Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[LeGin v4]

Just state your points civilly and respect people that disagree with you. The "your god DonOld" and "black-bagging raids" and "Reich wingers" is I'm sure welcomed and supported at a lefty party, but you're telegraphing to everybody else that your object is to insult instead of discuss. Well, focus on explaining the substance of your argument if you want interaction, or shove in the performative rhetorical insults if you just want to in-group signal. Make your choice and recognize that you are making a choice.

This is circular reasoning: "I don't believe fascism is at hand therefore I will criticise the use of a term to describe people behaving like fascists".

What exactly do you object to about the term "Reich wingers"? It's up to you to debunk its accuracy rather than label it is an "insult".

[Breccia]

What exactly do you object to about the term "Reich wingers"? It's up to you to debunk its accuracy rather than label it is an "insult".

For bonus points, debunk the accuracy of "Reich wingers" before the military parade Trump throws in Trump's honor for Trump while sending troops to stop protests.

[Gestopft]

The job of reporters is to call the figures they cover "world class haters?"

I dunno man, Stephen Miller is a uniquely hateful person. How is one supposed to report truthfully if they're leaving that out?

[Captain N]

I dunno man, Stephen Miller is a uniquely hateful person. How is one supposed to report truthfully if they're leaving that out?

Being mean to bigots has always triggered the "You need to be tolerant of my intolerance" folk.

[Gestopft]

Being mean to bigots has always triggered the "You need to be tolerant of my intolerance" folk.

The right is really good at working the refs, and they have been for a long time.

Meanwhile, over on Fox "News" they openly insult the Demcratic Party (one host even calls them Demon Rats), insult major urban areas (often the very one they live in), etc. etc. etc.

[Moralgy]

Guys please keep it civil when talking about the government deploying the military on civilians like we live in North korea. No reason to be mean

[Xath]

So when do the shooting of civilians start?

Pretty damn quick we already have blatant violation of Posse Comitatus and an EO that effectively creates martial law.

[Moralgy]

The right is really good at working the refs, and they have been for a long time.

Meanwhile, over on Fox "News" they openly insult the Demcratic Party (one host even calls them Demon Rats), insult major urban areas (often the very one they live in), etc. etc. etc.

^ fuck republicans they started the insult war and have kept escalating it further and further on a national scale. The president openly treats left leaning people as evil

[Gestopft]

^ fuck republicans they started the insult war

You would dare insult the Real American citizens of our great rural Real America, which is definitlely an idyllic paradise and certainly in no way a hellscape of poverty and social decay?

Shame! Shame!

[Captain N]

You would dare insult the Real American citizens of our great rural Real America, which is definitlely an idyllic paradise and certainly in no way a hellscape of poverty and social decay?

Shame! Shame!

You forgot...Now give us your federal taxes so that we can fund the Real America you commies!

[Moralgy]

You would dare insult the Real American citizens of our great rural Real America, which is definitlely an idyllic paradise and certainly in no way a hellscape of poverty and social decay?

Shame! Shame!

My bad, I didn't mean insult to their 8 person towns where sister and wife is a shared title.

I live in one of those shitty towns I get the pass, to the triggered republicans out there

[Endus]

Just state your points civilly and respect people that disagree with you.

When you lie to people's faces, don't clutch your pearls that they're not "civil". You weren't civil, either, and hiding your dishonesty behind a placid face doesn't make it "more civil". It's just compounding the dishonesty.

The "your god DonOld" and "black-bagging raids" and "Reich wingers" is I'm sure welcomed and supported at a lefty party, but you're telegraphing to everybody else that your object is to insult instead of discuss. Well, focus on explaining the substance of your argument if you want interaction, or shove in the performative rhetorical insults if you just want to in-group signal. Make your choice and recognize that you are making a choice.

When the "argument" presented from the other side of the aisle boils down to bigotry and sadism, there isn't any "discussion" to be had, because the tentpoles of your ideological worldview are intolerable and intentional cruelty. And I do not mean "discussion is not productive", either; I mean "discussion is fundamentally unacceptable because any such approach necessarily legitimizes the indefensible arguments of your opponent in ways that make a travesty of honest debate".

Same way we couldn't have a "civil discussion" about exactly when it's okay to rape a baby to death. I'm just shifting to something you would find (I hope) equally intolerable. Not that anyone's actually pro-baby-rape. Though a fuck of a lot of Republicans seem okay if they're children being raped in the name of christofascism. See all the many States with horrifying child marriage laws.

It's tough for outlets to maintain the veneer of neutral reporting, when their senior correspondents can't keep their visceral hatred for those they cover under wraps. That's actually the death of the news business if you let it continue. The unhinged late-night rants are fine over beers with your journo buddies (and we all know they happen, probably with your "fascist fucks" mention, but wholly irresponsible on public social media under the "Senior National Correspondent, ABC News" description line.

It is somewhat appropriate if he works for an editorial page, or does opinion commentary on TV.

What if we they were reporting on a serial child rapist? Should they avoid expressing their hatred for that criminal and his actions?

You're confusing the concept of objectivity with neutrality. You can determine if someone is a bigot objectively, and derision and condemnation for being a bigot thus flows naturally from that objective determination. It is, in fact, a violation of journalistic ethics to pretend, dishonestly, that there is a false "neutral" middle to every discussion. For instance, Nazis. If you're questioning whether we should be opposing Nazism because they have some good ideas due consideration, you're just a Nazi sympathizer yourself, and you're not acting as an objective journalist. You're endorsing an ideological worldview predicated on seeking to perpetrate genocide, even if just implicitly by allowing it equal consideration.

What you're describing is, in fact, why mass-media journalism has completely collapsed in the last 30 years. The combination of propaganda masquerading as news, from the far-right, combined with the increasing right-wing ownership of mass media which has destroyed journalistic ethics and pushed everything towards a false middle, at the cost of objective truth. There was a time when journalists saw their job to be digging into the uncomfortable truths being hidden and dragging them into the light, even if doing so destroyed political movements. Because not doing so was unacceptable. Burying a story for fear of appearing partisan is exactly what "bias" if not "corruption" looks like.


Or, in short; don't want to get called a fascist bigoted shitwad? Try not being a fascist bigoted shitwad.

[Captain N]

@Endus you're asking someone with a rapist as a profile picture. Who repeatedly lies for someone who has been accused of sexually assaulting children or at least pervs on them at beauty pageants. I'm pretty sure that if that person was on his end of the political spectrum he'd continue to do exactly what he's doing right now.

[david0925]

lol Tehdang being disingenuous and/or Facist brainwashed again as usual.

The amount of double standard between this and Jan 6 is surreal when the latter is much more violent and the reaction from government was much less elevated.

How do you live with yourself being called a bigot all the time. How much are you being paid to post on a forums you have no place over because all you can do is ignore posters that tells you how disingenuous you are? Surely spreading right-wing Facism message doesn't work that well when you ignore everyone? @Edge- or anyone that is actually a mod at least in name, does Moderation just not exist for this subforum? Who can we reach out to beyond a moderator if this place is officially unmoderated? The least we can do is at least attempt to clean out the trash.

[tehdang]

This is circular reasoning: "I don't believe fascism is at hand therefore I will criticise the use of a term to describe people behaving like fascists".

What exactly do you object to about the term "Reich wingers"? It's up to you to debunk its accuracy rather than label it is an "insult".

This does presume the conclusion. If a very MAGA-obsessed person decided to call left-wingers pedos and groomers, do they have a defense in "I'm using the term accurately to describe people behaving as pedos and groomers?" No, of course not. Not if they want to have a conversation. They're showing their disinterest in having a discussion. It's declaring that no conversation is possible: these are your enemies and you want to force them to admit that they're bad people because you believe that is true about them.

Foisting labels you know are insults ("your god DonOld" and "Reich wingers") are only sometimes helpful to the discussion if you yourself identify as them (ie LeGin v4 is a fascist and he reveres a politician as a god and he loves the Reich.) The labels you apply to yourself can be relevant.

I dunno man, Stephen Miller is a uniquely hateful person. How is one supposed to report truthfully if they're leaving that out?

I fail to see what kind of reporting would be that you can tell he is hateful just by looking at him. You can report that his closest aid says he rails against George Clooney every night. I don't think you can report that your penetrating eyesight can see into his soul. I don't think that's reporting, unless you're writing for some religious church.

The right is really good at working the refs, and they have been for a long time.

Meanwhile, over on Fox "News" they openly insult the Demcratic Party (one host even calls them Demon Rats), insult major urban areas (often the very one they live in), etc. etc. etc.

Let's just say that I don't think Fox News is a paradigm to model, and I'm a little surprised that others want to become Fox to beat Fox.

How do you live with yourself being called a bigot all the time. How much are you being paid to post on a forums

If you really think this is true, then just ignore my posts and pretend I don't exist. It is impossible to post constructively and substantively when you make the identity of the person you're posting at the subject of your posts. It serves no use and derails threads.

The responsibilities of the President when his federal facilities are attacked is certainly a discussion topic. My profile picture and who you think I revere as a god is not. I'm a little surprised that so many people want it to be; I guess strength in numbers is a tactic?

Respect isn’t owed, it’s given. And giving it to people actively or tacitly supporting this deeply corrupt, deeply amoral and deeply incompetent jack-booted administration is not on the docket.

First and foremost because these people don’t just not respect anyone who doesn’t agree with them, they actively want to harm them and make them go away and they’re perfectly fine with any number of people being harmed on an ancillary level so long as they’re convinced that those first groups are actively being punished sufficiently.

So why would anyone not blindly on their side “respect” them? Their ideas don’t warrant respect and they don’t even show respect to others themselves.

You don't have to respect a person if you don't want to talk to them. That's a reason to not talk to them: you can't respect them. I have those people here, and they populate my ignore list. If you want to discuss constructively on an issue of importance, please leave the personal insults at the door where they belong.

I'll say again that if you deeply feel that it is impossible to have a different view on the subject WITHOUT being some bad -ist or -ism, you're really admitting that you've given up having a conversation about it. You are sitting in the judge's chair asking the defendant how he will plead to accusations of moral failure. I prefer and will assert my right to engage as a fellow forum member on an internet gaming forum to discuss topics of the day. Personal insults do not contribute to a constructive and honest debate.

[Endus]

@Endus you're asking someone with a rapist as a profile picture. Who repeatedly lies for someone who has been accused of sexually assaulting children or at least pervs on them at beauty pageants. I'm pretty sure that if that person was on his end of the political spectrum he'd continue to do exactly what he's doing right now.

He's got me on Ignore, so I'm not actually asking him anything. I'm letting that post stand as a response to the bullshit he's presenting, for the rest of you to read.

[Kaleredar]

Just state your points civilly and respect people that disagree with you.

Respect isn’t owed, it’s given. And giving it to people actively or tacitly supporting this deeply corrupt, deeply amoral and deeply incompetent jack-booted administration is not on the docket.

First and foremost because these people don’t just not respect anyone who doesn’t agree with them, they actively want to harm them and make them go away and they’re perfectly fine with any number of people being harmed on an ancillary level so long as they’re convinced that those first groups are actively being punished sufficiently.

So why would anyone not blindly on their side “respect” them? Their ideas don’t warrant respect and they don’t even show respect to others themselves.

[Endus]

@Edge- or anyone that is actually a mod at least in name, does Moderation just not exist for this subforum? Who can we reach out to beyond a moderator if this place is officially unmoderated? The least we can do is at least attempt to clean out the trash.

For better or worse, the decision was made long ago that positions that fall within the political "norm" of the time are to be allowed. I disagree with that decision. It's one reason I stopped being a mod. But it's less "this place is unmodded" and more "this place allows this kind of discussion this way."

This does presume the conclusion. If a very MAGA-obsessed person decided to call left-wingers pedos and groomers, do they have a defense in "I'm using the term accurately to describe people behaving as pedos and groomers?" No, of course not. Not if they want to have a conversation. They're showing their disinterest in having a discussion.

See folks? Dishonesty.

The MAGAt calling left-wingers "pedos" and "groomers" isn't because there's any actual violation of children happening; he's doing it because he's a homophobe/transphobe, or because he's bought into a ridiculous and baseless conspiracy theory about a pizza joint, or something like that. The accusation is based on nothing but his own bigotry and ignorance. He doesn't have an actual criticism, he's just a stupid shithead. Often, the same dickshit will also support his local child-raping pastor, simultaneously, to compound how much of a fuckwit he is.

That's not the case with left-wingers calling right-wingers "bigots" or "fascists". That can be conclusively and objectively demonstrated, and is, regularly.

And you're right; it doesn't make for good conversation. What you don't understand (or more likely, are just lying about) is that they don't want to have conversations with bigoted fascist dimwits. There's no productive conversation to be had, because all they do is offer abuse and lies. They're bad people. Conversation isn't the goal. Stopping them is the goal. And that includes shaming them and making them too afraid to voice their bullshit in public spheres for fear of reprisal.

You're not a conversationalist. Nobody wants to discuss this shit with you. We don't want "conversation". We want you to pack up the bigotry and fuck all the way off forever. That is the only goal being sought; to make engagement so completely distasteful to you that you will just go the fuck away.

You're Uncle Freddy the Kiddy Diddler, and nobody wants you at the family reunion any more. You can't even try and fix this; you've already diddled those kids, and you're never getting over that. You already set fire to all these bridges, you don't get to whine when we light up our side too because we don't want you trying to cross back over here, either.

[Kaleredar]

This does presume the conclusion. If a very MAGA-obsessed person decided to call left-wingers pedos and groomers, do they have a defense in "I'm using the term accurately to describe people behaving as pedos and groomers?" No, of course not. Not if they want to have a conversation. They're showing their disinterest in having a discussion. It's declaring that no conversation is possible: these are your enemies and you want to force them to admit that they're bad people because you believe that is true about them.

Foisting labels you know are insults ("your god DonOld" and "Reich wingers") are only sometimes helpful to the discussion if you yourself identify as them (ie LeGin v4 is a fascist and he reveres a politician as a god and he loves the Reich.) The labels you apply to yourself can be relevant.

I fail to see what kind of reporting would be that you can tell he is hateful just by looking at him. You can report that his closest aid says he rails against George Clooney every night. I don't think you can report that your penetrating eyesight can see into his soul. I don't think that's reporting, unless you're writing for some religious church.

Let's just say that I don't think Fox News is a paradigm to model, and I'm a little surprised that others want to become Fox to beat Fox.

If you really think this is true, then just ignore my posts and pretend I don't exist. It is impossible to post constructively and substantively when you make the identity of the person you're posting at the subject of your posts. It serves no use and derails threads.

The responsibilities of the President when his federal facilities are attacked is certainly a discussion topic. My profile picture and who you think I revere as a god is not. I'm a little surprised that so many people want it to be; I guess strength in numbers is a tactic?

You don't have to respect a person if you don't want to talk to them. That's a reason to not talk to them: you can't respect them. I have those people here, and they populate my ignore list. If you want to discuss constructively on an issue of importance, please leave the personal insults at the door where they belong.

I'll say again that if you deeply feel that it is impossible to have a different view on the subject WITHOUT being some bad -ist or -ism, you're really admitting that you've given up having a conversation about it. You are sitting in the judge's chair asking the defendant how he will plead to accusations of moral failure. I prefer and will assert my right to engage as a fellow forum member on an internet gaming forum to discuss topics of the day. Personal insults do not contribute to a constructive and honest debate.

The issue of importance at hand is “Donald Trump is acting like an overreaching authoritarian dictator” of which we have copious examples enumerated over this thread’s history and in many others.

Your retort is constantly one of “I don’t like the way you said ‘dictator’…”

But you know what they say… If it looks like a goose, squawks like a goose, and most importantly, steps like a goose…

[david0925]

By goose you mean a bigoted Fascist.