Jump to content

Alright, who else here is voting for THE DONALD?


Recommended Posts

I have to believe that not all republicans are the ultra social conservative Fox News drones. Then again, maybe you are right.

Oh, they aren't. I am kinda busy so I don't have time to break it down at the moment (and please correct me if I'm wrong -- working from memory), but while Trump did much better with evangelicals than expected, he has done best with moderate and independent Republicans/conservatives; his "base" is not ultra social conservatives.

 

Furthermore, we often switch between CNN/MSBNC/Fox News at work for background noise, and at least to me, it seems like Fox strongly prefers Rubio (and to a lesser extent, Cruz and even Kasich) over Trump, so I'm not sure the "Fox News drones" are all in for Trump (though if he wins the nomination, Fox will surely get behind him over the Democrat).

 

Finally, Trump is a huckster. And at least on some level, I think most people who support him are aware of it... and OK with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Kurgan laying down some motherf-cking TRUTH right here.   Preach it.

Good lord. Two threads, same comment. Let's slam Trump for the Duke thing. Who else is that guy gonna endorse?   If you force feed PC bullshit down American throats, Donald Trump is what you get.

Posted Images

 

 

Furthermore, we often switch between CNN/MSBNC/Fox News at work for background noise, and at least to me, it seems like Fox strongly prefers Rubio (and to a lesser extent, Cruz and even Kasich) over Trump, so I'm not sure the "Fox News drones" are all in for Trump (though if he wins the nomination, Fox will surely get behind him over the Democrat).

 

 

 

Its largely true about Fox talking heads and Rubio. From desperate-to-see-a-hispanic-in-the-White-House Kimberly Guilfoyle, to Neil Cavuto and Steve Hayes, they will turn a Rubio pebble into a mountain in a hot minute--usually at the expense of Trump.

 

Bill O'Reilly and Eric Boling seem to be the most favorable to Trump.

 

Since the start of the 2016 campaign, the pro-Rubio crowd at Fox have been acting like a pack of idiots. In the wake of the 2012 disaster with Romney being Kryptonite to Hispanics of many stripes, the simple-minded GOP establishment (and their mouthpieces) went into overdrive, thinking they could "pull an Obama" by running their own young candidate of color. Wow! Magic formula!

 

Hispanics do not all think as one group, and the inside information sees many Hispanics sub groups viewing Rubio (with his divisive "hardworking conservative Cuban" / code for anti "lazy" minorities) as a Tío Tomás (Uncle Tom) who only supports immigrants if they want to wash themselves "clean" in the same, purifying GOP pool.

 

If that was not bad enough, Fox pundits and the GOP establishment pushing Rubio are screwing themselves, as the 2016 race has hammered home the fact that candidates supporting the Bush Doctrine (like Jeb & Graham) are guaranteed to fail in this current political climate. For the anti-Trump side of the GOP, South Carolina should have taught them a hard lesson about the death of their old gods, with voters supporting the candidate who blasted the Bush administration's Iraq BS.

 

After that clear rejection of all things Bush, one would think Rubio would back away from that same, loudmouthed, force-across-the-world promise/threat, but he's embracing it. Meanwhile, the "con man" (Rubio's latest line about Trump), the "fake conservative" seems unstoppable...for being the polar opposite of all Rubio supports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord. Two threads, same comment. Let's slam Trump for the Duke thing. Who else is that guy gonna endorse?

 

If you force feed PC bullshit down American throats, Donald Trump is what you get. He's simply a product of liberal hubris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you force feed PC bull**** down American throats, Donald Trump is what you get. He's simply a product of liberal hubris.

Couldn't agree with you more, Tex. EDIT: I fully agree that PC/liberal hubris plays a huge role, but conservative "establishment" (shorthand that is becoming less and less meaningful) hubris is to blame, as well.

 

Many Democratic voters are angry on a narrow economic level (income inequality), but they don't generally despise their politicians/elites on a cultural level. Sure, they might roll their eyes at some of the excesses ("safe spaces," mainstreaming behavior kids in classrooms to the point where they are unmanageable, etc.), but it is tolerated because the idiocy is at least coming from the same tribe and thus coming from a "heart in the right place." Those people are dumb and out of touch, but they're our dumb and out-of-touch people and they mean well, darn it!

 

Many Republican voters on the other hand, are angry on several economic levels, and seething with rage on a cultural level toward a ruling class -- both Democrat and Republican -- that has (not my quote) "patronised, nudged, nagged and basically treated [them] as diseased bodies to be corrected rather than lively minds to be engaged."

 

I agree with the assertion that a lot of these people don't take Trump seriously, but are more interested in destruction of political correctness and the political class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Well Trump does deserve to be slammed for Duke. When you start spewing rhetoric like Trump has, those are the whackos that end up coming out of the woodwork and feeling justified. Blaming liberals for political correctness in this case is totally misguided. Liberals didn't create Trump. Trump created Trump, and he is responsible for his own statements. The fact that he is popular because of those statements just shows how much racism still exists, covert or overt, and it shows how much of a political opportunist Trump is to glom on to those type of people. He's nothing new. Others have done it before him. Like David Duke. So it's not surprising he came out in support of Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberals didn't create Trump.

No, but they (along with conservative "elites" or "establishment," or whatever you want to call them this week) have created a cultural and political environment in which somebody like Trump could thrive. Rubio is right that Trump is a con man, and of course Trump could choose to conduct himself differently (i.e. his behavior is 100% on him)... but at the same time, Tex's comment calling Trump a "product" is right on.

 

Trump is basically a racoon feasting in the festering garbage can of our culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Liberals didn't create Trump.

No, but they (along with conservative "elites" or "establishment," or whatever you want to call them this week) have created a cultural and political environment in which somebody like Trump could thrive. Rubio is right that Trump is a con man, and of course Trump could choose to conduct himself differently (i.e. his behavior is 100% on him)... but at the same time, Tex's comment calling Trump a "product" is right on.

 

Trump is basically a racoon feasting in the festering garbage can of our culture.

 

Well if you are going to go by that logic, then Dubya created a political environment that gave rise to someone like Obama becoming president in the first place. You want to talk about hubris? The Bush years (both of them!) had plenty of that to go around, in many various ways. So, the republicans are still to blame for their current political woes.

 

Maybe the republicans need to field and support a candidate that isn't absolute sh*t in the first place like they have since Bob Dole, so vultures like Trump don't swoop in?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you are going to go by that logic, then Dubya created a political environment that gave rise to someone like Obama becoming president in the first place. You want to talk about hubris? The Bush years (both of them!) had plenty of that to go around, in many various ways. So, the republicans are still to blame for their current political woes.

Yeah, I don't believe Obama would have beaten Hillary Clinton in the primaries if we hadn't had the Iraqi Adventure and (especially) financial crisis, which obviously happened under Dubya's watch. America was definitely ready for some hope and change by 2008. So if somebody doesn't like Obama, "You can thank George W. Bush!" is not an unreasonable response. The idea bandied about that Americans didn't elect Republicans in 2008 and 2012 because they weren't pure/conservative enough is just right wing circle-jerk absurdism.

 

That said, military/nationalistic/economic hubris of the American right (which Obama provided a welcome counterweight to) != the cultural/intellectual hubris of the American left (which Trump is taking on); they are both hubristical but two distinct entities!

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Trump does deserve to be slammed for Duke. When you start spewing rhetoric like Trump has, those are the whackos that end up coming out of the woodwork and feeling justified. Blaming liberals for political correctness in this case is totally misguided. Liberals didn't create Trump. Trump created Trump, and he is responsible for his own statements. The fact that he is popular because of those statements just shows how much racism still exists, covert or overt, and it shows how much of a political opportunist Trump is to glom on to those type of people. He's nothing new. Others have done it before him. Like David Duke. So it's not surprising he came out in support of Trump.

Duke is toxic, but if you ever bother to listen to his shit what he preaches is protecting our culture. Look at the migrant crisis in Europe. Do you really want that in America?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Trump does deserve to be slammed for Duke. When you start spewing rhetoric like Trump has, those are the whackos that end up coming out of the woodwork and feeling justified. Blaming liberals for political correctness in this case is totally misguided. Liberals didn't create Trump. Trump created Trump, and he is responsible for his own statements. The fact that he is popular because of those statements just shows how much racism still exists, covert or overt, and it shows how much of a political opportunist Trump is to glom on to those type of people. He's nothing new. Others have done it before him. Like David Duke. So it's not surprising he came out in support of Trump.

Trump's popularity, and the backlash against political correctness, was not created by liberals, no. Not directly or intentionally, at any rate. But they are a key indicator of the failure of liberalism's means of fighting racism over the last thirty or so years. Specifically, to exploit popular movements (like civil rights and feminism) to gain influence, if not outright control of cultural institutions (mass media and especially academia) and use those to impose their quasi Marxist "critical theory" in a top down sort of way, first within these institutions themselves and more recently in the broader society - the so called social justice warriors - with things such as speech codes, hate speech laws and so on. To attempt to suppress and stigmatize the expression of racist sentiment.

 

The ensuing backlash, the wave of which Trump has been riding, is partially due to lingering racism, yes. But it's also because people don't like censorship. They don't like being told what to think. A lot of white guys really don't want to be racist or misogynist, but are understandably not willing to go through life in sack cloth and ashes, as present progressivism would seem to insist they do. They see an ivory tower liberal academic/mass media establishment using accusations of "racism" to shame and stigmatize everybody who doesn't unquestioningly agree with them and parrot their own talking points. Especially when those talking points emphasize inclusiveness, equality and so on. What the hell kind of "liberalism" is this? When they hear some condescending Ivy League hipster lecture them about "privilege", they sense the arrogance and the hypocrisy. When they hear crap like "blacks can't be racist because racism requires power and only whites have power" - they sense what a scripted, self serving double standard they're being presented with. Especially if the mouthpiece spouting it has more money and influence - a place in academia or a column in a progressive magazine, for instance, than most "privileged" white males ever will. When they see supposedly secular, or at least vehemently anti-Christian celebrity mouthpieces cozying to Islam - despite the refugee "rape culture" that's proven itself vastly worse than anything alarmist feminism has insisted exists on college campuses, they know the narrative they keep hearing has a lot of holes in the plot. For all Mr. Multicultural espouses tolerance and inclusiveness, he can't conceal his disdain for the lower classes in his own back yard, with the same color skin as his.

 

Due to political correctness, western liberalism itself has become a house of cards, requiring its own prejudice in order to fight the prejudice of others. Requiring its own privileges to single out and call out the privilege of others. Their "inclusiveness" rooted in the "otherizing" their own scapegoat - the cis/het white male, who must at all costs be denied the independent voice rightly seen as being the prerogative of historically disenfranchised minorities. The manipulativeness, the use of guilt as a means of control has become so bad in social justice communities that no less a fire and brimstone SJW pulpit than Everyday Feminism is beginning to show awareness of it. Puritanism and guilt based morality has become so pervasive in progressive communities that I figure they outta start paying royalties to the Catholic Church, from whom they actually stole the term "social justice." Between the two of them, it's hard to say who's butchered the true meaning of that term more.

 

The sorts of people backing Trump, or even David Duke come to that, might not be able to express all of this intellectually, but they feel it instinctively. They know that western liberalism in the last forty or so years has gone wrong. It's this instinct that Trump has tapped into. And frankly ... yeah, I really don't think liberals have anybody to blame but themselves for Trump, and the broader "alt-right" tendencies of which he is a part. A liberalism that is not liberal is worse than worthless. It's fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical. While this doesn't turn me on to Trump or Duke either, I can see why a lot of other people would.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Well if you are going to go by that logic, then Dubya created a political environment that gave rise to someone like Obama becoming president in the first place. You want to talk about hubris? The Bush years (both of them!) had plenty of that to go around, in many various ways. So, the republicans are still to blame for their current political woes.

Yeah, I don't believe Obama would have beaten Hillary Clinton in the primaries if we hadn't had the Iraqi Adventure and (especially) financial crisis, which obviously happened under Dubya's watch. America was definitely ready for some hope and change by 2008. So if somebody doesn't like Obama, "You can thank George W. Bush!" is not an unreasonable response. The idea bandied about that Americans didn't elect Republicans in 2008 and 2012 because they weren't pure/conservative enough is just right wing circle-jerk absurdism.

 

That said, military/nationalistic/economic hubris of the American right (which Obama provided a welcome counterweight to) != the cultural/intellectual hubris of the American left (which Trump is taking on); they are both hubristical but two distinct entities!

 

:eek:

 

What you are describing there is pretty much what is typical of every other election cycle involving a two-term president. The nation typically gets enough of the sitting president after 8 years, then wants a change. With the exception of the FDR-Truman years, and maybe the Reagan-Bush years, usually the nation tend to elect a president of the opposite party, after 8 years. I don't think it is necessarily due to what you are calling hubris on the left, though I do acknowledge that it does certainly exist. I've worked around it for the past 12 years! I tick middle left on most issues, sometimes to the right on others, but overall I consider myself centrist and common sensical (is that a word?). But some people I have worked with (or for) are off the charts left. But I don't think these hubris-tic leftist are enough in number to truly cause as significant a back lash as you describe. They are statistically insignificant.

 

 

 

Well Trump does deserve to be slammed for Duke. When you start spewing rhetoric like Trump has, those are the whackos that end up coming out of the woodwork and feeling justified. Blaming liberals for political correctness in this case is totally misguided. Liberals didn't create Trump. Trump created Trump, and he is responsible for his own statements. The fact that he is popular because of those statements just shows how much racism still exists, covert or overt, and it shows how much of a political opportunist Trump is to glom on to those type of people. He's nothing new. Others have done it before him. Like David Duke. So it's not surprising he came out in support of Trump.

Duke is toxic, but if you ever bother to listen to his **** what he preaches is protecting our culture. Look at the migrant crisis in Europe. Do you really want that in America?

 

No, I don't pay attention to the sh*t he shovels. And not to play the Hitler card, but it is totally relevant here: even Hitler said reasonable things, and mixed enough truth with lies to gain interest. That was his hook. And that is the danger of Hitler, Duke, or any similar person who preaches us VS them rhetoric.

 

And no, I don't fear change of demographics. It's coming whether we want it or not. Such is globalization. For every change effected in the US, or Europe through globalization and interaction of cultures, the effect of our culture on those cultures abroad are much further reaching, and far more profound.

 

So, it is just simply hard for me to believe in the rhetoric Trump is spewing that we must cut ourselves off from Islamic or Latin American countries to halt this supposed invasion and threat to our culture. Trump is an international business man. He KNOWS better. Which is what makes me despise him all the more.

 

 

 

Well Trump does deserve to be slammed for Duke. When you start spewing rhetoric like Trump has, those are the whackos that end up coming out of the woodwork and feeling justified. Blaming liberals for political correctness in this case is totally misguided. Liberals didn't create Trump. Trump created Trump, and he is responsible for his own statements. The fact that he is popular because of those statements just shows how much racism still exists, covert or overt, and it shows how much of a political opportunist Trump is to glom on to those type of people. He's nothing new. Others have done it before him. Like David Duke. So it's not surprising he came out in support of Trump.

Trump's popularity, and the backlash against political correctness, was not created by liberals, no. Not directly or intentionally, at any rate. But they are a key indicator of the failure of liberalism's means of fighting racism over the last thirty or so years. Specifically, to exploit popular movements (like civil rights and feminism) to gain influence, if not outright control of cultural institutions (mass media and especially academia) and use those to impose their quasi Marxist "critical theory" in a top down sort of way, first within these institutions themselves and more recently in the broader society - the so called social justice warriors - with things such as speech codes, hate speech laws and so on. To attempt to suppress and stigmatize the expression of racist sentiment.

 

The ensuing backlash, the wave of which Trump has been riding, is partially due to lingering racism, yes. But it's also because people don't like censorship. They don't like being told what to think. A lot of white guys really don't want to be racist or misogynist, but are understandably not willing to go through life in sack cloth and ashes, as present progressivism would seem to insist they do. They see an ivory tower liberal academic/mass media establishment using accusations of "racism" to shame and stigmatize everybody who doesn't unquestioningly agree with them and parrot their own talking points. Especially when those talking points emphasize inclusiveness, equality and so on. What the hell kind of "liberalism" is this? When they hear some condescending Ivy League hipster lecture them about "privilege", they sense the arrogance and the hypocrisy. When they hear crap like "blacks can't be racist because racism requires power and only whites have power" - they sense what a scripted, self serving double standard they're being presented with. Especially if the mouthpiece spouting it has more money and influence - a place in academia or a column in a progressive magazine, for instance, than most "privileged" white males ever will. When they see supposedly secular, or at least vehemently anti-Christian celebrity mouthpieces cozying to Islam - despite the refugee "rape culture" that's proven itself vastly worse than anything alarmist feminism has insisted exists on college campuses, they know the narrative they keep hearing has a lot of holes in the plot. For all Mr. Multicultural espouses tolerance and inclusiveness, he can't conceal his disdain for the lower classes in his own back yard, with the same color skin as his.

 

Due to political correctness, western liberalism itself has become a house of cards, requiring its own prejudice in order to fight the prejudice of others. Requiring its own privileges to single out and call out the privilege of others. Their "inclusiveness" rooted in the "otherizing" their own scapegoat - the cis/het white male, who must at all costs be denied the independent voice rightly seen as being the prerogative of historically disenfranchised minorities. The manipulativeness, the use of guilt as a means of control has become so bad in social justice communities that no less a fire and brimstone SJW pulpit than Everyday Feminism is beginning to show awareness of it. Puritanism and guilt based morality has become so pervasive in progressive communities that I figure they outta start paying royalties to the Catholic Church, from whom they actually stole the term "social justice." Between the two of them, it's hard to say who's butchered the true meaning of that term more.

 

The sorts of people backing Trump, or even David Duke come to that, might not be able to express all of this intellectually, but they feel it instinctively. They know that western liberalism in the last forty or so years has gone wrong. It's this instinct that Trump has tapped into. And frankly ... yeah, I really don't think liberals have anybody to blame but themselves for Trump, and the broader "alt-right" tendencies of which he is a part. A liberalism that is not liberal is worse than worthless. It's fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical. While this doesn't turn me on to Trump or Duke either, I can see why a lot of other people would.

 

Wow, what can I say. That is a lot to respond to at the moment, so I will just say that is a thoughtful post. Not sure I agree with some of your points, but well written, nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what can I say. That is a lot to respond to at the moment, so I will just say that is a thoughtful post. Not sure I agree with some of your points, but well written, nonetheless.

Cheers mate. Having said all that I have, I'll also add that there's a big difference between understanding why something is the way it is in a broad and more removed cause, and actually liking or condoning that something. The alt-right frankly scares the hell out of me, and the remarkable success of the Trump campaign is a frightening glimpse into how much support these guys could at least potentially have. If you liked the neo-cons and the religious right, you'll love these guys. That's all I can say. Now it might be that they just end up being the far right, mirror image counterpart to the SJWs, and end up confining themselves with ongoing internet flame wars with the tumblrinas and everyday feminists, a-la "gamergate" and similar popular delusions and madness of crowds. But either way, they're unpleasant folk, for the most part.

 

What's worrying in any event is that the center doesn't seem to be holding. And not just the political center, but the moral and psychological center that is essential to the foundation of liberal democracy. The kind of "I may not agree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it" mentality that I was born and raised on is eroding - from rising levels of campus SJWs outrightly decrying freedom of speech as a white construct to oppress minorities or due process for men accused of rape, to the prospect of a man calling for a ban on Muslim immigration and building a wall on the nation's borders having a serious shot at the White House. Now again, how much of it is just barking, I don't know. But I have little reason to feel reassured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fascinating to me to read about human migrations over thousands of years. History is awesome that way. What you see is people going to a place, settling down and trying to build something, and then moving on when it all turns to shit.

 

When you look at western culture, the roots of it are farmers from the Near East and nomads from the Russian steppes. There were people in Europe long before that, but these two mass migrations made Europe their own and shaped the world that we have today. They were successful because they learned from the failures of those that came before them. They were right to branch out into the underpopulated wasteland that was Europe at the time and do their thing.

 

As for the migration west, look at what they did. First you had the Greeks, who were a big deal around @ 350BC. The Romans became a big deal after defeating Carthage in the 200s. Once they crapped out the "barbarians" took over and gave us Christian France i@ 500 AD. That torch passed to Spain, then to England (skipping over a TON of history here) and then to America.

 

The reason for the western push is immigration. Once a city becomes a big deal everyone wants to come there and stake their claim. Over a time these people change the culture to the point where the descendants of the people that founded the initial culture wisely move on.

 

So here we are in 2016. There is nowhere else to go. Eventually we will be overcome by immigration, but the American people are right to fight against it. Once American culture is polluted with immigrants our culture will stop and the next thing will begin. None of us will live long enough to see the results, but I predict that they will not be good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blaming liberals for political correctness in this case is totally misguided. Liberals didn't create Trump. Trump created Trump

Dude, what are you talking about? Liberals absolutely created Trump. It was liberals who, over a period of 20+ years, abandoned a whole segment of the American population in order to pursue pet issues of 1%er latte liberal academics who sit around in their circle-jerks, manufacturing issues and outrage over things that nobody cares about. Which would be bad enough, except it wasn't simple abandonment, it was abandonment coupled with demonizing those that they had abandoned. Sure, the Republicans don't care about these people either, but who really expects the party of fat cat oil men to? Ostensibly, one would hope the supposed party of working class America would actually give a sh-t about them, as opposed to spitting in their face and not even considering them to be human beings. Just open any story about Trump on a liberal website, read the first 10 comments, and you'll see exactly what liberals think about working class America. Sh-t, even you earlier in this thread were comparing these people to freaking ISIS, as if some down on his luck, laid off coal worker in West Virginia is exactly the same as people who literally burn people alive in a f-cking cage on Youtube.

 

If you read interviews from Trump in the 90s and even the 80s, for decades he has been remarkably consistent in condemning things such as the US' trade imbalance, the loss of jobs to foreign countries, the lack of any investment in the country's infrastructure, and so on. These are not new issues. But the Dems have spent over 20 years completely indifferent to them, having little to no interest in improving the well-being of most ordinary Americans, telling the people who are hurt the most by these problems, to go f-ck themselves, they are not as important as some professor at no-name liberal arts college, probably making well over $100k, having their 'safe space.'

 

Well, you reap what you sow. If you write off a large portion of the country and basically consider them to be subhumans, well you can't act surprised when they eventually get fed up with it. My god, nothing would make me happier than to see Trump elected. Trump did not just appear out of nowhere, like a comic book villain. No, liberals created him, and now liberals have to deal with him, and like I said, nothing is making me happier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, no cause for concern?

That a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself can so easily veer off into racistland? I've been concerned for some time.

 

But seriously-- those cultures you mention being born and dominant-- wasn't each successive one kind of better than the last? Why is change from what we are automatically bad? Cause it sounds like you are saying it's bad if too many brown people get into our mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously, no cause for concern?

That a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself can so easily veer off into racistland? I've been concerned for some time.But seriously-- those cultures you mention being born and dominant-- wasn't each successive one kind of better than the last? Why is change from what we are automatically bad? Cause it sounds like you are saying it's bad if too many brown people get into our mix.

This is the tricky thing about even touching this issue. It's not about race, it's about culture. You've incorrectly called me a racist numerous times and for the most part I've ignored it. One would be naive to accept the way that this country is going. Are you even aware of what's going on in Europe?

 

It's really an impossible topic to discuss without sounding racist, Lincoln tried to do it and failed so miserably that the only way you can read what he actually said (fyi it's bad) is on a hate site. The long and short of it was that he told a black congregation that they were inferior to the white race (Hitler stuff), and his long term plan was to deport them to Liberia, an African colony founded in 1820 by free ex slaves. His delivery was horrible, but his point was on the money. We can't all just all get along. History has proven him to be correct in this regard.

 

Apparently you have to be a billionaire asshat to even address the issue. That's what we've been reduced to. Make a comment about race/culture and you'll be demonized for it. Even if it's as simple as wanting to protect your own children.

 

That fear may be misguided. Maybe it's just a bunch of racist ***holes that want to hang *******. Or maybe it's about how we figure out how we're all going to make this thing work. Not just in our lifetime, but beyond.

 

Given our bad history of managing cultures (just talking about America-if you want to know about the Greeks, Romans, etc it'll be a much longer post), we're better off not letting anyone else in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't honestly believe you are burning crosses on anyone's lawn or out there hating on the minorities, but I think your rhetoric often skirts racial lines, because as you say, your talking about cultures, and quite often culture lines follow racial lines.

 

I personally see the divide being less racial than we think and is more socio-economic and has to do with education. Add I don't doubt for a second that many of our systems are still recovering from system racism, sexism, and other isms. If you want to talk about our culture falling apart, I think there is plenty of blame to spread about.

 

I guess I am at a point where I see so many of these system problems in our culture that I think it is time for it to be broken down. Maybe history isn't on my side, and maybe I am a Star Trek utopist that's delusional-- but I've never been a scorched-Earth type person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you have to be a billionaire asshat to even address the issue. That's what we've been reduced to. Make a comment about race/culture and you'll be demonized for it. Even if it's as simple as wanting to protect your own children.

 

That fear may be misguided. Maybe it's just a bunch of racist ***holes that want to hang *******. Or maybe it's about how we figure out how we're all going to make this thing work. Not just in our lifetime, but beyond.

 

Given our bad history of managing cultures (just talking about America-if you want to know about the Greeks, Romans, etc it'll be a much longer post), we're better off not letting anyone else in.

I don't think the problem is really race, culture or immigration. It goes deeper than that. It goes to the natural human tendency to factionalize - to divide communities in an "us vs. them" kind of way. There's no way out of this. The liberal multicultural utopia, for all its talk of inclusion and equality, still contrasts itself with "angry white dudes" and racist redneck sorts more generally. Do away with the white nationalists and the MRAs, and the liberal SJW must find some other "privileged" faction to crusade against. Maybe white (as opposed to POC or LGBT) feminists. Maybe black/gay males still enjoying male privilege. But it would have to be something: the whole crux of their identity depends on this.

 

Go the other way into right wing cultural protectionism, you'd find that the monocultural community would start turning on itself once the "darkies" were duly segregated: cultural inquisitions against those segments of the population that are not quite "American", "White" or "western" enough. Again, without an enemy - internal or external - an identity dependent upon who one's enemies or who the "others" are faces an existential threat far greater than that which the enemy truly poses. As such, one will be found whether foreign influences are allowed into the country or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, Kurgan.

I've been struck by how much I'm seeing it in the housing market right now. You get 10 moneyed hipsters vying for a property in a fast-gentrifying neighborhood who all look, talk, walk, smell alike... and before the end of the open house, you'll hear mutterings of regional prejudice: those buyers from California or the East Coast (both are bad, though California is much worse) are stealing houses in my neighborhood (even though the complainer doesn't live here, either); economic prejudice: assertions about how (paraphrasing) it's crap the house might go to a "trust fund baby" rather than a "professional like me" (though both no doubt inherited money if they're able to buy a house at their age in this economy); and superiority based on moral prejudice: how it'd be a shame if somebody who doesn't respect the neighborhood and its history (them!) gets the house, as opposed to somebody who will enrich the community (me!).

 

Of course, it's just competition that brings out the nastiness -- people compete for scarce resources; always have and always will. But the way they inevitably ascribe negative traits to those who want the same thing is always fascinating and a little unsettling to me.

 

Now apply what I said to American jobs, resources, etc... to bring it back to the discussion :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1.The ensuing backlash, the wave of which Trump has been riding, is partially due to lingering racism, yes. But it's also because people don't like censorship. They don't like being told what to think. A lot of white guys really don't want to be racist or misogynist, but are understandably not willing to go through life in sack cloth and ashes, as present progressivism would seem to insist they do. They see an ivory tower liberal academic/mass media establishment using accusations of "racism" to shame and stigmatize everybody who doesn't unquestioningly agree with them and parrot their own talking points. Especially when those talking points emphasize inclusiveness, equality and so on. What the hell kind of "liberalism" is this? When they hear some condescending Ivy League hipster lecture them about "privilege", they sense the arrogance and the hypocrisy. When they hear crap like "blacks can't be racist because racism requires power and only whites have power" - they sense what a scripted, self serving double standard they're being presented with. Especially if the mouthpiece spouting it has more money and influence - a place in academia or a column in a progressive magazine, for instance, than most "privileged" white males ever will. When they see supposedly secular, or at least vehemently anti-Christian celebrity mouthpieces cozying to Islam - despite the refugee "rape culture" that's proven itself vastly worse than anything alarmist feminism has insisted exists on college campuses, they know the narrative they keep hearing has a lot of holes in the plot. For all Mr. Multicultural espouses tolerance and inclusiveness, he can't conceal his disdain for the lower classes in his own back yard, with the same color skin as his.

 

 

 

2. Due to political correctness, western liberalism itself has become a house of cards, requiring its own prejudice in order to fight the prejudice of others. Requiring its own privileges to single out and call out the privilege of others. Their "inclusiveness" rooted in the "otherizing" their own scapegoat - the cis/het white male, who must at all costs be denied the independent voice rightly seen as being the prerogative of historically disenfranchised minorities. The manipulativeness, the use of guilt as a means of control has become so bad in social justice communities that no less a fire and brimstone SJW pulpit than Everyday Feminism is beginning to show awareness of it. Puritanism and guilt based morality has become so pervasive in progressive communities that I figure they outta start paying royalties to the Catholic Church, from whom they actually stole the term "social justice." Between the two of them, it's hard to say who's butchered the true meaning of that term more.

 

The sorts of people backing Trump, or even David Duke come to that, might not be able to express all of this intellectually, but they feel it instinctively. They know that western liberalism in the last forty or so years has gone wrong. It's this instinct that Trump has tapped into. And frankly ... yeah, I really don't think liberals have anybody to blame but themselves for Trump, and the broader "alt-right" tendencies of which he is a part. A liberalism that is not liberal is worse than worthless. It's fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical. While this doesn't turn me on to Trump or Duke either, I can see why a lot of other people would.

 

1: Ah yes--the neutered, pseudo intellectual of the Left at work. They bleed and cry for the downtrodden...the minority--only if its the "right" minority, which usually means a color or sexual preference.

 

Next, there's the contradictory, Bizarro-land defense of Islam--while conveniently forgetting that many of its followers practice a treatment of women that stands on the opposite side of the Western Left universe. However, that does not matter, as they consider Islam the religion of the "brown, oppressed people" (as opposed to so-called "white" Christianity--nevermind where that faith began), stemming from the bastardized Nation of Islam interpretation (and later, other North American radicals). Tailor-made for those in the Left counterculture who (instead of actually studying history) damned Christianity as the aforementioned "white" religion of all things evil and oppressive.

 

Mention the treatment of women / the male-centric heirarchy in the Muslim world, and you will be labeled an "Islamaphobe" or worse. Mention the radical side--its standard bearer being terrorist organizations, and you're a war mongering racist. Such extremist beliefs force-fed on the population has much to do with the acceptance of Trump as a serious candidate, yet one side of he Left scratches their collective heads, while the other just fall back to painting anyone identifying as Republican as a member of some combo super-villain group comprised of the White Aryan Resistance, Heritage Foundation and the John Birch Society.

 

Again, anyone wonder why Trump is succeeding?

 

2: "Due to political correctness, western liberalism itself has become a house of cards, requiring its own prejudice in order to fight the prejudice of others"

 

...so much so, that the Left sees no problem with companies blacklisting employees for not marching to their ideological drummer. From entire companies, celebrity product sponsors to teachers or a fast food worker, if the Left mindset is not embraced, there are damaging, life-changing consequences to be expected. Ironic, since the Left used to fight against such practices Their sweeping punishments are racing along the same road as those who were blacklisted during the second Red Scare period--"wrong" thought means punishment and ostracism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...