• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump press conference: Alt-left, Robert E. Lee = Washington, #NotAllAltRight

B

Brandon F

Well congratulations! You got yourself caught!
Steel said:
He has been this whole time. Unfortunately for him there have been far more white racist terror attacks on our soil since he took office than the... 0 ISIS attacks since he took office.
Click to expand...

Seems like a lifetime ago that he was raging and screaming about intelligence warnings of an imminent attack unless the Muslim ban goes into effect.

Meanwhile the only tragedy that occurred stemmed from one of his supporters, a nazi at that.
 
S

Steel

Banned
Brandon F said:
Seems like a lifetime ago that he was raging and screaming about intelligence warnings of an imminent attack unless the Muslim ban goes into effect.

Meanwhile the only tragedy that occurred stemmed from one of his supporters, a nazi at that.
Click to expand...

There were other attacks and incidents before this one from Trump supporters since the election, even. This one just happened in the middle of a massive nazi rally.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
H1peT08.png


trying to think of a context in which antifa would beat me up and nazis would come to my defense... 🤔🤔🤔
 
B

BlackSalad

Member
I'm sure this was posted already, but always good to get it on another page

VCYhHge.jpg
Click to expand...


http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/274398941-story

Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway monument tarred and feathered

GOLD CANYON, Ariz. (KSAZ) - The Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway Monument that sits in the far East Valley has been tarred and feathered. An investigation is ongoing.

The monument sits near Gold Canyon along the U.S. 60, just north of the Renaissance Festival. The monument bears the name of Jefferson Davis, who was the first and only president of the Confederate States of America.
Click to expand...

More at the link
 
R

Rookhelm

Member
Someone should let conservatives know that they shouldn't be getting offended their participation trophies are being taken away.
 
decisions

decisions

Member
Finale Fireworker said:
This is a thoughtful post and there are some things I want to take the time to properly respond to. Much of what you say is true and I want to be clear about my intentions with the post and the philosophy I have when it comes to discussing politics in general as opposed to this particular thread.

The first thing I would like to do is clarify my use of the word moderate, which I attempted to declassify by my use of quotes around the term. The political moderate does, absolutely, exist. These people have feelings that are not entirely encapsulated by either party's platform and vote in accordance to the issue at hand versus the politicians themselves. I believe that most people actually fall in this category, although it is a separate issue that most of these people don't actually vote.

In my time as a newly woke denizen of the leftward movement, I've spoken to lots of people who clearly have beliefs that would be foolish to try to assign to polar identifiers of a spectrum. I know many "conservatives" with extremely progressive social policies. I know many "liberals" who are pro-gun (not uncommon here in Maine). This is why people identify as "independents" - they don't want their ideas to be a subscription to an ideology. They want to own their own beliefs, not borrow them from parties or figureheads. These people, true political moderates, would ideally be who most people are talking about when they are discussing the concept of centrism.

There are numerous individual issues where it's possible to take multiple perspectives and arrive at moderate conclusions. Many hot-button issues actually allow for nuanced opinions and beliefs. But others do not.

In 2017, terminology has been weaponized. Self-described "moderates" are increasingly not moderates. Their web presence is undeniable. People with clear and outspoken views trot into comment sections and online threads and attempt to give their alarming ideas an illusion of normalcy. Sometimes they go even further - you see posts on Twitter and Reddit where people say "As a black man," or "As a Democrat," or "As a woman," and then say something that only the most deeply-indoctrinated self-loathing masochist of their demographic could possibly believe.

When nationalist sympathizers, misogynists, race warriors, and people absorbed in Trump's cult of personality attempt to play the both sides angle, they are attempting to normalize and rationalize their disruptive and divisive views.

So I will admit that I am becoming frustrated with people who attempt to take a moderate position on subjects where there is no acceptable range of moderacy. The subject of this thread in particular, about the president equating actual Nazis and white supremacists with people whose collective identity amounts to opposing Nazis and white supremacists, does not allow a moderate position. You either believe people who stand against hatred are as bad as people perpetuating and perpetrating hatred or you know there is a difference.

If somebody attempts to take the "moderate" position on this subject matter, they lying to us or to themselves. They are either entirely uninformed on what actually happened or they are attempting to legitimize destructive hate movements by claiming to be something they are not: ordinary.


In a regular conversation with a regular person, political discourse is best conducted inquisitively. You should ask people questions. What do you believe? Why do you believe that? But what about this scenario, would you feel the same way? It is almost impossible to convince somebody of something by force. You must equip them to come to their own conclusion and hope you've compelled them to see what you believe by asking them questions designed to make them reflect.

An ordinary person, dare I say a moderate, responds well to this method of conversation. It lets them express themselves, unpack what they think, and answer to it in stride. Rather than be met with opposition, they are offered a sincere opportunity to express themselves. I would offer this luxury to anybody I believed was genuinely interested in conversation. This happens very rarely online.

On Twitter once, a feminist tweeted the importance of teaching the accomplishments of female scientists in schools. Somebody responded with "name one woman whose made a meaningful contribution to science." The woman named several, detailing their accomplishments and accolades. The troll responded again with "sounds like we don't need to tell people about them in schools then."

The intellectually dishonest person is not interested in having a conversation. They are interested in proving you wrong. They want to embarrass you, or upset you, and nothing you say matters to them at all. I have wasted so much energy trying to talk to these people. I did it during GamerGate, I did it during the primaries, I did it after the election, but I will not do it today. It is exhausting. It is energy wasted. I will no longer dignify the troll with my attention.

Everything I've said above does present a quandary: how do you know what somebody believes without talking to them? How do you know if they are a troll or if they are just misinformed? How do you know if somebody is open to learning something new or might have something insightful to offer you?

Truthfully, you can't. Not online. Not without trying to talk to them. And when you try, you risk enabling and validating a troll or an edgy political zealot who is now delighted to slam somebody they do not respect. After years of giving everyone a chance, and in the political climate we now live in, I cannot continue to give everybody the benefit of the doubt just to be made a fool of.

This doesn't mean I disregard everything somebody says that isn't already what I believe. Quite the contrary. I maintain that every attempt at dissent must begin with inquisition and you must be accommodating to your opponent before you can attempt to reach them. But I am incredibly discerning with how much credit I give people related to subject matter and conversational context. We are in a thread about something that is all over the board, the news, and social media. It is a firestorm that is far from extinguished and the information around anyone at any given time should be overwhelming.

So, this time, I was not welcoming to the platitude. I felt compelled, above all else, to expose them. In my experience, they were either misrepresenting themselves or were undermining the severity of the conversation from an under-read POV. Because if I'm going to engage with somebody on a conversation like this, I need to know who I'm talking to. No matter what somebody believes, I need one thing from them: sincerity.

The poster I went off on, to their credit, expressed sincerity. When faced with the challenge to admit themselves as immorally pragmatic or simply out of the loop, they confessed to their error. This is admirable. It is something it is a pleasure to see. This is a person we can talk to.


The end result of any conversation I have is rarely to make somebody see the world exactly as I do. I do not need to exactly agree with people I ally myself with. There is lots of room for disagreement and moderacy and debate within the realm of worldview and I accept that truth before I begin any conversation. But if I am going to have that conversation, I need to expect the same from my partner. I need to know they are in it to explain themselves thoughtfully and respect my response.

Conversations should end when each party has accepted a new perspective whether or not it affects their personally held opinion. I can appreciate other perspectives and even support them politically even if my own opinion is different.

But there is no room for this when it comes to white nationalism, Donald Trump, and the humanity of Americans.


I hope that this responds to your concerns in some way. I would not have responded the way I did in most other contexts. I sometimes find force appropriate. This was one of those times.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to say I finally got around to reading this response and really appreciate the thoroughness and effort put into it.

I agree with basically everything you said.

Moderates, pertaining to this specific situation are being dishonest or hateful IMO. However, we have tons of people quoting/preserving your post, and I took issue with people possibly implying/believing what you stated is applicable to moderates as a whole. Any moderate would condemn Nazis here. Any moderate is not hateful or dishonest in a broader context, which you seem to believe as well, so thanks for clarification and discussion!
 
S

SatelliteOfLove

Member
Finale Fireworker said:
This is a thoughtful post and there are some things I want to take the time to properly respond to. Much of what you say is true and I want to be clear about my intentions with the post and the philosophy I have when it comes to discussing politics in general as opposed to this particular thread.

The first thing I would like to do is clarify my use of the word moderate, which I attempted to declassify by my use of quotes around the term. The political moderate does, absolutely, exist. These people have feelings that are not entirely encapsulated by either party's platform and vote in accordance to the issue at hand versus the politicians themselves. I believe that most people actually fall in this category, although it is a separate issue that most of these people don't actually vote.

In my time as a newly woke denizen of the leftward movement, I've spoken to lots of people who clearly have beliefs that would be foolish to try to assign to polar identifiers of a spectrum. I know many "conservatives" with extremely progressive social policies. I know many "liberals" who are pro-gun (not uncommon here in Maine). This is why people identify as "independents" - they don't want their ideas to be a subscription to an ideology. They want to own their own beliefs, not borrow them from parties or figureheads. These people, true political moderates, would ideally be who most people are talking about when they are discussing the concept of centrism.

There are numerous individual issues where it's possible to take multiple perspectives and arrive at moderate conclusions. Many hot-button issues actually allow for nuanced opinions and beliefs. But others do not.

In 2017, terminology has been weaponized. Self-described "moderates" are increasingly not moderates. Their web presence is undeniable. People with clear and outspoken views trot into comment sections and online threads and attempt to give their alarming ideas an illusion of normalcy. Sometimes they go even further - you see posts on Twitter and Reddit where people say "As a black man," or "As a Democrat," or "As a woman," and then say something that only the most deeply-indoctrinated self-loathing masochist of their demographic could possibly believe.

When nationalist sympathizers, misogynists, race warriors, and people absorbed in Trump's cult of personality attempt to play the both sides angle, they are attempting to normalize and rationalize their disruptive and divisive views.

So I will admit that I am becoming frustrated with people who attempt to take a moderate position on subjects where there is no acceptable range of moderacy. The subject of this thread in particular, about the president equating actual Nazis and white supremacists with people whose collective identity amounts to opposing Nazis and white supremacists, does not allow a moderate position. You either believe people who stand against hatred are as bad as people perpetuating and perpetrating hatred or you know there is a difference.

If somebody attempts to take the "moderate" position on this subject matter, they lying to us or to themselves. They are either entirely uninformed on what actually happened or they are attempting to legitimize destructive hate movements by claiming to be something they are not: ordinary.


In a regular conversation with a regular person, political discourse is best conducted inquisitively. You should ask people questions. What do you believe? Why do you believe that? But what about this scenario, would you feel the same way? It is almost impossible to convince somebody of something by force. You must equip them to come to their own conclusion and hope you've compelled them to see what you believe by asking them questions designed to make them reflect.

An ordinary person, dare I say a moderate, responds well to this method of conversation. It lets them express themselves, unpack what they think, and answer to it in stride. Rather than be met with opposition, they are offered a sincere opportunity to express themselves. I would offer this luxury to anybody I believed was genuinely interested in conversation. This happens very rarely online.

On Twitter once, a feminist tweeted the importance of teaching the accomplishments of female scientists in schools. Somebody responded with "name one woman whose made a meaningful contribution to science." The woman named several, detailing their accomplishments and accolades. The troll responded again with "sounds like we don't need to tell people about them in schools then."

The intellectually dishonest person is not interested in having a conversation. They are interested in proving you wrong. They want to embarrass you, or upset you, and nothing you say matters to them at all. I have wasted so much energy trying to talk to these people. I did it during GamerGate, I did it during the primaries, I did it after the election, but I will not do it today. It is exhausting. It is energy wasted. I will no longer dignify the troll with my attention.

Everything I've said above does present a quandary: how do you know what somebody believes without talking to them? How do you know if they are a troll or if they are just misinformed? How do you know if somebody is open to learning something new or might have something insightful to offer you?

Truthfully, you can't. Not online. Not without trying to talk to them. And when you try, you risk enabling and validating a troll or an edgy political zealot who is now delighted to slam somebody they do not respect. After years of giving everyone a chance, and in the political climate we now live in, I cannot continue to give everybody the benefit of the doubt just to be made a fool of.

This doesn't mean I disregard everything somebody says that isn't already what I believe. Quite the contrary. I maintain that every attempt at dissent must begin with inquisition and you must be accommodating to your opponent before you can attempt to reach them. But I am incredibly discerning with how much credit I give people related to subject matter and conversational context. We are in a thread about something that is all over the board, the news, and social media. It is a firestorm that is far from extinguished and the information around anyone at any given time should be overwhelming.

So, this time, I was not welcoming to the platitude. I felt compelled, above all else, to expose them. In my experience, they were either misrepresenting themselves or were undermining the severity of the conversation from an under-read POV. Because if I'm going to engage with somebody on a conversation like this, I need to know who I'm talking to. No matter what somebody believes, I need one thing from them: sincerity.

The poster I went off on, to their credit, expressed sincerity. When faced with the challenge to admit themselves as immorally pragmatic or simply out of the loop, they confessed to their error. This is admirable. It is something it is a pleasure to see. This is a person we can talk to.


The end result of any conversation I have is rarely to make somebody see the world exactly as I do. I do not need to exactly agree with people I ally myself with. There is lots of room for disagreement and moderacy and debate within the realm of worldview and I accept that truth before I begin any conversation. But if I am going to have that conversation, I need to expect the same from my partner. I need to know they are in it to explain themselves thoughtfully and respect my response.

Conversations should end when each party has accepted a new perspective whether or not it affects their personally held opinion. I can appreciate other perspectives and even support them politically even if my own opinion is different.

But there is no room for this when it comes to white nationalism, Donald Trump, and the humanity of Americans.


I hope that this responds to your concerns in some way. I would not have responded the way I did in most other contexts. I sometimes find force appropriate. This was one of those times.
Click to expand...

My God, the wisdom here.

I swear I'm not flattering here, haha, but this has so many bases covered I'm in awe.
 
R

RoninChaos

Member
ChryZ said:
Trump voters hit out at media, say Charlottesville was a setup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUTXNigXBYA

...
Click to expand...

"I'm getting my videos from Facebook! They need to investigate because I'm too fucking stupid to do it myself!"

It kills me that we've made facts something that are completely fungible. People can just believe whatever the fuck they want with no basis in reality.

I also can't get over this shit about Antifa. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ANTI FASCIST YOU STUPID FUCKS.
 
K

kevin1025

Banned
RoninChaos said:
Trump is only mad that statues of racists are coming down because he thinks that means he won't get a statue later.
Click to expand...

He's upset they're getting taken down because they were meant to be symbols of racism, and now that he's destroying the education system, how will people know racism anymore?
 
R

RoninChaos

Member
So all of this truly has me wondering how we appropriately teach critical thinking. I have conversations with my son all the time about how to figure out something is real and how something is fake. I have no idea why or how I got my critical thinking skills beyond the fact that I read as much as I possibly could about the things I had questions on and I was always skeptical of the results unless credible sources were provided. With that said, now with facebook and the internet and all this shit out there that muddies the waters, I wonder how we teach people these things?

Look at the people on the video, one lady was convinced that because her friends sent her random shit, that info was more truthful than what the "Media" is putting out. So how do we get rid of that stigma? Where did the media go wrong that so many people distrust it? And how can you claim to distrust the media when you're believing sources in the media that have no standard of ethics? Is it just because it fits the narrative they want to believe? How do we conquer this willful ignorance when people seem so happy to be stupid?
 
P

PopeReal

Member
Fellow white people, some of you are getting embarrassing as fuck over these statues.

Funny how everyone is suddenly so interested in history. If you need these statues to get your kids to learn then you and their teachers are doing a piss poor job.
 
J

Jenov

Member
ChryZ said:
Trump voters hit out at media, say Charlottesville was a setup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUTXNigXBYA

...
Click to expand...

It's painful watching such stupidity in the open. This country needs to emphasize education and critical thinking, but some percentage of people will always be susceptible to believing whatever is on their TV/Facebook. Like they say, "A sucker is born every minute!" and it's truer than ever now. Social media platforms should consider their own responsibility in this mess and be more careful with what is presented as news.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
ChryZ said:
Trump voters hit out at media, say Charlottesville was a setup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUTXNigXBYA

...
Click to expand...
"I don't trust anything the news media says anymore. And the fact of the matter is that we haven't heard from this young man. And like, when I first heard this, me myself, I'm going to tell you some stuff that ran through my mind. I'm like maybe he had a panic attack."

Fuck the world.

TalonJH said:
Yeah, I saw this earlier today. There is nothing that could be said or do for them to change their minds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I find myself in the often frustrating "we can reach out to people and change minds" brigade, but some people are just fucking... gone. You can only reason with reasonable people, and you can only use facts when there is a respect for them.
 
O

OriginofHysteria

Banned
NullPointer said:
"I don't trust anything the news media says anymore. And the fact of the matter is that we haven't heard from this young man. And like, when I first heard this, me myself, I'm going to tell you some stuff that ran through my mind. I'm like maybe he had a panic attack."

Fuck the world.
Click to expand...

Uh isn't he in jail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Et tu, Brute?
Poll 2
51
3K
TrueLegend replied
Interview with Shuji Utsumi (SEGA Co-COO) by Japanese media outlet Seizo-Trend
Business Game Dev
1
1K
Unknown? replied
[Bustle] Please Respect Mia Khalifa’s Rebrand
6 7 8 9 10
499
63K
Maiden Voyage replied
Illinois State Senate passes measure designating neo-Nazi groups as terrorists
49
9K
Not replied
Someone spray-painted “Nazis” inside a heart on the side of New Hampshire GOP HQ
41
8K
NastyBook replied
Top Bottom