The Next President is...

[Negatory]

I agree that it is a weird, mainly unfounded, dem talking point to say that  requiring a voter ID is racist. There just really isn’t data to support that claim. Even Jimmy Carter headed a study back in 2005 that concluded that, while the actual tangible benefits of requiring IDs may be low, it would still be worth it from a “trust in the system” perspective, and it would not likely significantly affect voting turnout.

Just phase in the law over 4 years and be done with it. It would probably help improve society’s perception of election integrity at a minimal cost.

[Pooter]

21 hours ago, Sim said:

 

 

I cannot stress this enough: Polls about how people 'feel' do not constitute evidence of voter fraud.

If you would like to have a conversation about generalized election mistrust we can do that.

[drewpey]

6 hours ago, Negatory said:

I agree that it is a weird, mainly unfounded, dem talking point to say that  requiring a voter ID is racist. There just really isn’t data to support that claim. Even Jimmy Carter headed a study back in 2005 that concluded that, while the actual tangible benefits of requiring IDs may be low, it would still be worth it from a “trust in the system” perspective, and it would not likely significantly affect voting turnout.

Just phase in the law over 4 years and be done with it. It would probably help improve society’s perception of election integrity at a minimal cost.

So now it's not about actual security, we are going to create more barriers to voting to make fragile voters feel better?

If we want people to feel better about the security of their elections, we should do things that...get this...actually secure our elections.  We can't pander to every fragile voter because they are sad about the way an election went and refuse to accept the evidence laid before them.

Again there is a long list of things that will actually improve security, start with those otherwise people will just assume you are legislating in bad faith and trying to limit the voting pool.

[Majestik Møøse]

It turns out that, due to the American court system, conspiracy theory propaganda has a limit. Newsmax and Fox News collapsed at the threat of a lawsuit and clarified that the voting machine conspiracy theories postulated on their programs have no basis in fact. Stop supporting those who would lie and mislead, regardless of political affiliation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/business/media/smartmatic-lawsuit-fox-news-newsmax-oan.html

 

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Majestik Møøse

[FLEA]

27 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

It turns out that, due to the American court system, conspiracy theory propaganda has a limit. Newsmax and Fox News collapsed at the threat of a lawsuit and clarified that the voting machine conspiracy theories postulated on their programs have no basis in fact. Stop supporting those who would lie and mislead, regardless of political affiliation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/business/media/smartmatic-lawsuit-fox-news-newsmax-oan.html

 

 

Hence why best to just not trust journalist, politicians, or corporate spokes people of any affiliation. 

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Hence why best to just not trust journalist, politicians, or corporate spokes people of any affiliation. 

Also important to be able to identify true journalism and not junk entertainment.

[FLEA]

10 minutes ago, drewpey said:

Also important to be able to identify true journalism and not junk entertainment.

Doesn't make a difference to me. It's all junk. You just have to know what that publication is junk for and read between the lines. 

[Sim]

 

🤣 🤣 🤣

[Negatory]

It goes without saying that Sim would only post extremely biased, out of context, bullshit. But I went through the trouble of figuring out what was manipulated, so I might as well share it.

The context that’s missing is that, immediately before this clip starts, he says “If we can not make significant progress on racial equity, this country is doomed...” He’s saying the country is doomed if the growing minority groups continue to be treated unfairly, and they need to work together if they want to fix it.

If you want to check, watch the whole video. This is at ~1:14:30

[Sim]

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

out of context

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/12/22/democrats-unleash-their-innerracism-n2581935

Here ya go for context on how other side thinks.  

[Hacker]

11 hours ago, Negatory said:

The context that’s missing is that, immediately before this clip starts, he says “If we can not make significant progress on racial equity, this country is doomed...” He’s saying the country is doomed if the growing minority groups continue to be treated unfairly, and they need to work together if they want to fix it.

That is not what "equity" means. It has nothing to do with "fair treatment".

Equity means "equality of outcome".

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/12/22/democrats-unleash-their-innerracism-n2581935

Here ya go for context on how other side thinks.  

Low effort screed.  Why when someone of color is put into a position the assumption becomes that they do not meet the requisites for the job?  Haven't the last 4 years shown that the bar for political offices are embarrassingly low anyways?

Also, I'm glad the right has woken up and started actually examining qualifications of nominations now. We don't want any green judges to get lifetime appointments, or a defense contractor exec the SEFDEF.  That would be pretty embarrassing.

[slackline]

That is not what "equity" means. It has nothing to do with "fair treatment".
Equity means "equality of outcome".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equity

“the quality of being fair or impartial”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the point you’re tying to make.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Agreed, links and a sentence don’t do much to foster conversation. Then again, the same people in here keep having the same debate so... maybe he’s onto something.

1) When someone is primarily selected for any reason other than competence (making the cabinet look like America is the goal, not the best qualified cabinet) then they’re automatically under scrutiny. It’s just human nature. If we started sending pilots to Weapons School based on their hair color, I’m pretty sure people would instantly assume they weren’t the brightest cherry in the bunch. This isn’t a race argument, that’s just the metric D’s want to use for screening.

However, this is Biden’s gig. If you think Kamala Harris is the best qualified VP simply due to her being a “female of color” then you’re going to think picking anyone who isn’t white is a great plan.

2) Hate to break it to you... but American history didn’t begin in 2016. There were incompetent appointments in D and R administrations prior, and there will be some moving forward. But this goal of picking an entire cabinet based on their race first is a new one, so it deserves scrutiny.

Btw, you’re getting better at not saying “But Trump!” directly. Glad to see Trump Derangement Syndrome is finally wearing off a bit. 😂

I didn't really disdain Esper. He honestly made a lot of decent changes; and the dude wasn't unqualified. He was an Army officer for over a decade, and took his skills to the worlds largest defense supplier. Given that the US war machine runs on industry, this isn't a terrible perspective to hold.

So many people acted like just because he was a Boeing exec he was going to sell out, but the dude never resigned the rank of Major. Are people on here really so jaded that they believe once an officer separates they can't be professional enough to resume their Hippocratic duties if they ever return to the government fold? 

[Kiloalpha]

Merry Christmas everyone. It’s been a hell of a year, so let’s hope 2021 offers a better experience.

[Hacker]

On 12/23/2020 at 9:58 AM, slackline said:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equity

“the quality of being fair or impartial”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the point you’re tying to make.

You are.

It isn't about the dictionary definition of equity. 

Just as how the social justice crowd has re-defined "racism" to hinge on power, "equity" has been re-defined to mean equality of outcome, usually with respect to money but also frequently with respect to social power.   So, when the term is used in the context of that video, they are talking about social power, and not fair treatment in front of the law.

It is a loaded codeword that is intended to sound like "equality" to those not paying attention.

This new definition is used commonly in the social science sphere.

Here's what Bret Weinstein, a self-identified progressive university professor says about equity:

Quote

Nobody's going to define the term equity for you. Do you know why? Because it's not a word. Equity to most of us is supposed to be a word. It has a definition and it has a lot to do with equality. But because this is effectively a plan for rapidly gaining power for effectively transferring power and wellbeing from one population to another, the term must never be defined.

What you will get are examples. If we had equity, it would look like X and so you'll be given an example that seems like nobody could oppose it. There's a cartoon you will see circulated with kids looking at a baseball game, and there's a short kid and a medium-height kid and a tall kid. The short kid can't see the game and the medium kid is on his toes looking over the fence and the tall kid can see it. Then, there are some boxes and there's a distribution of the boxes that renders everybody able to see the game. Who could oppose that?

But what is implied is false. What they really want is to turn the tables of oppression, and it's not even the real tables of oppression. They want to turn the imagined tables of oppression so that those who were privileged are now subordinate and those who were, in their own minds, most oppressed, will be the most well resourced and powerful. If they were honest about that, nobody would listen. It's obviously a preposterous plan.

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Hacker

[Lord Ratner]

25 minutes ago, Hacker said:

You are.

It isn't about the dictionary definition of equity. 

Just as how the social justice crowd has re-defined "racism" to hinge on power, "equity" has been re-defined to mean equality of outcome, usually with respect to money but also frequently with respect to social power.   So, when the term is used in the context of that video, they are talking about social power, and not fair treatment in front of the law.

It is a loaded codeword that is intended to sound like "equality" to those not paying attention.

This new definition is used commonly in the social science sphere.

Here's what Bret Weinstein, a self-identified progressive university professor says about equity:

 

This seems to be the biggest disconnect in the conversation these days. Well-intentioned liberal voters are unaware of the the doctrine being espoused by the "intellectuals" driving their party. Makes the conversation difficult when the conservatives are more knowledgeable of what the progressives are pushing than the liberal voter engaged in the discussion. 

 

Another common retort is that such terminology and the associated arguments represent the crazy fringe of the party. But I don't think it's fair to argue that Ta'-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, or Ibram X. Kendi are "fringe" anymore. They are thought leaders being quoted at the highest levels of power.

 

So when a liberal cites the dictionary, it demonstrates immediately that they don't even know what "their side" is preaching.

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

This seems to be the biggest disconnect in the conversation these days. Well-intentioned liberal voters are unaware of the the doctrine being espoused by the "intellectuals" driving their party. Makes the conversation difficult when the conservatives are more knowledgeable of what the progressives are pushing than the liberal voter engaged in the discussion. 

 

Another common retort is that such terminology and the associated arguments represent the crazy fringe of the party. But I don't think it's fair to argue that Ta'-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, or Ibram X. Kendi are "fringe" anymore. They are thought leaders being quoted at the highest levels of power.

 

So when a liberal cites the dictionary, it demonstrates immediately that they don't even know what "their side" is preaching.

So you argue that this is "mainstream", yet we "don't even know" what our side wants...?  I'm not sure you understand mainstream.  People with a book deal or twitter account does not translate to being the "thought leader".  I'm sure we could drum up some terrifying examples of "thought leaders" for the right, but that doesn't do anyone any good.

People can use whatever terminology they want, but we just want folks to be treated equally.  That actually polls quite well, so the right has to highlight these caricatures of progressivists to terrify conservatives from approaching reasonable and popular ideas.

We like to act like all democrats are super SJWs and want to cancel Christmas, but I have yet to ever meet this caricature.  I'm sure one day I will, but generally they are few and far between and most of us are not the extremists we are made out to be and just feel that the rich and corporations don't pull their weight and the government could adjust the scales a bit to help out the less fortunate, particularly if in the long run it would likely make fiscal sense.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, drewpey said:

So you argue that this is "mainstream", yet we "don't even know" what our side wants...?  I'm not sure you understand mainstream.  People with a book deal or twitter account does not translate to being the "thought leader".  I'm sure we could drum up some terrifying examples of "thought leaders" for the right, but that doesn't do anyone any good.

People can use whatever terminology they want, but we just want folks to be treated equally.  That actually polls quite well, so the right has to highlight these caricatures of progressivists to terrify conservatives from approaching reasonable and popular ideas.

We like to act like all democrats are super SJWs and want to cancel Christmas, but I have yet to ever meet this caricature.  I'm sure one day I will, but generally they are few and far between and most of us are not the extremists we are made out to be and just feel that the rich and corporations don't pull their weight and the government could adjust the scales a bit to help out the less fortunate, particularly if in the long run it would likely make fiscal sense.

Well, thank you for proving my point.

 

I didn't say mainstream, specifically. And in fact I made it pretty obvious that I don't think all Democrats are SJW lunatics. So, let's stick with what I did say.

 

The ideological engine of the party (not the voters) is being driven by exactly these types of lunatics. That you are unaware of them is irrelevant. They are *everywhere* in academia, politics, media, and especially big tech companies. While you go on with your life, blissfully unaware, they are whispering in the ears off those making the decisions. Critical race theory, anti-racism, equity... There are a ton of pseudo-intellectual theories that are gaining traction. You shrug them off because you're a rational human, but this curriculum is being taught in classrooms and boardrooms across the nation, and many people are buying the dogma. Again, regardless of your ignorance to the philosophy.

 

White Fragility has been a Best Seller for over a year. That's not fringe. Read it and tell me it's not the most insane shit you've ever read. Yet, it's definitely relevant on the institutional left.

 

So, exactly like I said in my post, liberal voters don't know what their own party is espousing. There's no conservative equivalent right now. If Richard Spencer was making huge book deals and having his lectures quoted by sitting senators and presidential candidates, I'd agree with you. But that's not what's happening.

 

[FLEA]

I saw this video on the death of public intellectuals a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty good. The discussion you guys are having reminded me of it: https://fb.watch/2D-2IP9Z6X/

[lloyd christmas]

7 hours ago, drewpey said:

We like to act like all democrats are super SJWs and want to cancel Christmas, but I have yet to ever meet this caricature.  I'm sure one day I will, but generally they are few and far between and most of us are not the extremists we are made out to be  

Does that apply to the homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist and bigoted Nazis on the right as well?  

[brabus]

Assholes are everywhere,  but they don’t define 90% of us. The unfortunate part is so many of the 90% have forgotten that and have determined if you don’t see something exactly their way/challenge their opinion (and by extension their political team), you are the enemy and “on the other side.” It’s amazing how incredibly narrow minded people get when they fall to this and aggressively defend/argue their side’s talking points while completely ignoring any counterpoint presented. That’s not to say we should all have to agree to be “a good society,” but the vitriol hate “for the other side” is crushing us, and we’re all letting it every time we do as the media/some dipshit congressman says, or in conversation completely ignore someone’s words because we’re too busy developing our counterattack to actually listen to/read what someone else has presented. My hope for this next year is the people wake up and realize we don’t have to let ourselves play this bullshit game anymore. They actually have no power over us if we just say, “yeah go fuck yourself” and be cool with each other, even when we disagree. 

[Sim]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

but they don’t define 90% of us.

Sadly opposite party defines each other. GOP/DNC will not define what they stand for since it will exclude some folks. (shitty and cowardly strategy)

So it's rather comical when legacy media defines conservatives with all of "isms" mentioned above your post.  Not much discussion will happen there. 

[Hacker]

18 hours ago, drewpey said:

we just want folks to be treated equally.

The root of the issue lies in what people interpret "treated equally" to mean.

The philosophers upon whose tenets western society has been built interpret that to mean "all individuals treated equally before the law".

Unfortunately that is not a definition that is shared across the political and philosophical spectrum, and that is the crux.

[drewpey]

On 12/27/2020 at 2:31 AM, lloyd christmas said:

Does that apply to the homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist and bigoted Nazis on the right as well?  

It does, but when your keystone party policies are themselves homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist the line often gets blurred.  The democratic party isn't trying to force SJW justice down your throat in legislature.  It may feel like it with a SJW brigade on twitter, but again as mentioned before just because someone has a lot of followers on twitter doesn't automatically make them the spokesperson for the entire Democratic party.

 

On 12/27/2020 at 1:08 PM, Hacker said:

The root of the issue lies in what people interpret "treated equally" to mean.

The philosophers upon whose tenets western society has been built interpret that to mean "all individuals treated equally before the law".

I think that's exactly what the BLM protests were about.  I think the messaging was hijacked by bad actors and the right to make them out to be "the real racists" but in the end with events like the death of George Floyd, Brianna Taylor or Philando Castille and see a different treatment before the law.  Do you think the law treats everyone equally?