US Presidential Race

On a more cheerful note I have been laughing at this vine for like 45 mintues:

Spoiler:

Swanhends wrote:On a more cheerful note I have been laughing at this vine for like 45 mintues:

Spoiler:

M99 wrote:

Swanhends wrote:On a more cheerful note I have been laughing at this vine for like 45 mintues:

Spoiler:

amazing

https://twitter.com/Seinfeld2000/status/663398271205965824

Watching the republican debate and its so weird to see how strange this all is. Especially Trump still carrying on about kicking millions out.

Now watching them wax lyrical about taxes.

Lets get real 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year

going even further:
-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

I pay almost more in taxes by myself than over half of American workforce make all year. They aren't paying taxes. Yet they can waste debate time on a non issue for the vast majority of this country. Like we don't have actual issues in this country.

Just shockingly out of touch for people who are suppose to speak for the "average joe".

@Betty

Did you read the comment section of the link you posted? It appeared to me that there are way more people around that are totally out of touch with reality than only certain big wigs in government o_O

@Swanhends: you following the fallout from the Yale Halloween thing? lol

for those who don't know:




That is a girl screaming at a Professor who's the Master of her residence. You can read more about the incident here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

Betty La Fea wrote:Watching the republican debate and its so weird to see how strange this all is. Especially Trump still carrying on about kicking millions out.

Now watching them wax lyrical about taxes.

Lets get real 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year

going even further:
-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

I pay almost more in taxes by myself than over half of American workforce make all year. They aren't paying taxes. Yet they can waste debate time on a non issue for the vast majority of this country. Like we don't have actual issues in this country.

Just shockingly out of touch for people who are suppose to speak for the "average joe".

TIL a new grad can make double that of what 71% of Americans make.

El Messico wrote:@Swanhends: you following the fallout from the Yale Halloween thing? lol

for those who don't know:




That is a girl screaming at a Professor who's the Master of her residence. You can read more about the incident here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

I haven't really been following the Yale thing, this is all that I've read on it: http://www.salon.com/2015/11/11/im_a_black_yale_grad_and_its_racial_firestorm_doesnt_surprise_me_now_its_time_to_fight_for_change/

I've spent far more time following the Mizzou situation, although this very good piece on that situation refers to the article you linked: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-and-the-free-speech-diversion?mbid=social_twitter

Reading both articles, it seems (to me) that the email isn't the actual 'crux' of this controversy, but rather the inherent racism at the university? (Higher ups being called masters, Calhoun college, etc)

Sure the email is stupid, but it seems to me to be like more of a plea rather than verdict. Idk, it just seems to me that it isn't that big of a deal compared to the university's inherent racism.

Disclaimer: I have not followed this, I've only read those articles, i have no idea of this outside of those.

ES wrote:Reading both articles, it seems (to me) that the email isn't the actual 'crux' of this controversy, but rather the inherent racism at the university? (Higher ups being called masters, Calhoun college, etc)

Sure the email is stupid, but it seems to me to be like more of a plea rather than verdict. Idk, it just seems to me that it isn't that big of a deal compared to the university's inherent racism.

Disclaimer: I have not followed this, I've only read those articles, i have no idea of this outside of those.

You're correct: In neither the Yale nor the Mizzou situation is the larger controversy really about the single event that triggered it, those events were just the final straw - Much like how the outrage that was attributed to Michael Brown's murder was in many ways a reaction to the much larger issue of decades and decades of grievances about violent oppression going unheard.

IMO August 2014 in Ferguson lit a fire that will never go out. People of color in this country have suffered far too much for far too long, and nothing less than real consideration & action towards dismantling institutionalized racism will be accepted any longer.

I'm not sure when you have graduated as I don't know how old you are, but you seem to have some really low expectations for standard of behaviour for university students. In my opinion, that girl's behaviour is disgraceful. You may find my opinion extreme but I think if you cannot hold a conversation in a civil manner, you do not deserve to be heard to. I don't care if she was frustrated by the university's inherent racism, I'm not even certain it really actually affected her given her economic privilege.

I read your articles and neither actually deal with the stupidity of the situation. The Atlantic article I posted goes into it in great detail. Your articles try to sweep this ugly reaction from her under the rug, when in reality her behaviour really didn't have a ground to stand on.

ES wrote:Reading both articles, it seems (to me) that the email isn't the actual 'crux' of this controversy, but rather the inherent racism at the university? (Higher ups being called masters, Calhoun college, etc)

Sure the email is stupid, but it seems to me to be like more of a plea rather than verdict. Idk, it just seems to me that it isn't that big of a deal compared to the university's inherent racism.

Disclaimer: I have not followed this, I've only read those articles, i have no idea of this outside of those.

Read the Atlantic article I posted.

It didn't end there btw:

A bit later the protesters disgraced themselves:

Around 5:45 p.m., as attendees began to leave the conference, students chanted the phrase “Genocide is not a joke” and held up written signs of the same words. Taking Howard’s reminder into account, protesters formed a clear path through which attendants could leave.

A large group of students eventually gathered outside of the building on High Street, where several attendees were spat on, according to Buckley fellows who were present during the conference. One Buckley Fellow added that he was spat on and called a racist. Another, who identifies as a minority himself, said he has been labeled a “traitor” by several.

These students were offended by one person’s words, and were free to offer their own words in turn. That wasn’t enough for them, so they spat on different people who listened to those words and called one minority student a traitor to his race. In their muddled ideology, the Yale activists had to destroy the safe space to save it.

El Messico wrote:I'm not sure when you have graduated as I don't know how old you are, but you seem to have some really low expectations for standard of behaviour for university students. In my opinion, that girl's behaviour is disgraceful. You may find my opinion extreme but I think if you cannot hold a conversation in a civil manner, you do not deserve to be heard to. I don't care if she was frustrated by the university's inherent racism, I'm not even certain it really actually affected her given her economic privilege.

I read your articles and neither actually deal with the stupidity of the situation. The Atlantic article I posted goes into it in great detail. Your articles try to sweep this ugly reaction from her under the rug, when in reality her behaviour really didn't have a ground to stand on.

Negative, you've missed the point entirely. The girl's behavior is wrong. The point is: so what? Her behavior has nothing at all to do with the validity of the very real problems that people are rightly furious about. The continuous refocusing of attention to the poor behavior of this one student instead of addressing the legitimate issues being raised by the group collectively is just people telling on themselves.

It's no different in Missouri, the same group of people is determined to keep the focus on the stupid actions of one Professor instead of addressing the fact that their institution has basically been ignoring years and years of racist abuse directed towards one group of students and has completely failed at their responsibility of fostering a campus that feels safe and welcoming to all groups. Personally I'd prefer if these people would just come out and admit that they don't give a shit about the concerns of these black kids and drop the act... but again: these distractions are intentional so that won't be happening anytime soon

lol m8 the point is not some quantum mechanics tunneling level that I missed. I understood what they are saying. What I'm saying is using this Halloween example and the privileged girl to raise awareness or justify racial frustrations is ridiculous, because the entire incident is so ridiculous.

Even if they were furious about racist incidents (of the ones listed in the Salon article, I only would be concerned about the spray paint and if the white-girls only thing was true, ffs the "slave quarters" problem is that the residence was called the slave quarters for its humble appearance more than 35 years ago and that people now don't remember it.), this entire situation came to a head over the most innocuous and respectful email from that professor. In my eyes, it discredits the work of these student activists more than anything. It was not just this girl's behaviour but the behaviour throughout this incident (including spitting on attendees of a conference and calling some "traitors")

It just echoes of what happened in my university a couple of years ago where "feminists" disrupted classes by pulling fire-alarms, wasting the time of campus authorities and fire-trucks and occupying buildings because they were mad about some person coming to present something. In another case, they blockaded an important pedestrian route on campus by protesting in front of a building which housed a conference they objected to. Similar to the Yale incident, they spit on some attendees and insulted most. You can find videos on youtube, I'm not making it up. The feminists that I know operate in a medium of mutual respect because they understand that it's hard to win over a disinterested neutral by antagonizing them. The problem occurs when feminism (or whatever the various new -isms are) combines with student activism in its modern form. In my experience, I have never walked away from a student activist convinced in what they were protesting about. With their behaviour, they discredit whatever legitimate movement they have coopted. I have already expressed the reasons why I think that's the case.

again: continually redirect focus on behavior instead of the causes...in this case you not only redirected to behavior, but the behavior of feminists?? What do they even have to do with either of these cases? They've protested something before and these students are protesting something else currently so they're somehow accountable for eachothers behavior now?

people fall for these okey-dokes all the time. it's the reason everybody knows rosa parks but few know claudette colvin. demanding that the oppressed as a group and their leaders individually be flawless in order for their voice to be heard or taken seriously is ridiculous and hypocritical.

The behaviour of feminists has nothing to do with what is happening at Yale. I don't understand how you even came to the conclusion that I would make such a nonsensical claim. I brought them up to illustrate that its not the actual movements that irk me. It's the obnoxious student activism in the name of social justice.

By bringing up the Rosa Parks/Claudette Colvin example, you've sort of made my argument for me. Throughout history, the leaders of movements have been individuals of stature who have built up respect not just within their own group but also within the "other" group. This is natural because it is easier to empathise with and be convinced by someone who gets their point across clearly and civilly.

On an individual level, if someone has completely lost control of their emotions, how do I know if the stuff they are saying is even representative of their actual thoughts or their actual situation? And how do you expect one to be sympathetic to your view if you're simply antagonizing them or making their life difficult? Are you really going to ignore basic human interactions.

So yes, the behaviour of the oppressed group is indeed important as has been borne out throughout the past centuries. It does not have to be flawless every time (this is just a strawman you are building up) for their voice to be heard. Literally no one has decided "hey guys this girl's behaviour means we dont have to care about racism at Yale ever". Nobody has stopped their wider anti-racist efforts or support for these efforts because of this girl or the protesters. What has undoubtedly happened is that this girl has left some people a little unsympathetic to her own personal cause/situation. As for the protestors, I mean, c'mon, is spitting at people coming out of a conference the best way to convince them of your oppression? It's hard for me to take them seriously anymore (while still recognizing that there could be racism that needs to be eradicated).

El Messico wrote:By bringing up the Rosa Parks/Claudette Colvin example, you've sort of made my argument for me. Throughout history, the leaders of movements have been individuals of stature who have built up respect not just within their own group but also within the "other" group. This is natural because it is easier to empathise with and be convinced by someone who gets their point across clearly and civilly.

W H A T. The whole point of bringing up Parks/Colvin was that segregation was equally as wrong when Colvin was arrested as when Parks was arrested for the exact same thing later on, and the fact that it took the "perfect victim" for anyone to take the injustice seriously was, and is, a disgrace! How can you lean on that to support your point??

On an individual level, if someone has completely lost control of their emotions, how do I know if the stuff they are saying is even representative of their actual thoughts or their actual situation? And how do you expect one to be sympathetic to your view if you're simply antagonizing them or making their life difficult?

You're supposed to be sympathetic to the view based on the merits of the complaints themselves rather than your personal opinion of the behavior of largely irrelevant individual(s) in a group of hundreds/thousands.

So yes, the behaviour of the oppressed group is indeed important as has been borne out throughout the past centuries. It does not have to be flawless every time (this is just a strawman you are building up) for their voice to be heard.

I have absolutely no idea how you can claim Parks/Colvin supports your point in one paragraph and then just two paragraphs later claim the insistence on perfect victims is a strawman. Don't have any words for that.

Literally no one has decided "hey guys this girl's behaviour means we dont have to care about racism at Yale ever"

Of course not, they would never be that straightforward. Instead they've just decided "We have to publish 10,000 articles discussing the behavior of this one individual as a means of discrediting the protestors as a group while using this red herring to completely avoid confronting or dealing with any of the legitimate issues they've raised"

Nobody has stopped their wider anti-racist efforts or support for these efforts because of this girl or the protesters.

That's because the protestors collectively won't be fooled or deterred by this nonsense anymore. Every major civil rights protest to garner attention since Ferguson has been met with a concerted effort to discredit the protest by directing all discussion to the behaviors of individuals rather than the validity of the problems themselves. The fact that every single protest has devolved to discussions about behavior is a pretty obvious indication that people's real problem is with the fact that there are protests going on at all.

What has undoubtedly happened is that this girl has left some people a little unsympathetic to her own personal cause/situation. As for the protestors, I mean, c'mon, is spitting at people coming out of a conference the best way to convince them of your oppression? It's hard for me to take them seriously anymore (while still recognizing that there could be racism that needs to be eradicated).

First, lmfao @ "could be"

Second, this is that same nonsense as when people say "well I would have supported the XYZ protestors until they blocked traffic, they've lost my support now" toooootal bullshit. You were looking for an excuse to dismiss them from the beginning but didn't have much moral ground to stand on, so now you're latching on to an instance of behavior you find unseemly as a way out.

1: "While still recognizing that there could be some racism that needs to be eradicated"
2: "Okay here's some racist stuff going on"
1: "Those protestors are disgraceful, look at that girl screaming hysterically!"
2: "Okay here's some other racist stuff going on somewhere else"
1: "The actions of that professor are disgraceful, what about the first amendment!"
2: "I thought we were talking about racism?"
1: "What racism? I recognize that there could be some that needs to be eradicated"

...and the cycle continues

Intentional misdirection as a means of avoidance, that's all it is.

I don't understand how we so spectacularly misunderstand each other.

Swanhends wrote:

1: "While still recognizing that there could be some racism that needs to be eradicated"
2: "Okay here's some racist stuff going on"
1: "Those protestors are disgraceful, look at that girl screaming hysterically!"
2: "Okay here's some other racist stuff going on somewhere else"
1: "The actions of that professor are disgraceful, what about the first amendment!"
2: "I thought we were talking about racism?"
1: "What racism? I recognize that there could be some that needs to be eradicated"

...and the cycle continues

lmao. wtf are you on about here? where is this professor and first amendment shit coming from?

and lol at comparing spitting at innocent people, calling a professor who did nothing wrong "disgusting" - to peacefully blockading traffic.

El Messico wrote:I don't understand how we so spectacularly misunderstand each other.

I mean, I think I understand you pretty clearly: You don't like the student activists or their behavior.

While I believe that continual redirection of focus onto distasteful individual behavior is an intentional red herring to avoid talking about the reasons these protests are happening. I don't think there's much misunderstanding there?

El Messico wrote:lmao. wtf are you on about here?

the. continual. and. intentional. misdirection. of. focus. onto. irrelevant. shit. to. avoid. considering. real. issues.

I can't possibly be more clear than that, at some point I'm gonna have to copy & paste cause I'm just repeating myself now

where is this professor and first amendment shit coming from?

........the student protests at Missouri that I've been repeatedly referring to, which were discussed in one of the articles I posted

and lol at comparing spitting at innocent people, calling a professor who did nothing wrong "disgusting" - to peacefully blockading traffic.

Calling someone disgusting is worse than blocking traffic? Interesting. I'd love to hear more about the hierarchy of protester disgracefulness but I'm praying that at some point you'll realize that continually arguing over stuff like that instead of talking about the issues is my entire point.

So far in the entirety of this debate re: Yale/Mizzou you've only addressed the actual points raised by protesters in one paragraph, in which you casually dismissed one problem, doubted the veracity/severity of others, and then immediately redirected focus back onto the instances of bad behavior.

Meanwhile you've made a bunch of posts expanding on why you don't like the student activists or their behavior, adding additional examples, bringing up the actions of unrelated activists protesting different issues, and extrapolating the behavior of individuals to the group as a whole.......despite that fact that I stated unequivocally that the actions of that screaming woman were wrong in literally my first reply.

Bottom Line: You said her actions were disgraceful, I agreed and said we should be focusing on the issues that are causing these protests. Your response to that was to casually dismiss the issues with a handwave and go back to discussing protester behavior....which of course brings us back to "what I'm on about" here

swanhends wrote:the. continual. and. intentional. misdirection. of. focus. onto. irrelevant. shit. to. avoid. considering. real. issues.

OK, you got my point.

When you were talking about continual misdirection, I didn't realize you were talking about me. lol. I didn't realize that you wanted me to talk about the real issues. Talk about the reasons these protests are happening? Those are pretty obvious. What exactly is there to talk about them? Pretty much the only new thing to actually talk about (in my opinion) is how student activism has been changing.

Also, there literally was no "debate" between us re: Yale/Mizzou. Firstly, I am still not aware of what is happening at Mizzou, and secondly we were again talking about different things. I continued to ramble on about my grievances with student activism, you were expecting me to engage in talk about the real issues when I never had any intention of actually discussing them. What exactly do you think would be illuminating in such a discussion? Discussions over racism are not new and by this point there is an established sense of what is morally right and wrong. About the behaviour of students though, being a novel topic, there is still not agreement over whether the tactics they adopt or their actions are justified or not. Which is why I kept going on about it. This is what you understood to be my continual misdirection to irrelevant shit.

And btw, yes I do consider screaming at someone, telling them to shut up, calling them disgusting and hoping they never sleep at night as worse than blocking traffic. Especially when this person has not done anything wrong and is your professor.

El Messico wrote:When you were talking about continual misdirection, I didn't realize you were talking about me. lol

Actually when I started I wasn't, I was just talking generally. But then when you started replying to my posts about underlying causes with more talk of protester behavior I took that as an indication that you were adopting/using the same tactics as the people that I was originally referring to, so at that point I started lumping you in with my original targets

I have questions about this though:

Messico wrote:About the behaviour of students though, being a novel topic, there is still not agreement over whether the tactics they adopt or their actions are justified or not

First, what do you mean by novel topic? Second, isn't whether the ends justify the means usually a subjective question? (In which case consensus agreement will never be reached?)

Messico wrote:And btw, yes I do consider screaming at someone, telling them to shut up, calling them disgusting and hoping they never sleep at night as worse than blocking traffic. Especially when this person has not done anything wrong and is your professor

This is just interesting to me because I never would've expected someone so wary of pc-overreach to place so much emphasis on a person being told to shut up or being told that they're disgusting. In my experience people who fit that description have usually leaned on arguments like "they're just words", "speech can't hurt anyone unless they let it", "why are they so sensitive" etc. Obviously we're talking within the realm of personal preference now so there isn't really anything to argue, I was just surprised to hear that position from you

Didn't take him long


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/552955167533174785

Thats from January mate