Divisiveness is now...good?

Is the current level of divisiveness good for the country?


  • Total voters
    58
A black man being elected broke this country.

The GOP moved full reactionary far right after that. The tea party and the house freedom caucus lost their minds. Palin was a darling of the right proving my point.

The right wing divided this country like no other then projected it onto obama.

Just remember NOT ONE republican voted for the stimulus package that clearly worked with help from Yellen at the fed to stabilize our destroyed economy under another republicans watch.

They were so on tilt they would’ve let markets crash everywhere and destroy the country further than step up and help their fellow Americans.

History will remember that moment when they chose to appeal to the fringe rather than bail out America’s economic disaster that happened under their watch.

And now, they’ve upped the ante and are even crazier than ever before
 
Last edited:
Yep, it was okay for Dems and libs to say "NOT MY PRESIDENT!!!" after the 2000 election and refer to Bush as Hitler up until he left office.

BushHitlerShitAsshole.jpg
Let's see the Republicans spent the previous 8 years claiming that Bill Clinton wasn't a legitimate President because ironically he didn't get a majority of the vote. In addition compared him to chairman Mao, Stalin, ironically claiming that somebody who avoided the draft wasn't qualified to be commander in chief. Let's also not forget criticized his wife Hillary to a degree at the time was completely unprecedented.
 
Let's see the Republicans spent the previous 8 years claiming that Bill Clinton wasn't a legitimate President because ironically he didn't get a majority of the vote.
{<jordan}
 
But there's data supporting that statement, he's not pulling the racism card. There is/was a segment of the voting population that responded to the racial issue with backlash.

That's the strange thing about allegations of overusing the race card and it's intersection with people who have an issue with PC speak. Those people are very open about how PC speech is bad and harming our country but when the speech turns to the conversation about the racial animus directed at people of color, the tone turns. At that point, saying these uncomfortable truths is a bad thing and those who are saying them shouldn't do so.

In a thread about divisiveness, it's as good an example of what's going on as anything else. The tone of public conversation is changing. And some people, who previously never noticed how belittling their comments about other Americans were, have found themselves on the receiving end of similar comments. When exposed to negative public attention, they've responded by ratcheting up their rhetoric and trying to silence those negative comments (SJW's) while preserving the right to make their own (just fighting against PC).

Well, yeah, it's going to get divisive when one side suddenly decides they don't like the rules of the game they invented and wants to change the rules on the fly.
What are you talking about? POC (god I hate that euphemism) can talk about bigotry all day long and get tremendous support across the political spectrum. The only thing required of them is the same thing required of everyone else. Provide evidence beyond emotional rhetoric and don't play stupid PC games when people bring up IQ scores or cultural norms. Argue your case like an adult and nobody ever has a problem.

You talk about the tone of public discussion? Are you kidding me? Have you not noticed the plethora of public intellectuals that have spent most of their lives being considered left wing that are now called nazi's regularly? The mountains of evidence for anti-white (and anti-asian) discrimination that is being defended regularly by the left? The tone of public debate when you have major democratic politicians telling their people to harass opposition politicians or stop associating with opposition party members?

Sometimes I feel like I have been transported to some wacky alternate earth.
 
Let me guess you don't remember? Yet another case of right wing selective amnesia?
Funny, nothing comes up on Google images for "Bill Clinton not my president shirt" yet it does for Bush. ;)
 
I wonder what would happen if the major races of the US were split into four parts of the country and forbidden from speaking to one another.

Would you miss each other?
Would you look for reconciliation?
Would you wage war?
Would you not care?
Would you still be bitter?
People like me have no choice but to look for reconciliation
<2>
 
What are you talking about? POC (god I hate that euphemism) can talk about bigotry all day long and get tremendous support across the political spectrum. The only thing required of them is the same thing required of everyone else. Provide evidence beyond emotional rhetoric and don't play stupid PC games when people bring up IQ scores or cultural norms. Argue your case like an adult and nobody ever has a problem.

You talk about the tone of public discussion? Are you kidding me? Have you not noticed the plethora of public intellectuals that have spent most of their lives being considered left wing that are now called nazi's regularly? The mountains of evidence for anti-white (and anti-asian) discrimination that is being defended regularly by the left? The tone of public debate when you have major democratic politicians telling their people to harass opposition politicians or stop associating with opposition party members?

Sometimes I feel like I have been transported to some wacky alternate earth.
The thing we should be asking out of this is "who is pushing this, and why"

You may think POC are some huge anti white racists, but POC have no major influence in anything. Their influence is only influential because someone powerful enough to promote those things, is. So... who? And why?
 
Funny, nothing comes up on Google images for "Bill Clinton not my president shirt" yet it does for Bush. ;)
Let me guess you were still in mommy's womb when Clinton was President? Too young to remember when the Republicans would constantly claim he didn't have the right to this or say that because he didn't get a majority of the vote?
 
Let me guess you were still in mommy's womb when Clinton was President? Too young to remember when the Republicans would constantly claim he didn't have the right to this or say that because he didn't get a majority of the vote?
Show us the bacon. ;)
Also show us where Clinton was compared to Hitler while you're at it.
 
A black man being elected broke this country.

The GOP moved full reactionary far right after that. The tea party and the house freedom caucus lost their minds. Palin was a darling of the right proving my point.

The right wing divided this country like no other then projected it onto obama.

Just remember NOT ONE republican voted for the stimulus package that clearly worked with help from Yellen at the fed to stabilize our destroyed economy under another republicans watch.

They were so on tilt they would’ve let markets crash everywhere and destroy the country further than step up and help their fellow Americans.

History will remember that moment when they chose to appeal to the fringe rather than bail out America’s economic disaster that happened under their watch.

And now, they’ve upped the ante and are even crazier than ever before
Obama being black might have made it worse but for the most part his treatment was just result of the rise of the right wing noise machine that started in the late 80's and early 90's.
 
The thing we should be asking out of this is "who is pushing this, and why"

You may think POC are some huge anti white racists, but POC have no major influence in anything. Their influence is only influential because someone powerful enough to promote those things, is. So... who? And why?
I know who and why. That isn't the point. I think the vast majority of people of all ethnicities have common interests that aren't being served by these divides. But that doesn't change the fact that objectively there is very little evidence for any kind systemic bias. From the right you have ethno nationalists and business leaders, and from the left you have politicians and the diversity industry. The big problem is the vitriol from the rank and file, and on that score the vast majority of the problem comes from the left.
 
What are you talking about? POC (god I hate that euphemism) can talk about bigotry all day long and get tremendous support across the political spectrum. The only thing required of them is the same thing required of everyone else. Provide evidence beyond emotional rhetoric and don't play stupid PC games when people bring up IQ scores or cultural norms. Argue your case like an adult and nobody ever has a problem.

You talk about the tone of public discussion? Are you kidding me? Have you not noticed the plethora of public intellectuals that have spent most of their lives being considered left wing that are now called nazi's regularly? The mountains of evidence for anti-white (and anti-asian) discrimination that is being defended regularly by the left? The tone of public debate when you have major democratic politicians telling their people to harass opposition politicians or stop associating with opposition party members?

Sometimes I feel like I have been transported to some wacky alternate earth.
People argue their case like adults all of the time, the problem is that some people don't like the arguments that are being made. Argue your case like an adult...but you can't use the following arguments: X, Y, Z. Well, if they can't use Arguments X, Y, Z then it seems like they're being asked to abide by some unspoken PC code.

You posted a wonderful diatribe but it completely sidestepped my point.

Only one side has an issue with PC speech. The side that is against PC speech shouldn't have a problem with the race card or with calling people Nazie regularly. They shouldn't have a problem with any language used in the public space. Asking any group to change how they about any subject is asking them to be PC.

A person cannot be against society becoming too PC and also upset about society's use of language directed against their preferred group.

Here's a simple example to help you stay on track. "Muslims are terrorists and can't be trusted." says Person X. When told that the statement is xenophobic, Person X says that it's the truth and the PC police are going overboard. When Person Y calls Person X a "racist", Person X says "Why do you call everyone racist, you shouldn't speak that way."

Person X doesn't see that the request for less volatile language contradicts the previous desire to express volatile language. Person X abhors the PC code when it restricts Person X's speech but implicitly appeals to it when the speech is directed at Person X.

That is the point that I am making.
 
Terrible post.

Partisanship is up because of wealth inequity. It was started by the old democratic party as a way of garnering votes then grew into the modern identity politics that is destroying them.

Obama wasn't intentionally divisive. He actually came in with the idea of reaching across the isle and forming a new unified commitment to good governance. I applauded him in principle but knew it was doomed to failure because the rhetoric during Bushes presidency had grown out of hand. The republicans weren't ready to forgive some of the vitriol that had escalated from the previous administration. I guess you could say it had spiraled out of hand by that point and Obama wasn't going to fix it just by reaching out.

Obama's divisiveness came in pushing identity politics. Both directly and by appointment. Under Obama's appointees the justice department became an absurd political attack dog. The abuses of title IX were bad enough, the attacks on police forces were utterly unforgivable. He appointed racist shitbag after racist shitbag and they weren't even subtle about it. Then there was the forcing of Muslims into the intelligence services when every expert was telling him it was a terrible idea (yes this really happened). Then there was his utterly ignorant inflammatory comments when the social justice mob jumped on a case de jour. Then there was his bullshit with the deportation statuses, and the manipulation of the numbers for deportations. The man was a complete imbecile on these issues.

Trump isn't even close to as divisive. Only idiots who listen to CNN think he is. There is far less evidence that Trump is a racist then that Obama was one.

Garland wasn't a moderate, he was an anti-2nd amendment nutcase. He was Obama's last attempt at gun control, the partisan POS he was on the issue. Trumps supreme court pick has been fantastic. We will see what his next one is but considering how many bullshit judgments have been coming out of left wing political hacks from the bench since Trump got in I find complaints about right wing judiciaries comical.
There are some outright lies in this post (Garland being a nutcase, only CNN people think Trump is divisive).

But you did say a couple interesting things, and I agree with you about the Obama Justice Department's attempts at creating a better environment for civil rights being done with good intentions, yet ultimately becoming a source of division. I think that's a good place to draw a distinction between the Obama and Trump admins. Trump has been rather openly hostile from the start, encouraging violence against political opponents, and declaring the press an enemy being the clearest examples we could use. Embracing divisiveness.
 
The thing we should be asking out of this is "who is pushing this, and why"

You may think POC are some huge anti white racists, but POC have no major influence in anything. Their influence is only influential because someone powerful enough to promote those things, is. So... who? And why?

100 gold stars for you sir
 
Whenever there are political divisions as strong as those that develop from two-party government systems, there will be some partisan hypocrisy. That's understandable and probably unavoidable, but we can usually work through it, and often come out of it with sensible policy.

One of the most enduring arguments against Obama is that he was divisive. Now, setting aside whether that was actually true, or whether the measures of divisiveness were valid, the argument was that divisiveness is bad. This is, I think, squirm-proof. Divisiveness was bad for the country, straight up.

Now today. This administration is extremely divisive. I don't believe there is any serious argument against this. Even if we presume that the nation began this administration in a state of serious division, it has been fed constantly and kept as divided as possible. There has been no serious attempt to unite public opinion through infrastructure or health care, which are two of the ripest areas for reconciliation. There was no attempt to appoint moderate Justices like Garland- a compromise offered by Obama, the apparent divider.

So here we are. We must either acknowledge that this divisiveness is also bad and criticize it to a comparable level (even with a little partisan lean, fine), or we must admit what seems to be the truth today: proponents of this administration have changed their minds from before, and now they feel that divisiveness is a force for good, because their preferred leader is in charge.

Who specifically are these people you’re referring to?
 
More or less. At some point people are going to stand up for themselves.
As detestable as your POV seems to be, I appreciate the honesty here. If people openly declare & employ a double standard as a weapon, it eliminates a lot of the bullshit.
 
Back
Top