General Politics Discussion (II) [ARCHIVED] • Page 1055

To a certain degree maybe, but as Dom pointed out, some of this is individual racism...doctors/nurses/etc. basically not giving their best to patients who aren't white. It's frustrating, to say the least.

 

I see. I didnt really understand that part when I originally heard it. I thought he was referring specifically to the militias that he has had dealings with, in which case that's just him telling a story. I think that's how it was intended to be understood in any case. That being said, I understand the reluctance to trust some leftists with things of that nature, given the issues of erasure; on the other hand, I think the Chapo audience, for the most part, have more nuanced views of the regions than others, so it was taken as I believe it was intended. That's my take on it.

 

gonna post a snippet cause i really think it's a good article:
I’m With The Banned – Welcome to the Scream Room

Milo shows no remorse for the avalanche of misconduct he helped direct towards Leslie Jones, who is just the latest victim of the recreational ritual abuse he likes to launch at women and minorities for the fame and fun of it. According to the law of the wild web, the spoils go to those with fewest fucks to give. I have come to believe, in the course of our bizarro unfriendship, that Milo believes in almost nothing concrete—not even in free speech. The same is reportedly true of Trump, of people like Ann Coulter, of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage: They are pure antagonists unencumbered by any conviction apart from their personal entitlement to raw power and stacks of cash.
...
I have never understood this game. That’s why I’ve always refused to debate Milo in public. Not because I’m frightened I’ll lose, but because I know I’ll lose, because I care and he doesn’t—and that means he’s already won. Help and forgive me, but I actually believe human beings can be better than this.

My new Spectator friend is as bewildered as I am by the way Americans take Milo and his ilk seriously, by their willingness to take pride in performative bigotry and call it strength. It works. It sells. It’s the unholy marriage of that soulless debate culture that works so well in Britain, transplanted to a nation with no social safety net and half a billion guns. It works, in part, because of the essentially cult-like nature of U.S. culture and the structured ignorance that accompanies it. America is a nation eaten by its own myth. The entire idea of America is about believing impossible things. Nobody said those things had to be benign.

and, in parallel, a bit from Jean-Paul Sartre's on the elusive nature of irrational bigotry such as Milo's:
http://abahlali.org/files/Jean-Paul...Exploration_of_the_Etiology_of_Hate__1995.pdf

The anti‐Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some
remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: "I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc." Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving
ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side. If then, as we have been able to observe, the anti‐Semite is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious.

emphasis added to specify further.

 

dude, where the hell do you live where stuff like this happens and the people that you have some of your conversations with exist?

 

what

 

Jesus fuck, get out of the hick hellhole you live in. You'll be so much better off.

 

I'll be gone in 6 months when I go to college lol

 

That's the spirit.

 

thanks for making me feel ancient lol

 

Yep, that's basically the whole premise of Person Of Interest, as well as the messages conveyed during its entire run.

Sorry, just trying to promote this show again haha, I can't fail but do it.

 

i was being half serious.

 

TYT are ridiculous.

BREAKING NEWS!

wtf?

 

you post this assuming i don't know or disagree

 

I don't think I've watched TYT since prior to the election, did I really miss anything since?

 

was just posting generally. it sums up my thoughts on what kind of ideological game I think Milo et al play

 

Don't tell Susan Sarandon.

 

Spicer-ize my name: How White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer would say your name

 

This is fine.

 

i know that I'm very late to the punch here (hard for me to keep up with this thread), but y'all should drop Jesse Singal too

 

He also posted a false tweet with an image that clearly shows he's wrong. The image is referencing 'religious minorities'. But he's generalizing and saying all, lol

2016: "Muslims made up nearly half (46%) of refugee admissions, a higher share than for Christians, who accounted for 44% of refugees admitted"
Source: Key facts about refugees to the U.S.