Donald Trump and US politics

Still waiting for any commentary, pro or con, on the recent revelations about the "Trump Muh Russia" dossier and the growing pile of evidence that it was the Clinton camp who were trafficking with the Russians to influence the campaign against Trump (with a possible assist from that ol' aisle-crosser, John McCain).

So, is it still "treason" if Hillary did it? =^[.]^=

"

deathflower wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

This is precisely why I don’t care about moral outrage. Politics is the religion of crucifying straw men bedazzled with sensationalism while somebody makes off with the collection plate.

Then you should. You can't talk about the collection plate until the outrage is settled. If you are willing to pass a law that they hate, they can do the same. If you willing to vote someone they hate into office, they can do the same. That is what is wrong with your politics.

If their problem isn't your problem, your problem isn't their either. You will probably spend less dealing with their problems than wasting time and resources fighting over it. It is like a couple who can't stand each other in a marriage. They Don't Listen to Each Other.

If you mean I am wrong because I am unwilling to capitulate to social justice or other such perversions, then I insist your premise is wrong.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Still waiting for any commentary, pro or con, on the recent revelations about the "Trump Muh Russia" dossier and the growing pile of evidence that it was the Clinton camp who were trafficking with the Russians to influence the campaign against Trump (with a possible assist from that ol' aisle-crosser, John McCain).

So, is it still "treason" if Hillary did it? =^[.]^=

Russia did interfere with the election and they are right. Democrats and Republicans funded investigation into Trump-Russia collusion and they can. People are looking for wrong doing of their political opponents. Why not? You never stop digging for Hillary, did you?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

If you mean I am wrong because I am unwilling to capitulate to social justice or other such perversions, then I insist your premise is wrong.

I don't really care one way or the other about their social justice. If it bring benefits to myself or benefits out weight the cost, I don't mind supporting their cause. You are actively resisting even if it will cause harm to oneself and others. I am willing to sell out, you are not. That make you dangerous in a way.

Again, we shouldn't call it "social justice" when it isn't very just. What the slang "social justice warriors" refers to is advocates of intersectional minority-identitarianism.

Because the letter of the law in the US (and other Western nations, I'd assume) is utterly devoid of explicit racism against PoC, explicit misogyny, etc (outside of maybe some very narrow areas like infantry service), the bulk of such intersectional identitarianism is dependent upon what I call the Fauxluminati Conspiracy Theory — the belief that people privileged by their race, gender, etc systematically undermine those who aren't via a series of extralegal cultural norms. They use this belief to justify their own group advocating for and enacting a series of legal (rarely) and extralegal (often) cultural norms that systematically grant privilege to the allegedly underprivileged and that undermine those who aren't. Because the belief in such an existential threat is necessary to justify their policy platform, identitarians are quick to point to any evidence that seems to support their narrative, and to exaggerate or falsify claims to feed their agenda.

Although the minority coalition brought together by intersectional minority-identitarianism is somewhat unique, it is still identirarianism and is not new. Indeed, the Fauxluminati Conspiracy Theory is intrinsic to all popular racist movements throughout history. Anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany (and its copycat movements in the present) portrayed Jews as evil controllers of banks and other major institutions. Racism against black people was augmented by a respect for the mystic power of voodoo and a portrayal of negroes as physically superior berserkers (one could say "super predators"). All of these racists believed they weren't doing anything wrong — you see, (((they))) were trying to destroy us, we're the underdogs who were letting them defeat us for too long, so we finally fought fire with fire. That's the hallmark of the identirarian approach to combatting racism — fight it by using racism, but in the opposite direction. According to identitarians, those who won't get their hands dirty perish.

The SJWs are the best friends neo-nazis could ever have. The more powerful the SJWs become, the more evidence there is that the neo-nazi Fauxluminati Conspiracy Theory is correct, so their movement becomes more popular, thus their ideas spread and gain power. The more neo-nazi ideas spread, the more evidence there is that the SJW Fauxluminati Conspiracy Theory is correct, so their movement becomes more popular, thus their ideas spread and gain power. The stronger each side gets, the less room remains in the center. It isn't a coincidence that Hitler came to power after years of his brownshirts fighting in the streets against Antifa — yes, they were around back then — forcing Germans to choose a side between a false dichotomy.

CanHasPants is correct. Identitarians like many who align with the alt-right or with SJWs shouldn't be capitulated — and no, they shouldn't be sold out to, neither. They are the forces destroying centrism, making us more partisan and extremist, and leading us to the politicization of everything. Left unchecked, such dual-movement synergies have the proven power to cause the deaths of millions. They should be condemned thoroughly and resisted with all that is within us.

Scrotie beat me to it.

American culture emphasizes the value of competition and the strength of the individual. That in competition individuals must accept their superiority or inferiority to one another, but outside of competition we stand as equals to one another regardless of status. There are as many divisions in our culture as there are individuals, and individuality is the sole source of liberty.

Moral outrage, virtue signaling, multiculturalism, “hate speech” and “micro aggression” censorship, “social justice,” intersectional identitarianism, etc. are mechanisms of the communist movement in America. They exist to subvert American culture, and to erode the many lines that divide us—that make us individuals—until there are only a few. To turn the strength of our culture into a weakness to be exploited.

Capitulation means the death of liberty, and if history be any indication, quite literally tens of millions of people.

Edit: I want to amend and expand upon a couple of points, but my battery is dying, so.. later.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

individuality is the sole source of liberty.

I guess that depends on how one defines "source," but I believe you are implying that a pure anarchy has the most liberty, and that government necessarily erodes liberty. I do not agree with those implications.

There's this common concept that "it takes money to make money." Obviously this doesn't mean every expenditure of money makes a profit — many don't — but some do. In a similar way, some expenditures of liberty create more liberty than is spent. For example, the liberty to murder isn't very useful to society; eliminating it creates more liberty than before, usually even after paying overhead for enforcement. In essence, good government is profitable in terms of liberty.

In the same way that spending money to make money is an ever-changing process, which laws to enact — and, perhaps equally important, repeal — is similarly dynamic. Unlike most minarchists I see a real need for an effective legislature to react to an unforseen future.

My core issue with the whole anarchy vs authoritarian approach ("economic left/right," as opposed to cultural) is that each tends to lean "yes" or "no" based on the mere intent of the law, rather than a critical analysis of its implementation. Again, the good laws are the profitable ones, so the "how" should in almost every case be more important than the "why"... yet this is a view rarely seen in political commentary.

Which kinda brings me back to Obamacare winning the Nobel Piece of Shit Prize.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Again, we shouldn't call it "social justice" when it isn't very just. What the slang "social justice warriors" refers to is advocates of intersectional minority-identitarianism.

Don't help the poor. Don't help the underprivileged. Don't help the black. What is your social justice anyway? All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others that kind of equal?

These feuds are just making it true. You might show some unjust people is fighting, but saying they all aren't justified in fighting just make it worse. Injustice always exist, ignoring it, is it willful stubbornness or Cognitive dissonance?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Capitulation means the death of liberty, and if history be any indication, quite literally tens of millions of people.

Culture is just social habits. Some of them are really bad ones. I can see why Your problem is so deep it is unsolvable. Your liberty is granted by everyone. A republic is a collective liberty, You don't just do it yourself.

"

The_Reporter wrote:

Hang on, Trumplets. It has begun.

Prepare for disappointment. You should be used to it by now :D