Author Topic: The Biden Presidency v.2021  (Read 9539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2021, 05:04:41 PM »
I don't expect that we'll know the contents of it until it winds up in the Biden presidential museum, but the note Donnie left for Biden was described as "Very generous." And while he was his same egotistical self while leaving this morning, he was also complementary of "the incoming administration." It's a same the guy didn't bother to act presidential until he was tossed out on his fat ass, because it seems that he does have a basic capability to do so.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2021, 05:34:59 PM »
With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect perhaps he never wanted to act presidential.  Too much of his support was tied up in the idea of him not being a 'politician', which traditional presidential behavior might have challenged.  But what do I know?

Anyways.  Here's hoping Biden can improve some stuff.  I don't have a lot of faith there, but I have some hope. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2021, 07:57:44 PM »
Iím betting that Biden is purposefully being vague and Ďcomplimentaryí. If Donnie wrote the letter himself, I canít imagine what he would have said. Iíd lay a c-note that his speechwriter wrote it, and slipped it in with all of his final declarations to sign off on.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 2194
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2021, 08:33:06 PM »
Borrowed and stolen and late to the game (partly).

Temps in DC went from minus 45 to plus 46 in a matter of hours. :tup

Hip frickin hooray!
'Discretionary posting is the better part of valor.'  Falstaff

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15699
  • Gender: Male
  • also, a tin teardrop
    • Overhaul
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2021, 02:19:09 AM »
Yo, Stadler, sorry to be this guy, but you are the only one here who ever, EVER, brings up Ocasio-Cortez for no reason other than to make a point. How about you focus on what's happening? DJT was a divisive piece of shit who made the USA look like a bunch of clowns for the rest of the world to see, single-handledly killing off long-term relationships with other countries, sowing distrust and making the world a more dangerous place to live in for everyone. Yes, I'm glad he's gone, but I was not the one showing 'glee' (though I could have, and have done in past threads).

Joe Biden's speech had a clear message. It was powerful, but also reflective (how anyone can still claim this man is senile or has dementia is beyond me). He KNOWS there's a shit-ton of work to be done, both nationally and internationally. How about we (you, broadly, Americans) work on that?

Bro, I'm in. I have been in. I've said it repeatedly.  If you have to ask why I bring up Ocasio-Cortez, you haven't gotten the point: SHE IS THE ONE YOU NEED TO BE SENDING THAT MESSAGE TO.  I'm a fan of BIDEN; the problem is, he's the only one saying and doing these things.    Harris is eye-rolling and winking when asked if she was going to follow Biden's lead on that policy (60 Minutes interview immediately following the election).  Not three days ago, Ocasio-Cortez was literally SCREAMING on Instagram for those in Congress that didn't see things her way to GET OUT.  That's the definition of "divisive".

I know you're in, because I'm reading almost everything that gets posted here, without always replying to everything, and I'm sorry for not engaging more often. I can understand how my remarks can sometimes come across as 'lecturing' (your last paragraph, below), but that's not what I intend to do. I think, compared to a lot of posters here, my view is somewhat unique, because I'm not American and this gives me a different angle from which to approach these topics. That said, I don't know about everything happening in the USA, so I can't comment on specific cases like AOC's instagram feed or Kamala Harris 'eye-rolling'.

Trump wasn't our biggest problem; he was both a symptom and an exacerbator of our biggest problem(s): our inability to come to compromise, our inability to not view everything as a battle of ideology and morals, our inability to even have civil disagreement without baiting, trolling, or ad hominem judgements.  Trump's gone.  Yet all those voices feeding the flames of dischord, of divisiveness, making us look like domestic clowns, are still here.  Only time will tell if they fall in line with our esteemed (seriously, no snark) leader.

I was having a discussing with my mother last night and she basically said that there's probably at least one thing Donald Trump has done that could potentially be good. While the division has probably always been there, he exaggerated it, made it available for all to see and now that it is on the table, it HAS to be discussed. It's out in the open and there's no way going around it, whereas in the past it might have been swept under the rug. It's up to everyone now, not just politicians, though probably especially politicians, to calm down and get along and sort out difference. This includes Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Lauren Boebert, etc. etc.

^ and you can see my bias in that list as well. I can probably name more 'Republican' senators/congresspeople who I find annoying or obnoxious than I can name 'Democrats'. My own views probably align more with AOC's than with Ted Cruz's or Lauren Boebert's, to name two, so naturally I'll be more likely to find fault in or disagree with what they are doing, but I brought up the AOC case here specifically, because I don't think it helps in any way to point fingers that way, when you have people on the other side expressing similar behaviour in an even worse manner (have you seen Marjorie Taylor Greene's Twitter feed? oh wait, she's been suspended as well..)

If you're truly committed to "working" on those things, then how about spread the word here? Instead of lecturing me, help me point out there's work to be done. Help me remind that we're not "back", yet.  Help me remind that trolling and gloating people isn't the way to build unity and concensus.   Help me to remind that 350 assholes is not and never will be the same as the 35,000,000 that have registered as Republicans.   Help me to remind that "that orange asshole" isn't a way to start a conversation about issues if you expect there to be any workable resolution from it, even if it makes you feel good.   Help me to remind that while there may be are exceptions, just wholesale reversing everything "the orange guy" did is no different than just wholesale reversing everything "the black guy" did.

Of course there's work to be done and you're not 'back' yet. I'm pretty sure Joe Biden knows this and he has the experience to realise he needs to walk the tightrope between getting things done that he wants, and also restoring unity in your congress/senate/country.

I absolutely agree on the last premise of your post; people in generally REALLY need to take a look at themselves and stop seeing things so black-and-white. There's no middle-ground, the grey is gone. And, while I can't prove this in any way, I'm quite sure social media, or mass-communication in general is the reason why. People don't read, they go by their feelings, by snarky remarks and quips, by 100-character summaries of far too complex material, forming opinions along the way that have no base on reality or fact, supporting politicians and goals against their own best interest. This is the problem; people need to learn how to think critically, realise that 'the media' (while biased) does not show 'fake' news, that there's multiple angles from which to look at things.

Debate, speak to people, give them your view, tell everyone how important it is to view things from different angles, there's no zeros and ones in actual complex material, like social-economic issues. BLM is a valid cause; stopping unnecessary police violence benefits everyone (defunding the police doesn't), making sure our earth isn't fucked in 100 years by stopping unnecessary pollution and halting climate change is a valid cause, claiming it doesn't exist is not productive. Stopping a pandemic is a valid cause (claiming it doesn't exist and therefore refusing to do anything about it is NOT productive). These examples are not black and white issues, yet in the current national debate, they seem to be and this is detrimental.

Going back to my mother to finish my last post; when Bush said 'you are with us, of you are with the terrorists' after 9/11, she was terrified of what might come next, condemning that specific speech as a 'very American ideology'. I was 9 (almost 10) years old and I remember that the news was full of fear for a possible WWIII. Perhaps the division was always there to see, but directly mostly to the outside world. Now it's clear for all to see within the nation's borders. It's visible and now it's time to take it heads on.
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Squ
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 2841
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #40 on: January 21, 2021, 08:20:21 AM »
I'm just glad there is someone representing our country who isn't an asshole. I may not agree with him on everything, but we need someone pushing kindness and respect over anger and division.

Offline hunnus2000

  • Posts: 976
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #41 on: January 21, 2021, 09:12:57 AM »

Iím betting that Biden is purposefully being vague and Ďcomplimentaryí. If Donnie wrote the letter himself, I canít imagine what he would have said. Iíd lay a c-note that his speechwriter wrote it,
and slipped it in with all of his final declarations to sign off on.

I agree - there is no way he wrote anything. He's just not capable.

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 11093
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2021, 09:23:19 AM »
I don't expect that we'll know the contents of it until it winds up in the Biden presidential museum, but the note Donnie left for Biden was described as "Very generous." And while he was his same egotistical self while leaving this morning, he was also complementary of "the incoming administration." It's a same the guy didn't bother to act presidential until he was tossed out on his fat ass, because it seems that he does have a basic capability to do so.

Until he was tossed out on his fat ass... or until with his attitude he encouraged an insurrection that lead to an unprecedented storming of the Capitol? We'll never know but I'd be hardly surprised to discover that some of his lawyers went in full damage control mode and told him "listen, it might not happen, but there's a slight chance you're seriously gonna incriminate yourself for all this Capitol shistorm. From now on, say only what we tell you to say it the way we write it for you, trust us, you'll thank us later".
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2021, 10:11:23 AM »
You're absolutely right, badgering was too harsh a word.  You were voracious and passionate in your reminders of this to the bulk of the people here (no snark).

I'm not sure what standard I'm not following consistently though.  You see the AOC example as the mirror image to Cruz.  I'm not sure I do.  That's my prerogative.  You don't/didn't see things the way I (or others) do/did, so please don't tell or expect me to see things the way you do even when applying these standards against certain situations.  I don't think AOC's rhetoric is nearly as dangerous to your nation as Trump's was - because of her position in the gov't (she's one member of Congress, a junior member at that), and because of her actual rhetoric.  On both measures, Trump was far more destructive than AOC could possibly be over the next four years.  So, even applying the same standard, I don't apply it the way you are, or get to the same outcome.*

I don't get to tell you what to think, I agree on that.  But you noted "sides" in both that paragraph and the footnote; I'm not looking at it as "sides", necessarily.  Certainly not "party" sides; neither Democrats nor Republicans represent this free market libertarian that supports single payer, choice, gay marriage, and is not a climate change denier (but doesn't by in to the economic blackmail that is a huge part of the Democrat response to it).   

I think it's helpful to put the words in Trump's mouth:   "we need to LIBERATE the south [from Republican control]".   If you don't get with the program, if you're not on board with the ideology "GET OUT".   We need to control media and control the message.    If you don't think these are divisive or inflammatory, that's, I guess, fine, but it certainly calls into question what IS divisive and inflammatory.

Quote
The one thing that I think I've come to realize is that (imo) a lot of your positions and stances with Trump seem to come from the frame of him as the leader of the Executive Branch, and the impact/power that he wielded as such.  You talk type about 'what legislation did he actually do', and you're right to bring that up to counter the 'attacks' on him (here and in society at large).  But there are far too many non-legislative ways, and intangible ways that he has decimated your nation.  Far too many things that he DID do with lasting, negative consequences.

But at some point we have to apply critical analysis and equate the evidence with the argument.  Biden ran on "a battle for the soul of this nation".  The soul of this nation is NOT an ideology or a party or even a position or a branch of government.   Trump putting tariffs in place is damaging to this country; pulling out of Paris is damaging to this country.  Neither of those reflect the "soul of this nation"; those are ideological.   Some people consider our relationship with Russia "damaging", or the roll back of regulations and controls.    Those are still ideological. 

So what is damaging to the country?  The divisiveness?  The anger? The hate?   "GET OUT" is not welcoming; it's divisive and hateful.    We have to be very careful that we don't replace what some consider a repulsive "divisive", "anger" and "hate" with what is in essence simply a more palatable, better rationalized "divisive", "anger" and "hate".   Biden has it, nominally, right:  he has to lead EVERYONE.  All 331 million, whether they are smart or stupid, black or white, tolerant or intolerate, rich or poor, employed or not, gun nuts or abolitionists.   "GET OUT" implies - no, says outright - that there is a segment of that 331 that don't deserve to be here, don't deserve constitutional or basic human rights.  What's the difference, fundamentally, between saying "GET OUT" to Muslims or Republicans?    In terms of "soul", NOTHING.

Quote
* in many cases I have applied standards to 'my' / left side.  I've said that Lemon and Tapper are the left wing equivalent of Carlson and Hannity.  I in fact said that to one of my EVPs earlier this afternoon.

At some point, though, I think we need to put "sides" aside.   Part of what I hope to do is to show that the sides are an illusion after a point, at least when it comes to the non-ideological.  Trump's a liar, and it's easy for Democrats to say "wow, what a liar! And how can all those people be deluded by his lies?"    It's HARD to look at Adam Schiff and say "wow, what a liar!" even though he is, and even harder to look in the mirror and say "why was I beholden to his lies?"   And even harder yet to then realize "wow, THAT'S how those people were deluded by Trump".   Trump's divisive, and it's easy for Democrats to say "wow, that is one racist mothertrucker."    It's HARD to separate divisiveness that doesn't nicely fit into the identity politics tropes of the day, and think "wow, maybe my rationalizations are off-putting to someone else".  And it's harder still to realize "wow, even though I don't care for those people and don't like them, they DO have a voice, equal to mine." 

It's baffling to me, sitting here and watching the hate and glee alternate, depending on who we're talking about (Trump/Republicans, Biden/Democrats), and not feeling EITHER emotion.  I don't hate Trump (even though I don't support him and am glad he's gone) and I'm not feeling any glee over Biden (well, more the Biden team than the man; I like him, I just think he's going to have to kowtow at some point sooner rather than later, and that's when the shit's going to hit the fan).   Think about this, Chad:   ever look at the romantic relationship of one of your family or friends and go "wow, what does he/she see in her/him?" or "Wow, doesn't he/she see that they are a bitch/ass?"   When you're on a side, it's hard to keep perspective.    I have my sides, but again, they're not Democrat/Republican, which are the sides relevant to this discussion and relevant to the healing we need so bad.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2021, 10:29:20 AM »
Will it be like a version of "There's a Trump Tweet about everything"?
Announcing in 2021....a new game called...."There's a Stadler post about everything!"
To win, you have to scour DTF to find his post that shows hypocritical positions of Trump and Biden.

LOL, I kid.  I really do.   :heart

But I think that is going to be something we see a LOT in general...not just Stadler.  Are we here at DTF being consistent now that we have a new POTUS?  will be interesting to see.

On another note, I kind of object to the notion that UNITY means inclusion of EVERY person in the US.  That is not what is meant in any practical sense.  It can be a goal, or a spectrum....with varying degrees of success....but we cant dismiss the effort to achieve unity if we cant have EVERYONE agree. 

JMO.

I don't think "agreement" is necessary, though, to improve the situation where we stand now. And, if I understand you correctly, I'm not looking for perfection right out the gate; just a steady move in the right direction would work.  Just tempering the outright rejection of the other "side" would be enough.  Tempering the idea that it's a zero sum game of winners and losers would be enough.   Breaking the mindset of "you're with us or you're against us", of marginalizing the neutral zone with tenets like "silence is consent", would go a long way.   We're never going to all agree, and there's no call (at least on my part) to start integrating bad ideas just so someone can feel "heard".   But we've lost the art of compromise; we CAN get what we - whoever "we" is - want without it also being a conquest of those that aren't all bought in. 

Too often political debates/conversations seem end with a metaphorical:


Honestly - and this isn't a veiled anything; we're largely pretty good here - I'd be happy with just tempering the name-calling and ease with which we resort to the ad hominem to rationalize things that have nothing to do with character.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 10:35:05 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2021, 11:10:33 AM »
I know you're in, because I'm reading almost everything that gets posted here, without always replying to everything, and I'm sorry for not engaging more often. I can understand how my remarks can sometimes come across as 'lecturing' (your last paragraph, below), but that's not what I intend to do. I think, compared to a lot of posters here, my view is somewhat unique, because I'm not American and this gives me a different angle from which to approach these topics. That said, I don't know about everything happening in the USA, so I can't comment on specific cases like AOC's instagram feed or Kamala Harris 'eye-rolling'.

I appreciate yuo writing that, very much.  And much like my example to Chad, sometimes people like you who are engaged, but not in the thick of it can bring a perspective that people like me wouldn't ordinarily have.   I know for me, I probably learned far more about U.S. politics when I started traveling to Europe regularly for work than I ever did in school or debating.

Quote
I was having a discussing with my mother last night and she basically said that there's probably at least one thing Donald Trump has done that could potentially be good. While the division has probably always been there, he exaggerated it, made it available for all to see and now that it is on the table, it HAS to be discussed. It's out in the open and there's no way going around it, whereas in the past it might have been swept under the rug. It's up to everyone now, not just politicians, though probably especially politicians, to calm down and get along and sort out difference. This includes Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Lauren Boebert, etc. etc.

^ and you can see my bias in that list as well. I can probably name more 'Republican' senators/congresspeople who I find annoying or obnoxious than I can name 'Democrats'. My own views probably align more with AOC's than with Ted Cruz's or Lauren Boebert's, to name two, so naturally I'll be more likely to find fault in or disagree with what they are doing, but I brought up the AOC case here specifically, because I don't think it helps in any way to point fingers that way, when you have people on the other side expressing similar behaviour in an even worse manner (have you seen Marjorie Taylor Greene's Twitter feed? oh wait, she's been suspended as well..)
 

I think there's some truth to what your mother said; the pitfall will be avoiding the American way of taking short, decisive action that doesn't actually solve the problem (like electing a new President) then ignoring the problem for later.

I think the point I've been trying to make, though, is not to not agree with Ocasio-Cortez, but maybe be more honest in how she's going about it.   I've said before, I LIKE Bernie, a lot.   We don't agree on much, but I LIKE him.  Kirsten Gillebrand is one of my favorite Senators (not just because I think she's attractive), and we agree, ideologically, on NOTHING.  But she seems to have a less abrasive, less take no prisoners attitude, and seems willing to have meaningful discussions with people that she doesn't agree with, without tearing them down at the knees.  I don't dislike Ocasio-Cortez because of her position on clean energy or wages (though I disagree with her), I dislike her because of her "GET OUT!" and obliviousness to how she's feeding the divide (one might even say she's reveling in it, but that goes to intent, and I've tried to avoid assuming that).

Quote
Of course there's work to be done and you're not 'back' yet. I'm pretty sure Joe Biden knows this and he has the experience to realise he needs to walk the tightrope between getting things done that he wants, and also restoring unity in your congress/senate/country.

I absolutely agree on the last premise of your post; people in generally REALLY need to take a look at themselves and stop seeing things so black-and-white. There's no middle-ground, the grey is gone. And, while I can't prove this in any way, I'm quite sure social media, or mass-communication in general is the reason why. People don't read, they go by their feelings, by snarky remarks and quips, by 100-character summaries of far too complex material, forming opinions along the way that have no base on reality or fact, supporting politicians and goals against their own best interest. This is the problem; people need to learn how to think critically, realise that 'the media' (while biased) does not show 'fake' news, that there's multiple angles from which to look at things.

Debate, speak to people, give them your view, tell everyone how important it is to view things from different angles, there's no zeros and ones in actual complex material, like social-economic issues. BLM is a valid cause; stopping unnecessary police violence benefits everyone (defunding the police doesn't), making sure our earth isn't fucked in 100 years by stopping unnecessary pollution and halting climate change is a valid cause, claiming it doesn't exist is not productive. Stopping a pandemic is a valid cause (claiming it doesn't exist and therefore refusing to do anything about it is NOT productive). These examples are not black and white issues, yet in the current national debate, they seem to be and this is detrimental.

Going back to my mother to finish my last post; when Bush said 'you are with us, of you are with the terrorists' after 9/11, she was terrified of what might come next, condemning that specific speech as a 'very American ideology'. I was 9 (almost 10) years old and I remember that the news was full of fear for a possible WWIII. Perhaps the division was always there to see, but directly mostly to the outside world. Now it's clear for all to see within the nation's borders. It's visible and now it's time to take it heads on.

First, I love what you wrote, and I thank you for taking the time to write it.  It's really all I've been trying to say for a while now, so I appreciate that.

I think your Bush example is a fantastic one, and thanks for bringing it up.  AT THE TIME, I bet there was almost zero hesitation to say it.  What could be more black and white, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 than "you're either commited to fight terrorism or your not".  Now, in 2021, it's SO easy to replace "terrorism" with "racism", and feel on the right side of history.  But we've seen now, in 20-some-odd years, how that basic, black and white sentiment has been twisted and polluted to the point that it's a symbol of our dysfunction.   As you noted, one can be AGAINST terrorism/racism, and yet not agree with the presented strategies for how to combat it.   

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2021, 01:41:52 PM »
Bill... for someone who has been, for four years, so tolerant of the rhetoric coming from Trump ('nothing to fear hear folks'.... and you were in a lot of cases, quite correct), you seem to be ringing the alarm bells over what's coming out of AOC (et al). BTW, if she's as voracious and consistent in her vitriol, then you're absolutely right .. it doesn't help.  I just having a bit of a #wtf moment when it seems she's being villainized to some degree, while Trump was minimized/tolerated/accepted for four years.

Maybe that's just me seeing it that way.
:dunno:
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #47 on: January 21, 2021, 02:24:25 PM »
Bill... for someone who has been, for four years, so tolerant of the rhetoric coming from Trump ('nothing to fear hear folks'.... and you were in a lot of cases, quite correct), you seem to be ringing the alarm bells over what's coming out of AOC (et al). BTW, if she's as voracious and consistent in her vitriol, then you're absolutely right .. it doesn't help.  I just having a bit of a #wtf moment when it seems she's being villainized to some degree, while Trump was minimized/tolerated/accepted for four years.

Maybe that's just me seeing it that way.
:dunno:

This really isn't that complicated; you just have to adjust your frame; it's not HER.  She can say what she wants like Trump does.  It's the idea - the rationalization - that somehow it's NOT as dangerous as Trump or that it's somehow different because it's in the name of something some of us believe in.   I am tolerant - in the strict sense of the word; we should ALL be tolerant - and that includes her.   But for that four years we were ALSO inundated with the threats of fascism, we were reminded of all these people who were "terrified" of this, and "terrified" of that, we were browbeaten by the Jake Tapper's of the world with how a free media and our democracy was teetering on the edge of oblivion.  We even needed an Avenger-like "war for the soul of this nation" to bring us back from the brink.    Well, okay; I kind of knew that that was all bullshit, but now that we're "back", I'm not hearing anyone really recanting those previous fears, or saying "wow, we REALLY blew that one!".    I hinted to people more times than I can count (and even burned a couple bridges with people I thought friends) that it wasn't because "lying" is bad, or that the free press was REALLY in danger, it was REALLY because you (whoever) just didn't like Trump and thought he was a dick, so this is your way of excusing your own shitty, divisive behavior (outrageous overshadowing) and of pushing back YOUR ideology.    And I was told publicly by some, privately by others, rudely by some, civilly by others, that no, Stads, he's REALLY that bad, and this CANNOT be normalized.    This isn't NORMAL, this isn't acceptable.

So I'm not ringing any bells, really, I'm looking for the reconciliation.  Because now it apparently HAS been normalized, and by the very people that were screaming loudest about that danger.  Trump said "go back to the country you came from" to the Reps he doesn't like, and it was racism, but Ocasio-Cortez says "GET OUT" to the Reps SHE doesn't like and it's what, now?   Trump says the media is out of control and has to be controlled, and it's fascist and the end of democracy as we know it, but Ocasio-Cortez says that the media needs to be modulated and brought to heel and it's what, now?   At some point, if we're not going to admit to delusion or just flat out concede we're a nation of "fuck you partisanship" and whoever has the bigger d*** at the moment, and thereby say that the divisiveness is simply never going to end, there has to be SOME reconciliation.

She gets to say what she wants; I'm not looking to stop her. But if Trump was an "orange piece of shit", what is she now that she's saying the VERY SAME THINGS?  I don't care that she's not President, now, she's an elected official, part of our government, and is building her case now to BE President. 
« Last Edit: January 21, 2021, 02:33:22 PM by Stadler »

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 1020
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #48 on: January 21, 2021, 02:32:56 PM »
why is this so hard? Sheís not saying the same things, itís only YOUR rationalization so you can equate her to Trump and forcing us to do the same and if we donít then we just donít understand. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #49 on: January 21, 2021, 02:35:52 PM »
why is this so hard? Sheís not saying the same things, itís only YOUR rationalization so you can equate her to Trump and forcing us to do the same and if we donít then we just donít understand.

I could easily accuse you of the same thing.  Rationalizing her behavior as different so you can feel morally superior to the rest of us and if we don't agree, we're racist and deplorable.   It's funny how that works.  :)

I'm not "forcing" you to do anything.  I'm asking for some self-contemplation, so maybe we can all, all 331 million of us, find some common ground.  The difference between us is that there is no place for Trump - or anyone that doesn't toe the line on your agenda, including, it seems to me by your disrespect, me - in your world.   There is a place for EVERYONE - Trump, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kevin McCarthy, Kirsten Gillebrand, Bernie Sanders, even Ted fucking Cruz, and yes, YOU - in my world. 

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #50 on: January 21, 2021, 03:45:59 PM »
What place do neo-nazis have in your world? I only ask because they come under the heading of "everyone".
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #51 on: January 21, 2021, 03:54:32 PM »
What place do neo-nazis have in your world? I only ask because they come under the heading of "everyone".
What place do they have in yours?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #52 on: January 21, 2021, 07:42:57 PM »
What place do neo-nazis have in your world? I only ask because they come under the heading of "everyone".
What place do they have in yours?

They don't have any place. You can't compromise or find common ground with individuals whose entire worldview and ethical foundation lies on the destruction and eradication of entire ethnic groups.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #53 on: January 21, 2021, 08:57:48 PM »
There's a lot to unpack in that post up there Bill, and there's a lot of merit in it.  However, I still don't see it the way you do.  Doesn't mean either of us are more right or more wrong, we just have a different view of the same events.  I will cite this though ...

I'm asking for some self-contemplation,

Goes for you too... on a variety of different topics.  Are there double standards (eg, Tapper/Lemon giving editorial hi-fives to the divisive behaviours you point out) absolutely there are... but (imo) you yourself are demonstrating a double standard.  I'm not excusing the example you provided about AOC (whatever her IG post was regarding "leave now") - but was this even newsworthy?  I never heard anything about it.  In fact, I rarely hear anything about AOC nowadays - she's one (junior) voice among 434 others.  Her statements are nothing more than a catchy headline for pundits - if that.  She's not POTUS.  Her words don't carry cachet or gravitas like they do coming from POTUS - domestically or internationally.  The more you focus on her comments and behaviours, the less seriously I can take you (on this matter - not generally speaking).

Also, I caught a bit of Harris' speech from last night.  Not sure if you did or not, but there wasn't a whiff of any smirks or eye-winks.  At some point, you may want to consider parking your bias', when actual facts and events don't coincide with them.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23448
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #54 on: January 22, 2021, 05:44:49 AM »
Stads, just curious and please don't read too much into this question, but do you actually follow AOC on Instagram?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #55 on: January 22, 2021, 05:45:44 AM »
What place do neo-nazis have in your world? I only ask because they come under the heading of "everyone".
What place do they have in yours?

They don't have any place. You can't compromise or find common ground with individuals whose entire worldview and ethical foundation lies on the destruction and eradication of entire ethnic groups.

They do have a place. Not in "MY" world, per se, but in "THE" world.  That terminology is important; it's not "my" world and it's not "your" world.   They're human beings.  I don't believe you CAN'T; I think it's a matter of "don't want to".   We've been ingrained now with this notion of "with us or against us" and it's boxed us into a corner.   Nothing in our constitution says "We the People (that aren't Neo-nazis)..."   Or "We the People (that think just like I do)..."  That doesn't mean I like or accept what they believe, that doesn't mean I pass laws letting them act on their beliefs, that doesn't mean I don't make efforts to assimilate them into the mix on acceptable terms.  Granted, in any population, there is a certain segment of people either can't or don't want to participate.  As we winnow down to that core group, when they act on that, there are consequences; until they do I don't support measures that simply make it more likely that more people will think like that.

Unless we're just talking about vengeance and retribution, I don't believe in marginalization; that to me - AND TO SCIENCE, IT SEEMS - just reinforces the very ideas we're looking to minimize.  (Also, this:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowds    )   Racism is rooted in part in a lack of integration; marginalizing only reinforces that. 

And of course, you also went right to the most extreme.   Here in the States, we're not at the point of marginalizing just neo-Nazis.   We're far from that, and it's getting worse.  We literally have 70, 80 million people marginalizing another 70, 80 million people over things that aren't about "the eradication of entire ethnic groups", but rather, basic governmental functions of budgeting and prioritization.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn't just "not compromising" on neo-Nazi's; she's not compromising on far more basic issues.  We're not actually talking about mollifying neo-Nazis, we're talking about mollifying common American Democrats and Republicans.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 06:54:18 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2021, 05:46:54 AM »
Stads, just curious and please don't read too much into this question, but do you actually follow AOC on Instagram?

"Follow" as in I'm listed as one of her followers? No.  "Follow" as in check in and read/listen to what's being posted?  Periodically.  I can't take too heavy a dose of much of it, frankly.   I get a lot of the message from her Twitter feed as well.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 06:50:47 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #57 on: January 22, 2021, 06:25:17 AM »
There's a lot to unpack in that post up there Bill, and there's a lot of merit in it.  However, I still don't see it the way you do.  Doesn't mean either of us are more right or more wrong, we just have a different view of the same events.  I will cite this though ...

I'm asking for some self-contemplation,

Goes for you too... on a variety of different topics.  Are there double standards (eg, Tapper/Lemon giving editorial hi-fives to the divisive behaviours you point out) absolutely there are... but (imo) you yourself are demonstrating a double standard.  I'm not excusing the example you provided about AOC (whatever her IG post was regarding "leave now") - but was this even newsworthy?  I never heard anything about it.  In fact, I rarely hear anything about AOC nowadays - she's one (junior) voice among 434 others.  Her statements are nothing more than a catchy headline for pundits - if that.  She's not POTUS.  Her words don't carry cachet or gravitas like they do coming from POTUS - domestically or internationally.  The more you focus on her comments and behaviours, the less seriously I can take you (on this matter - not generally speaking).

I'm not sure what more "self-contemplation" I'm supposed to do, but whatever.  You keep looking at me through the lens of "sides", assuming I'm "countering" with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  I've effectively put any "side" I may have away.   I don't buy in ideologically to much at all that Biden brings to the table, but I recognise that my ideology has to take a back seat to unification.    Look, I don't know what to tell you.   We have a problem here in the states of divisiveness.  I gave you examples, examples that I thought were well known enough to be relevant to the most people reading here.  Those certainly aren't the only ones; if those examples aren't good enough, then so be it.   I do note, however, that you're the only person here that's even bothered to acknowledge that she MIGHT be a part of the problem.  The rest is snark and variations on "Godwin's Law".  That's part of my point: there's always a rationalization.  I think - and I will slap myself on the back a little bit here - that I've taken a position that relies less on that rationalization than the common wisdom that is most prevalent today.  I'm not defaulting to the standard that best benefits ME (or my agenda).  I'm not defaulting to the position that "feels good" to me.  I'm not defaulting to the easy out fix.  I'm not defaulting to the position that makes me look best to social media, or gets me the most "likes" (quite the opposite; you've put me in the uncomfortable position of seeming to advocate for neo-Nazis and, as you will see, calling out MLK).  Most importantly, I'm not defaulting to my lens; I don't want to compromise with racists and socialists.   But I'm one of 328+/- million people. That means there are 327,999,999 people who might possibly disagree with me and yet I have to work with them.   What I'm suggesting takes a LOT of effort, and a lot of work by all people. That's what compromise is; no one is supposed to get everything they WANT out of compromise, but settle for what they NEED.  No one is supposed to be "happy" in the pure sense of the word when you're done compromising. 

And let's not talk about "double standards" shall we?  If you're right, then there should never be another post about McConnell, Cruz, Hawley, or any of the other people that aren't toeing the Democratic moral line.  There should be no criticisms of Betsy DeVos, Steve Bannon, Kelly Ann Conway, Matt Gaetz, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Rudy Giuliani.... all off limits, because well, they're not POTUS.   The reality is, that standard doesn't work.  We need to hold OURSELVES accountable, first, and since they represent us, that means we need to hold ALL of our elected and appointed officials accountable.

Quote
Also, I caught a bit of Harris' speech from last night.  Not sure if you did or not, but there wasn't a whiff of any smirks or eye-winks.  At some point, you may want to consider parking your bias', when actual facts and events don't coincide with them.

If you're talking about her acceptance speech, there weren't actual eye-rolls and winks because there didn't have to be.  She came right out and said it.  "Unity" was mentioned once, as an afterthought, in what I recall was the last line of the speech.  The rest was dedicated to her personal agenda (noble that it may be).   "We" will rise up, "we" will overcome.  Who, exactly are "we" in the context of unifying a fractured nation?  Who, exactly, are "we" "rising up" against?  Who, exactly, are "we" overcoming?   Those are incredible words, and they have their place, but they do not scream "we're governing ALL Americans, even the ones that didn't vote for us."  They do not scream "put aside our differences for the time being to heal our nation".
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 06:53:10 AM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #58 on: January 22, 2021, 08:07:58 AM »
What place do neo-nazis have in your world? I only ask because they come under the heading of "everyone".
What place do they have in yours?

They don't have any place. You can't compromise or find common ground with individuals whose entire worldview and ethical foundation lies on the destruction and eradication of entire ethnic groups.
What if they like The Yes Album? Isn't that common ground?

Kidding aside, how do you keep them out of "your world?" Reeducation? Imprisonment? A bullet to the dome? In my world everybody has the right to their own beliefs and their own ideology.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #59 on: January 22, 2021, 08:32:14 AM »
If you're talking about her acceptance speech, there weren't actual eye-rolls and winks because there didn't have to be.  She came right out and said it.  "Unity" was mentioned once, as an afterthought, in what I recall was the last line of the speech.  The rest was dedicated to her personal agenda (noble that it may be).   "We" will rise up, "we" will overcome.  Who, exactly are "we" in the context of unifying a fractured nation?  Who, exactly, are "we" "rising up" against?  Who, exactly, are "we" overcoming?   Those are incredible words, and they have their place, but they do not scream "we're governing ALL Americans, even the ones that didn't vote for us."  They do not scream "put aside our differences for the time being to heal our nation".

I'll just quote this part of your post as it think it encapsulates how different we are.  I saw/heard/interpreted none of that speech in this regard. What is she supposed to say other than "we"??  Would you have rather had her state "Half of us"??  See, I hear every instance of "we" as a plea and call to everyone for unity.  I don't hear "rising up" and "overcoming" in the context of being against a 'who', against one-another ... but as a challenge to heal, repair, come together (considering she literally said "come together") as a function of behaviour and actions, and in respect for one another.  Just because she's not using the words you'd like to hear out of her, doesn't mean she isn't saying what you'd like her to be saying.  It's like when I tell mrs.jingle she looks pretty when she gets home from the hairdresser.  The fact I didn't specifically comment on her hair, doesn't mean I don't like the new 'do'.  :lol

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on much of this discussion - around our respective perspectives/frames by which we view and interpret certain things.  As I said, it doesn't mean that either of us are more right or wrong than the other, but it seems we see the issues, and how we both see one another's views/perceptions of those issues, very differently.  I'm not going to convince you otherwise (not that I'm trying to), nor are you to me.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #60 on: January 22, 2021, 08:38:39 AM »
Kidding aside, how do you keep them out of "your world?" Reeducation? Imprisonment? A bullet to the dome?

I mean, this is how all societies currently function. If your belief is that you shouldn't have to pay taxes then you can bet number 1 and 2 will come knocking.

Quote
In my world everybody has the right to their own beliefs and their own ideology.

In abstract terms, sure, but neo-nazism, is not just an ideology, it is a movement that requires and necessitates violent means towards the ends that ideology demands.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15699
  • Gender: Male
  • also, a tin teardrop
    • Overhaul
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #61 on: January 22, 2021, 08:52:03 AM »
I watched Donald Trump's inauguration speech yesterday, for the first time. After seeing Joe Biden speak Wednesday, I was wondering what DJT had said 4 years before. That one surely hasn't aged well! If it wasn't clear back then, in hindsight it *really* sounds like a demagogue riling up his people for bullshit reasons.
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Squ
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12335
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #62 on: January 22, 2021, 08:53:20 AM »
Kidding aside, how do you keep them out of "your world?" Reeducation? Imprisonment? A bullet to the dome?

I mean, this is how all societies currently function. If your belief is that you shouldn't have to pay taxes then you can bet number 1 and 2 will come knocking.

But what if a society is forced to follow another society, against their will?
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #63 on: January 22, 2021, 09:09:22 AM »
Kidding aside, how do you keep them out of "your world?" Reeducation? Imprisonment? A bullet to the dome?

I mean, this is how all societies currently function. If your belief is that you shouldn't have to pay taxes then you can bet number 1 and 2 will come knocking.

Quote
In my world everybody has the right to their own beliefs and their own ideology.

In abstract terms, sure, but neo-nazism, is not just an ideology, it is a movement that requires and necessitates violent means towards the ends that ideology demands.
And just like most of the people who believe they shouldn't have to pay taxes still do so as to avoid The Man comin' a knockin', most of the neo-nazis here talk a big show, but are essentially just slightly more masculine cosplayers. If these idiots what to dress up like Himmler and gather to talk about the things they'll never have the balls to actually do, then it's really none of my business. I suppose things might actually be different on your side of the planet, but over here they really are the People's Judean Front. "Something's happening, Reg! It's really, really happening!" "Alright, time to table a new motion."

That said, if you express support for a violent ideology then I've got no problem with The Man keeping tabs on you. I wouldn't recommend ignoring the guy claiming that he wants to blow up a synagogue. If "wants to" becomes "going to" then bust his silly ass. Like minded people reveling in silly beliefs cannot be criminal, though. Happens every week over here.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #64 on: January 22, 2021, 09:26:30 AM »
If you're talking about her acceptance speech, there weren't actual eye-rolls and winks because there didn't have to be.  She came right out and said it.  "Unity" was mentioned once, as an afterthought, in what I recall was the last line of the speech.  The rest was dedicated to her personal agenda (noble that it may be).   "We" will rise up, "we" will overcome.  Who, exactly are "we" in the context of unifying a fractured nation?  Who, exactly, are "we" "rising up" against?  Who, exactly, are "we" overcoming?   Those are incredible words, and they have their place, but they do not scream "we're governing ALL Americans, even the ones that didn't vote for us."  They do not scream "put aside our differences for the time being to heal our nation".

I'll just quote this part of your post as it think it encapsulates how different we are.  I saw/heard/interpreted none of that speech in this regard. What is she supposed to say other than "we"??  Would you have rather had her state "Half of us"??  See, I hear every instance of "we" as a plea and call to everyone for unity.  I don't hear "rising up" and "overcoming" in the context of being against a 'who', against one-another ... but as a challenge to heal, repair, come together (considering she literally said "come together") as a function of behaviour and actions, and in respect for one another.  Just because she's not using the words you'd like to hear out of her, doesn't mean she isn't saying what you'd like her to be saying.  It's like when I tell mrs.jingle she looks pretty when she gets home from the hairdresser.  The fact I didn't specifically comment on her hair, doesn't mean I don't like the new 'do'.  :lol

It's not words I want to hear; who gives a shit about me?  It's being crystal on the priorities for EVERYONE.   Trump's words were parsed and prodded and assumed for four years; he never ever once said "Muslims" but that didn't stop millions of people from just assuming that he was being a racist asshole, and chastizing him for not being explicit in distancing himself from the implication (by the way, NBC News freely refers to the Travel Ban AS the Muslim ban, another complaint for another thread).  We're trying to be "better".  We're trying to be "back". 

Quote
I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on much of this discussion - around our respective perspectives/frames by which we view and interpret certain things.  As I said, it doesn't mean that either of us are more right or wrong than the other, but it seems we see the issues, and how we both see one another's views/perceptions of those issues, very differently.  I'm not going to convince you otherwise (not that I'm trying to), nor are you to me.

I'm not asking you to agree.  I'm asking you to acknowledge that there are other lenses, other frames, other than yours that are just as valid (from a constitutional, free will, human rights perspective), and whether you AGREE with them or not isn't relevant.  I'm asking you - and those that have their frames - to set them aside, temporarily, or perhaps adopt an unfamiliar one, to help to create the common ground.   I acknowledge that she has a point to be made there, and that she needs to speak to all the people that look to her as an example of what can be achieved for someone of her gender, race, socio-economic background, etc.  She's in unprecedented territory, and that cannot be ignored.  BUT, she's an elected official, arguably the second most powerful person in the world. She can figure out a way to make her point AND be a vocal agent for the unification we so desperately need, and speak to those that don't see her as a possibility, but as - potentially - a roadblock to their vision of the United States (I'm talking ideology here, not identity politics or color) both domestically and internationally. 

I've said this before:  when I negotiate, the first thing I do is draw a circle on a piece of paper and write in my reasonably possible, acceptable solutions.  I then - and this is hard - draw another circle and write in what I would say are the reasonably possible, acceptable solutions for the party I'm negotiating with.  And that takes effort; I have to put myself in their shoes, and suspend my judgment; THEY DON'T THINK LIKE ME.   And from there, I see if there is overlap.   In our conversation, that means suspending the moralizing; it does not mean suspecting your own morals when it comes to the discussion.   It also means that if there is ONE component of their position that is non-negotiable to me, that it doesn't invalidate the 1, 3, 5, or however many OTHER components that aren't.   I'm not paying you cash, for example; but maybe I can give you extended warranty.   We do this all the time, I'm not sure why it's so controversial here.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2021, 09:33:22 AM »
Kidding aside, how do you keep them out of "your world?" Reeducation? Imprisonment? A bullet to the dome?

I mean, this is how all societies currently function. If your belief is that you shouldn't have to pay taxes then you can bet number 1 and 2 will come knocking.

Quote
In my world everybody has the right to their own beliefs and their own ideology.

In abstract terms, sure, but neo-nazism, is not just an ideology, it is a movement that requires and necessitates violent means towards the ends that ideology demands.

But here's the thing:  1 and 2 only come knocking based on your ACTIONS, and only those actions that explicitly violate existing statute. You can believe all day long that taxes are for losers, but you are untouchable unless and until you violate the law.   You can believe taxes are for fools and structure your entire existence on minimizing or eliminating your taxes, and there's not a thing anyone can do about that.  And we still let those people vote, and appear at public hearings, and write letters to their representatives, and so on.  We're not "excluding them" from our world; they just have a compromise to make.   

As for your last example, when there's violence, punish it.  I'm not suggesting anything different than that.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #66 on: January 22, 2021, 09:39:38 AM »
Again: neo-nazism is a movement that requires violent action.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25654
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #67 on: January 22, 2021, 09:50:52 AM »
Again: neo-nazism is a movement that requires violent action.
Christianity is a movement that requires compassion and basic human decency. How's that working out? Not everybody understands or cares enough about their beliefs to actually act on them.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2021, 09:54:52 AM »
Christianity is a movement that requires compassion and basic human decency. How's that working out? Not everybody understands or cares enough about their beliefs to actually act on them.

We have a lot of people who call themselves Christians who demonstrably are not, certainly. In any case, your average "passive" racist would not call themselves a neo-nazi. Hell, neo-nazis don't like to call themselves that, because they understand the importance of branding.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2021, 10:49:54 AM »
Again: neo-nazism is a movement that requires violent action.

Then we're talking past each other.  I can't speak for El Barto, though I suspect I know where he's parked here, but while I don't actually agree with you (you can be a neo-Nazi without actually committing violence) I'm not condoning or rationalizing violent behavior.  We have laws for that (which don't have anything to do with neo-Nazism, but address the human and civil rights transgression of violence against person).  I'm talking about the ideas that may or may not lead up to that and I'm responding to the many many many many people here in the States that couldn't give a rats ass about the distinction.