Jump to content
Abdel

2020 US Presidential Election thread

Recommended Posts

It seems Bernie has stolen a lot of support from Warren in Iowa over the past week. Can anyone explain the drastic change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she had a really poor debate performance and her contrived beef with Bernie really cost her when he didn't respond in kind. I think her campaign were counting on Bernie talking down to her so they can shout MANSPLAINER but Bernie kept his cool and stayed positive. I think that resonated with people. 

 

Lets not under-estimate the Joe Rogan endorsement as well. I'm sure millions more watched Joe Rogan's podcast with Sanders after the endorsement and liked what they heard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Derdan said:

It seems Bernie has stolen a lot of support from Warren in Iowa over the past week. Can anyone explain the drastic change?

Well their kerfuffle personally made me switch from Warren to Bernie, just in terms of the planned vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Baledwyr said:

Dems will get violenly raped. Should have gone with Tulsi.

 

Bors are you going to rape them? Is this your thing now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His 'thing' is to be as repulsive as possible because he's a Free speech justice Warrior now as a cover for his inability to produce timely Praetorians. Inb4 I get threatened with a lawsuit for libel by MuH FrEe sPeEcH warrior.

 

White nationalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free speech counts as something social, right? So does that make Bors a Social Justice Warrior? Never thought I'd see the day... Bors SJW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abdel said:

His 'thing' is to be as repulsive as possible because he's a Free speech justice Warrior now as a cover for his inability to produce timely Praetorians. Inb4 I get threatened with a lawsuit for libel by MuH FrEe sPeEcH warrior.

 

White nationalism. 

 

White nationalism is an oxymoron. Nationalism refers to a nation-state identity, that may or may not coincide with racial lines. White supremacy is not white nationalism, and racial pride, be it white or black, is an entirely different beast from national pride.

 

3 hours ago, IamtheWalrus. said:

Free speech counts as something social, right? So does that make Bors a Social Justice Warrior? Never thought I'd see the day... Bors SJW

 

You would think so but no. The modern american "social justice" warriors are generally against free speech.

 

EDIT: They're also against rape, but then until recently I kind of assumed everyone was.

  • This 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say they're "against" free speech, they just police it heavily and think that certain ways of communicating should be met with certain forms of social punishment. The distinction to me is that they aren't advocating for people to go to jail. Liberals aren't the ones instituting ag gag laws and are otherwise (generally) more lenient towards whistleblowers. Of course, ordinary conservatives aren't for ag gag laws either, but I'm putting the focus on what actually occurs politically. Anyways free speech can mean so many different things that the only way I would hold someone as being against free speech is if they advocated for some sort of official government punishment. Or alternatively, allowing for the courts to mediate such social interactions, e.g. Trump having stated before wanting to weaken libel laws to make it easier to sue people for defamatory remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, EagleMan said:

I wouldn't say they're "against" free speech, they just police it heavily and think that certain ways of communicating should be met with certain forms of social punishment. The distinction to me is that they aren't advocating for people to go to jail. Liberals aren't the ones instituting ag gag laws and are otherwise (generally) more lenient towards whistleblowers. Of course, ordinary conservatives aren't for ag gag laws either, but I'm putting the focus on what actually occurs politically. Anyways free speech can mean so many different things that the only way I would hold someone as being against free speech is if they advocated for some sort of official government punishment. Or alternatively, allowing for the courts to mediate such social interactions, e.g. Trump having stated before wanting to weaken libel laws to make it easier to sue people for defamatory remarks.

 

It sure sounds a lot like being against free speech. The whole concept of safe spaces, once you look into what they entail in practice, is horrifying. I'm not arguing that the modern conservatives are pro-free speech either, to be honest. Big business and big government both take issue with free speech. What I see of modern day social justice warriors makes me deeply concerned for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 4:39 AM, Abdel said:

His 'thing' is to be as repulsive as possible because he's a Free speech justice Warrior now as a cover for his inability to produce timely Praetorians. Inb4 I get threatened with a lawsuit for libel by MuH FrEe sPeEcH warrior.

 

White nationalism. 

Islamist. 

  • Creative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Abdel said:

that's LiBeL BrO @Baledwyr I'm tAkInG yOu To cOuRt

With Jimmy as your lawyer, Bors will stand no chance. 

  • Funny 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Penguin 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean some of the issues with safe spaces are from how they're referred to and named. There's also a little bit of misconception as to what goes on in a safe place.

 

Safe spaces are sometimes just glorified support groups for the group that they serve. For instance if I moved to a new city and went to a LGBT resource center at a college , and I wanted a list of healthcare providers that serve transgender people , I have a high probability of entering a "safe space" at the university. These resource centers have policies that want to serve as many people as possible.  So  even if they are somewhat misguided, there are advantages to safe spaces. They are just poorly named.

 

Also if you are in a safe space, it's not as though you're not allowed to call people an idiot or something. You can jokingly insult people using non-LGBT terms for example, something that right wingers get mixed up. They think that 100% of activity there is people doing coloring books. No, people organize stuff like basketball or these kinds of things as well.  There might be safe spaces that restrict every single word you say, but I doubt they'd get as much traffic as people would think. And in any case the image of a safe space  is probably a good deal different than what people imagine in their head, if they go to a university. At least in some universities.

 

Some of the issues with safe spaces are real concerns though.

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Talinn said:

I mean some of the issues with safe spaces are from how they're referred to and named. There's also a little bit of misconception as to what goes on in a safe place.

 

Would you be able to clear them up? I've come across a lot of definitions and depictions of safe spaces, but none of them internally consistent and most rather unpleasant for anyone who isn't explicitly looking for that safe space.

 

1 hour ago, Talinn said:

Safe spaces are sometimes just glorified support groups for the group that they serve. For instance if I moved to a new city and went to a LGBT resource center at a college , and I wanted a list of healthcare providers that serve transgender people , I have a high probability of entering a "safe space" at the university. These resource centers have policies that want to serve as many people as possible.  So  even if they are somewhat misguided, there are advantages to safe spaces. They are just poorly named.

 

My main concern is for safe spaces (or "safe spaces" from what you're saying) trying to take over otherwise regular spaces without necessarily the consent or approval of the people who use them. I.e. inclusiveness of a few at the cost of problems for the many, and sometimes even the inclusiveness is more symbolic then real.

 

1 hour ago, Talinn said:

Also if you are in a safe space, it's not as though you're not allowed to call people an idiot or something. You can jokingly insult people using non-LGBT terms for example, something that right wingers get mixed up. They think that 100% of activity there is people doing coloring books. No, people organize stuff like basketball or these kinds of things as well.  There might be safe spaces that restrict every single word you say, but I doubt they'd get as much traffic as people would think. And in any case the image of a safe space  is probably a good deal different than what people imagine in their head, if they go to a university. At least in some universities

 

I don't know what right wingers think, but safe spaces are a concept out of psychiatry (specifically psychotherapy if I'm not mistaken) and I find it deeply problematic that this concept is now being spread to include things like college classrooms, a place that traditionally involves challenging debate and potentially deeply offensive or shocking topics. I'm especially concerned when safe spaces argue that you can't challenge someone on account of their "mental ability". It sounds to me like if I'm not joking when I call someone an idiot, because they are an idiot (clinical or otherwise) I'm going to run into problems. Or am I misunderstanding something? I also have a problem with the idea that everyone deserves respect. This attempt to substitute politeness with respect is devaluing the concept of respect. Respect is a feeling of deep admiration, looking up to someone, and is something that generally has to be earned. The idea of respecting everyone is patently ridiculous.

 

I have no problem with people who want to get together in a club (or any kind of other private association that they have created) and have it be a safe space. Private associations set their own rules. I have a problem when structures that are substantively speaking public institutions (and I include nominally private entities that are nonetheless so thoroughly embedded in public life as to be public in practice, such as major private universities) institute safe spaces in formats that may be near-mandatory to participate or where failure to participate even on principled grounds will lead to significant disadvantages for those not willing to do so.

 

In other words, I'm fine with safe space as long as they're small and scarce enough where a normal person can avoid them with minimal reasonable effort if they so choose, without suffering substantial consequences to their life, career, or education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm partially with Feanor. Where it occurs, the proliferation of 'safe spaces' into public spaces is in effect a tool for the restriction of what is considered 'acceptable discourse'. It's a gimmick. 

 

But I don't think that a situation where an individual says something that aggravates a number of people in the middle of a college classroom is grounds to claim that a safe space has been created. I worry that there is too strong a conservative reaction against people simply getting angry at something that some-one has said. Where violent SJW-ism does exist, it's problematic. But how frequently does it actually exist, excepting what we see online? 

 

Also .... isn't this an election thread? 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tom Bombadil said:

But how frequently does it actually exist, excepting what we see online? 

 

I've encountered it in real life, though so far it seems scarce. Like many things, I'm worried not about the situation today but the trajectory of motion. 

 

5 minutes ago, Tom Bombadil said:

Also .... isn't this an election thread? 😂

 

We changed the conversation to something more interesting and less vile.

 

18 minutes ago, Tom Bombadil said:

But I don't think that a situation where an individual says something that aggravates a number of people in the middle of a college classroom is grounds to claim that a safe space has been created.

 

Sorry, am I misreading this? Did you mean to say that preventing someone from saying something that aggravates a lot of people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Feanor said:

Sorry, am I misreading this? Did you mean to say that preventing someone from saying something that aggravates a lot of people

 

I said what I meant to say, that the fact of people becoming aggravated does not denote the existence of a safe space. Of course, preventing people from speaking by fiat is part and parcel of the very definition of a safe space, but I don't believe this actually occurs altogether that frequently. I say this as a student in university with (of course) a rather liberal student body. The conservative society here has weekly meetings where people get drunk and say the most obscenely racist, homophobic things etc. That stuff doesn't stay quiet, and people find out who said what, and videos are taken, and all. But people don't really care enough about it to even get angry at the speakers, much less attempt to protest at their meetings or something of the sort. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tom Bombadil said:

 

I said what I meant to say, that the fact of people becoming aggravated does not denote the existence of a safe space. Of course, preventing people from speaking by fiat is part and parcel of the very definition of a safe space, but I don't believe this actually occurs altogether that frequently. I say this as a student in university with (of course) a rather liberal student body. The conservative society here has weekly meetings where people get drunk and say the most obscenely racist, homophobic things etc. That stuff doesn't stay quiet, and people find out who said what, and videos are taken, and all. But people don't really care enough about it to even get angry at the speakers, much less attempt to protest at their meetings or something of the sort. 

 

I think we are very far from a place where they could shut down meetings of this sort. Obviously aggravation does not imply the existence of a safe space. Beyond that I'm not sure what your point is... sorry if I'm being dense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StormTrooper said:

4 MORE YEARS

 

 

Resurrect Stalin for 4 more years.

 

2009web_russians-vote-for-stalin_1920x10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...