General Politics Discussion (IV) [ARCHIVED] • Page 848

no - i want to know what you meant specifically by using that as a response to what i'm concerned about. like, do you agree that western-centrism is a broader issue and that has affected how the MENA minority diaspora are seen and talked to, or not? yes, many of us have anecdotes, but it's a common and regular occurrence that reflects discourse in greater society.

because you said

because i'm not talking about just any deportations, i'm talking about a specific group's deportations and how that response was taken differently from both the media and people than others.

 

You said "it's beyond anecdotal" and then used the definition of the word anecdotal in the same sentence to try and show how it wasn't. What I meant, specifically, is that you can't say something is "not anecdotal" by offering only anecdotal evidence.

And, further, these anecdotal statements are not evidence that "most" of the resistance cheers deportations -- which is the crux of my original statement.

We're going in circles and I've said the same things multiple times now. I'll respond if there's something new, but I'm not gonna repeat myself again.

 

Well, that independent article with the survey wasn't.

Still, though, why is this the one thing you always push back on? So you think I'm wrong then....about....what I've experienced and what others like me have...? I don't know what your point is. What's the end goal here? Beyond semantics.

 

I’ll leave it at this, for my part - it seems to me that promoting resistance efforts or using the term “resistance” is one thing, and #resistance is a different, more loaded thing, as evidenced by the fact that people who participate in efforts in resistance to Trump/the GOP often take issue with the self-described #resistance, and vice-versa. But if you don’t think labeling/self-association matters to this conversation, we are simply starting from incompatible places and it would be a much longer conversation if we were to get into all those roots.

 

Ok, but what I was responding to with that statement, and what I quoted, was where you said, "beyond anecdotal, most of us share these sentiments because we've experienced this." Which I then replied was the definition of anecdotal, that is not "beyond" anecdotal. That is anecdotal.

Because it's the part you quoted me and asked me about.

No, I was very clear what I think you're wrong about: "most" of the "resistance" does not cheer the deportation of any group of people. If you'd like to show me evidence that most of the resistance cheers the deportation of people, please do. If you don't want to do that, that's fine too. Otherwise, I'm not going to keep arguing this point. You used words, I pushed back on the usage of the words. If you don't wanna argue semantics, that those specific words matter, that's also fine, but my entire point is that those words used ... most and cheered deportations ... are not true.

 

And I disagree, especially with how they are clearly lumped together. The people using the loaded term do so because they don't want to actually define it by a group of a few dozen ever changing Twitter accounts they disagree with. So they speak in generalities. And in doing so the denigrate people working their asses off all over the country with their "crickets" and "the resistance is bullshit" tweets.

If someone watches Samantha Bee or see a stupid Nera tweet and call their senator, I don't care how they self-associate with the resistance or not, I care that they call. And that call is not "bullshit."

 

I'm not going to keep arguing the same shit again and again, so I'm going to watch a movie.

 

galaxy brain

 

I has half.

 

I think it’s cool when people tacitly acknowledge that the mass murder abroad by the military isn’t particularly important to them.

 

Also, I don’t think everyone that is organizing against Trump is “the resistance”. I mean, they’re literally resisting Trump, but that’s not what’s being critiqued when folks mock “the resistance”. Folks understand that. I think it’s sort of dishonest if you act as though it isn’t understood.

 

This is why I continue to criticize the ever changing amorphous definition. The moment I point out it’s bullshit everyone goes “well not those people.”

I think it’s dishonest on purpose.

 

Literally no one said that and you know it.

 

Anyone get an email from “Amazon Reviews” thanking you for leaving a review you didn’t write for a product you didn’t buy? I just got 6 of them this morning and I suspect their phishing emails.

 

He is insanely dumb

 

His retirement plan is the GOP tax plan. And slipping some poison in dear daddy's diet coke.

 

Lol I get fake Amazon phishing emails daily :p

 

Hope he retires soon then

 

I think the democrats are suffering from not understanding how to bargain like the GOP does. If you want to just let the dreamers be citizens, start with the stance that you want to give actual outer space aliens and members of ISIS a path to citizenship and then you can compromise down to just the dreamers (or preferably more). Trump does this very poorly, and the GOP has done it unintentionally for decades by having really moronic policy positions.

 

As far as I can tell, it has been pretty consistent in terms of how it’s use and to whom it refers. If you’re not familiar with it, that’s fine, but widening the definition so as to include every single group that opposes Trump, regardless of their actual politics, isn’t calling bullshit, it’s just an evasion.

 

Does Trump not realize that there are already multiple walls/fences along most of the border of Mexico?

 

My original point, that Democrats care more about American lives than foreign lives, is absolutely not disproven by calls about DACA lol. The undergirding of DACA in the first place is an idea that these people are essentially Americans because of their specific circumstances of how they ended up in this country. If the Democrats win both houses, are they going to be writing up an amnesty bill? Are there going to be millions of calls when they don't? Are Democrats suddenly going to be against the bombing of weddings? Representatives or regular people? I don't see it

 

I think getting angered when people call out liberals for their foreign policy by saying they’re focused on domestic policy amounts to the same. In both cases, lives are at stake.