Divisiveness is now...good?

[Losfer Words]

I don't think campaign mud-slinging on its own is a good measure of national division, I think it's just a good measure of campaign tactics.

Thats fine, I personally think it speaks to the timeless tactic of dividing politically and has proved be effective especially in a two party system. I mean 58% of voters actually voted in the last election, thats a fraction of a fraction of the total amount of people. How divided are we in reality? Most people don't do war room talk in real life cause they don't care.

 

[Fawlty]

Garland is a nutcase when it comes to the 2nd amendment. He is a complete and utter radical on the subject. The media has been only hostile to Trump from the beginning, smearing him every chance they have gotten. Probably half of what has been reported on him by the mainstream media is at least badly misrepresentation, if not an outright lie. the Russian investigation has been the worst smear job in US political history.

The Eric Holder Justice department was only racist and hostile. They attacked anything that they viewed as "imbalanced", with balance being that arrests and persecutions should statistically match representative groups. Nobody with a brain and even a marginal knowledge of criminology could think this was a good idea. He threatened literally hundreds of institutions with leveling accusations of their "racism" based on nothing at all. I seriously doubt you are aware of a fraction of the the shitty things done by the Obama Justice department.

When has Trump ever encouraged violence against political opponents, not saying it didn't happen but I am unaware of this. I know he has called for peace many times.

Did you get amnesia about Trump calling for violence at his rallies?

I'm not here to take issue with the characterization of Obama as divisive. I was explicit about that in my OP. Your Holder opinion is irrelevant to this thread, the divisiveness has been granted for the sake of argument, so you should move on from that.

You are simply lying, or a victim of propaganda re: Garland. He called for a review- a bipartisan request- of the pre-Heller case. And he opined that audits of background checks do not comprise a "registry."

If you want to continue with me, you'll have to correct yourself on Garland, cure your Trump amnesia, stop complaining about Holder, and get on topic.

 

[luckyshot]

You couldn't criticize Obama for ANYTHING on here without people like the TS pulling the R card. Now they want to play nice after throwing gas on the fire.

Pics or didn’t happen.

 

[Fawlty]

Be advised, this and future responses like it in this thread will be reported.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Be advised, this and future responses like it in this thread will be reported.

Be advised: It's not that serious.

However, I wouldn't expect anything less from your kind.

 

[panamaican]

Bullshit. There are tons of people on the left who have an issue with PC speech. The vast majority of the country has a problem with PC speech. But it isn't the PC speech codes that are the issue, its the punishment and the methods used by the PC police to attack people who break the speech codes and the formalization of speech codes in law and by law. When professors can no longer say things that are scientific fact because its against the speech codes there is a problem.

You can whine and bitch to your hearts content about someone saying something racist or mean. I don't care and will just ignore you, but if you try to get violent, or attack someones ability to earn a living then that is not about what you think should be inside or outside the Overton window. That turns into an attack on someones ability to live and survive.

Using your own example, telling someone they are xenophobic for saying, "Muslims are terrorists and can't be trusted" is fine. Its essentially devoid of meaning, but go ahead and say it. But if you go to someones boss and tell them they are xenophobic and racist and that if they don't fire you right now you are going to start a boycott then that isn't about speech any longer.

There are definitely people acting hypocritical here, but its not the people against speech codes. Its the group that tried to change the definition of racism to include a power component so they didn't have to address specific racist remarks and structures that they knew were common. Hypocrisy from the SJW brigade is all over the place, they are such a hypocritical group that they have acted in serious and direct ways to downplay or hide their hypocrisy. The racist girl from the NYT, the feminist professor from NYU, the, "there won't be peace until a great deal of white blood has been spilt" professor from Texas A&M, the "when are we going to admit that college age white males are a problem population" professor from Boston, etc.

There is simply no equivalent from the right on these issues, none. If a professor said the same thing about any other group, they would be fired and their professional lives would effectively be over. That isn't justice or fairness, that is an angry bigoted mob and that is what SJWs are.

Note that nothing in your post contradicts what I said. You're still criticizing other people's use of speech in ways that offend you. If someone is against PC speech that includes how the speech is used, not just the words themselves.

Here again, to make your example you relied on a restriction of speech.

Think about all of the inherent contradictions in your post. Here's a simple one - "...when you attack someone's ability to earn a living..." Juxtapose it with all of the comments about the shortcomings of various minority groups writ broadly as unvarnished "truth". Do those things not attack someone's ability to earn a living by assigning them negative characteristics that might not apply to them? We shouldn't do that? Or should we?

I could go on...such as "Don't talk to someone's boss." As if that isn't an explicit restriction on speech. An application of a PC code.

But the fact that you wrote that lengthy post without noticing these contradictions doesn't give me much hope that you will. It's far more likely that you will continue to complain about the left and SJW's use of speech, asking them to be more PC, and also complaining about how the left and the SJW's are pushing PC speech. I don't see any value in arguing over it.

 

[Fawlty]

We've turned into a nation of dicks who are proud to be dicks because their leader is a dick.

Do you think a lot of this is a case of imitation, or follow the leader? In other words, am I giving people too much credit by laying this out as an example of hypocrisy, with the truth being that it's such a base reaction that it doesn't reach the intellectual level of hypocrisy?

 

[Letssnuggle]

?

Are you unaware that the political right had a problem with Obama's divisiveness? And then, are you unaware of the current levels of division? If you're aware of those things, then you either support or reject the current divisiveness of the administration. I can't walk you through this all the way into your brain, my reach halts at your computer screen.

For some strange reason you seem to think this “division” is some mystical thing that only certain enlightened people can comprehend. Uh, yea. Water is wet fawlty. Congrats there’s division. You’ve successfully pointed out this highly deceptive political force that will show how retarded Trump supporters are. THIS IS IT!

Oh but wait. Most Trump supporters actually are the exact opposite from your stupid claim that they believe “division is good”. Yea, the tweets can go. The First Lady trolling with jacket slogans can go.

Next time ask if Trump supporters believe “division is good” before you say more stupid shit from ignorance. I mean rofl, even you Supreme Court examples are shit. Obama didn’t try to compromise .....he elected kagan and sotomayor.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Fawlty is being awfully divisive itt

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

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?

As long as we send all the white "save a bros" to the other races territory.

 

[deviake]

There is far less evidence that Trump is a racist then that Obama was one.

This made me legit laugh out loud, especially paired with your handle.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Sorry, I don't fuck trash.

You’re the very definition of fascist trash. Fuck off.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Note that nothing in your post contradicts what I said. You're still criticizing other people's use of speech in ways that offend you. If someone is against PC speech that includes how the speech is used, not just the words themselves.

Here again, to make your example you relied on a restriction of speech.

Think about all of the inherent contradictions in your post. Here's a simple one - "...when you attack someone's ability to earn a living..." Juxtapose it with all of the comments about the shortcomings of various minority groups writ broadly as unvarnished "truth". Do those things not attack someone's ability to earn a living by assigning them negative characteristics that might not apply to them? We shouldn't do that? Or should we?

I could go on...such as "Don't talk to someone's boss." As if that isn't an explicit restriction on speech. An application of a PC code.

But the fact that you wrote that lengthy post without noticing these contradictions doesn't give me much hope that you will. It's far more likely that you will continue to complain about the left and SJW's use of speech and also how the left and the SJW's are pushing PC speech. I don't see any value in arguing over it.

Here Pan characterizes the simple act of criticizing another's person or their speech as an example of being "PC". He then equates that with KindaCrazy's example of going to one's boss and lobbying to get them fired. F'n liberals man. No intellectual honesty whatsoever.

 

[Fawlty]

For some strange reason you seem to think this “division” is some mystical thing that only certain enlightened people can comprehend. Uh, yea. Water is wet fawlty. Congrats there’s division. You’ve successfully pointed out this highly deceptive political force that will show how retarded Trump supporters are. THIS IS IT!

Oh but wait. Most Trump supporters actually are the exact opposite from your stupid claim that they believe “division is good”. Yea, the tweets can go. The First Lady trolling with jacket slogans can go.

Next time ask if Trump supporters believe “division is good” before you say more stupid shit from ignorance. I mean rofl, even you Supreme Court examples are shit. Obama didn’t try to compromise .....he elected kagan and sotomayor.

If I felt that divisiveness was too difficult a concept for people, then I would not have written the OP like I did. I take it for granted that there is division, and further I take it for granted that others recognize that there is division. Therefore, your response is not logical.

I chose the nomination of Garland meaning Garland. It was a clear signal to the center- and this is the important part- for a pick that would overturn the balance of the court. That is a fundamentally different SC pick from Sotomayor replacing another liberal, and Kagan replacing a left leaner. When the balance of the court was at stake, he picked a moderate.

 

[luckyshot]

Thread needs a poll.

“Is decisiveness good, yes or no?”

 

[panamaican]

Here Pan characterizes the simple act of criticizing another's person or their speech as an example of being "PC". He then equates that with KindaCrazy's example of going to one's boss and lobbying to get them fired. F'n liberals man. No intellectual honesty whatsoever.

You are quite mistaken. I said that if one is against PC speech then one should not try and restrict the speech of others.

The example Kinda presented was that people shouldn't be calling others nazis or that they should argue their points without alleging racism. That is a restriction on the speech of others.

The second example was about lobbying someone's boss. An obvious component of speech is that you can direct it towards whomever you wish. Any restrictions on who someone can speak to is equivalent to a restriction on their speech itself.

You can't say "PC speech is bad. People should say what they think without modifying it for sensitive ears. However, you aren't allowed to say specific things to specific people." That contradiction should be obvious once you start to think about it.

 

[Fawlty]

Thread needs a poll.

“Is decisiveness good, yes or no?”

What you did there...

But added anyways

 

[TheComebackKid]

Thread needs a poll.

“Is decisiveness good, yes or no?”

Of course everyone is going to say no and they will be sincere. The question is not is divisiveness good or bad. The question should is divisiveness unavoidable in a free society, open, multi-cultural society? If the answer is no then the follow up question is how much freedom are you willing to give up to establish unity?

 

[HereticBD]

Thread needs a poll.

“Is decisiveness good, yes or no?”

I wouldn't be able to make up my mind.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Thread needs a poll.

“Is decisiveness good, yes or no?”

Don't let him divide you