[blade1889]

Yeah, I really enjoyed their conversation, that'd be Jonathan Haidt (I referenced him earlier in the thread). He was called out as a homophobe by one of his students for coming up with an example that challenged their belief on morality. He was discussing the morality of someone who advocates gay rights publically but that person never shares that they believe homosexuality to be disgusting. The student then put 2 + 2 together and came up with 5, because he thought that Haidt was claiming the homosexuality was disgusting. Basically he was triggered by a morality scenario with fictional character.

I found it extra baffling because I've just finished two of his books (The Righteous Mind and The Happiness Hypothesis) after a recommendation by Captain Scumbag (many thanks) and if you've even read a chapter of either you can see that his style of teaching is riddled with this type of example. He is just trying to challenge our stances on morality, whilst also showing that generally we've already made up our minds on whether something is moral before justifying our reasons. Another common example he gives in his books and that podcast:

Imagine that a brother and sister sleep together once. No one else knows, no harm befalls either one, and both feel it brought them closer as siblings. They both use contraceptives ensuring there is no chance of any offspring. Is this immoral?

Most people still answer yes, even though they have no good reason that it actually is immoral, nothing bad came from the scenario. Haidt was doing something similar with the homosexuality example. And some fucking idiot who attends his lecture knowing who he is, the topics he writes about and the examples he gives using fictional characters somehow thought he was being homophobic. Leading to months of turmoil and public criticism.

What. A. c***. These people need to be exposed as damaging to education and debate. This is where social justice gets out of line.


The "cloud" to "butt" one is amazing.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/apmlngnhgbnjpajelfkmabhkfapgnoai?hl=en

This link has transcripts of Haidt's video and apology. https://sternoppy.com/2014/02/20/on...phobic-comments-an-open-letter-to-dean-henry/

I'm assuming this is what you're on about Renegade? Although the transcript reads slightly differently to what you said about homosexuality being disgusting.

At first I was expecting him to be like my teachers at school who would say "there are gay people, we accept that but don't advise it" or words similar to that.

Instead its a guy who advocates gay rights but finds homosexual sex (the actual act as opposed to homosexuality) repulsive. Well...what really is the issue? I wouldn't expect straight men to want to watch gay male sex and I would find expect them to be repulsed by it to an extent...the same way I have gay friends who the mere mentioning of a vagina to and they'll screw up their faces and put their fingers in their ears.

I do find outrage at things like that not just irritating but damaging. Turning such a valid fight that still needs fighting all over the world into fights that don't need to be fought only changes peoples perceptions to 'well if that's all you've got to complain about you ain't got much to fight for any more'. The fight for equality doesn't mean heterosexual people now need to be ok with watching two men have sex.

Edit: Only skim-read the blog post (but read the transcripts it links) at first. But have just been back over it...the argument against Haidt that I can understand would be a student who's possibly already in a bad place at the time with regards to their sexuality hearing a lecturer say something like that. That would only compound whatever bad feelings they have at the time, especially as someone in that place is even less likely to see the intentions behind his comments but focus on the negative 'image' they've already been focusing on/come accustomed to hearing (if that makes sense...I know what I'm trying to say but don't know how to word it).

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i find trigger warnings a bit awkward and weird but i don't see why people get so annoyed by them. warning someone that a media contains scenes of a rape, for example, is, in effect, a trigger warning isn't it?