Trumps tweet on Ilhan Omar

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,728
1
755
You have to stand for somebody at some point. Otherwise you will become irrelevant. As many of the Never-Trump Republicans have.
I don't disagree.

Neither party has leadership that I embrace. Romney (pre-embarassment) and Kasich were great. No problem with Obama.

Trump has resulted in the Republican party being vilified for decades to come, and justly so, as the cowardice to stand up against stupid policies has been embarrassing.

I'm not about Bernie dismantling the Democratic party.

I'm waiting for the day leadership stops catering to the extremists of both sides. Until then, I will call it like I see it.
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,492
1,328
360
Norway
I don't disagree.

Neither party has leadership that I embrace. Romney (pre-embarassment) and Kasich were great. No problem with Obama.
Romney and Kasich? No problem with Obama? This is a new level of interesting. I can at least say I have problems with Bush, Obama and Trump. And that's with me being more in line with democrats and democrat policies. That's with me preferring Obama over McCain and Romney.
Do you just care about outwards appearances? Because that's how it seems to me. Why otherwise say "pre-embarrassment"?
Don't policies or actions mean anything? Just looking at Romney and Obama's platform in 2012 makes me scratch my head at your statement here. Just considering the US actions or inactions in foreign affairs during the Obama era makes me ponder.

You know, it's easier to call out Trump's tweets and statements, rather than going to a position where you make no sense. Especially considering a lot of policies Trump ran on and has implemented, was also part of Romney's platform. You could also say that you dislike the further polarized and aggressive environment, though that's not really something new either. Please explain, so I can understand what your position actually is.
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,050
742
235
42
Milwaukee, WI
Trump has resulted in the Republican party being vilified for decades to come, and justly so, as the cowardice to stand up against stupid policies has been embarrassing.
I can't tell you how happy I am that we took over the Republican party from people like you. Have a great Sunday!
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,745
3,322
250
I don't disagree.

Neither party has leadership that I embrace. Romney (pre-embarassment) and Kasich were great. No problem with Obama.

Trump has resulted in the Republican party being vilified for decades to come, and justly so, as the cowardice to stand up against stupid policies has been embarrassing.

I'm not about Bernie dismantling the Democratic party.

I'm waiting for the day leadership stops catering to the extremists of both sides. Until then, I will call it like I see it.
So in other words you want ineffective leaders who do nothing but offend no one. As long as as they have a nice a strong handshake and a smile. Great.

People like you are why we are in this current mess.
 

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,728
1
755
So in other words you want ineffective leaders who do nothing but offend no one. As long as as they have a nice a strong handshake and a smile. Great.

People like you are why we are in this current mess.
An effective leader would be great and I'm all for one.

Please let me know when one's available.
 

RedVIper

Member
Jun 13, 2017
1,045
1,137
220
Jesus fucking Christ.

"Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

If he, in his own words, "doesn't even wait," how is consent granted? Please don't debase yourself by saying something of the like to "well she was in his presence" or "she asked for it".

We're seriously trying to defend a grotesque quote about sexual assault. God this Cheeto is shaming this country.
So do you always ask for a signature before kissing a girl?
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,016
2,167
240
Why is he even giving this shitty second rated closet islamist the attention
Trump is like having a crazy radio show host for a president.
Only to discover in the end that most the shit he said was true and that the other side is actually crazy, swinging from extreme frauds, to political all power fantasies, to extreme left to pushing the most obvious anti west islamists bullshitters into position of influence because even dumber voters fall for these clowns.
 
Last edited:

Panda1

Member
Jan 12, 2010
755
233
720
Why did you bold almost everything but “they let you”, the most important part? This puritanical fainting couch consent culture is so ridiculous and it’s being driven by the people least likely to be kissed. Someone has to initiate, and if the receiving party is uncomfortable then it’s up to them to make it known. If Trump initiates and they don’t reeeeesist, it’s not sexual assault. You’re also infantilising women by assuming they’re incapable of standing up to the “shameful Cheeto” (NPC alert). Do you believe that women are so weak and helpless that they can’t defend themselves? That’s awfully sexist of you.
mate he has TDS, he needs help not a rational conversation
 
  • LOL
Reactions: bucyou

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
774
829
235
LOL with liberals it can never just be "criticizing a sitting representive" for their gross views, it has to be "inciting violence to kill the first muslim, woman, immigrant, woke, brown person" by the bad orange terror-nazi
 

Panda1

Member
Jan 12, 2010
755
233
720
LOL with liberals it can never just be "criticizing a sitting representive" for their gross views, it has to be "inciting violence to kill the first muslim, woman, immigrant, woke, brown person" by the bad orange terror-nazi
of course not then they would have to do some thinking and debate rationally. Who the fuck wants to do that when they can paint their opposition as Evil and just call them names!
 

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
606
873
220
Ilhan Omar has the right to say whatever she wants. Others have the right to comment on what she's said. There is no qualitative difference between Omar saying whatever is on her mind and others saying whatever is on theirs regarding what she's said.

So AOC's comments are especially ludicrous.

Either she doesn't know what incitement to violence entails, or just what violence is altogether, or she does know but prefers to misrerpesent criticism anyway.

She is an authoritarian.
Just imagine a nation under her rule.
 

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
606
873
220
What about it? She called Stephen Miller a white nationalist and thats completely accurate. Even the guys own uncle thinks so.
Pathetic argument, but on par with the usual quality of your arguments.

His uncle agreeing he is a White nationalists is no voucher for the truth. This is such a fundamentally flawed argument, such a blunder it really speaks volumes.


There are no other semantic options.

The "too dumb" refers to people no knowing history
So you don't even know the difference between ignorance and stupidity?

Oh, boy.

and not seeing the similarities in ideology, rhetoric and policy between the Trump administration and straight up Nazis.
Slanderous liues from you.
Slanderous lies of the lowest kind.

And because the people know nothing about Nazis ideology,
You being a prime example of that, given your pathetic attempt to associate Trump with Nazism.

Yet another buffoonish display from you.

rhetoric and policy, they think that this comparison is outrageous and just reflects the insanity of the people making it
.

In your case, I'd guess it's blatant ignorance, which you've demonstrated countless times in your trademark insufferable style.

Which makes sense when you, as so many American do, have a concept of Nazis that amounts to little more than quintessentially evil villainry, the entire ideology and its historical and societal context reduced to nothing more than a cartoonish evil caricature.
No, sir.
I'd say most people associate Nazism with very specific actions and a very specific ideology, none of which have any ties with Trump's, no matter what you may think of his character or program. or presidential performance. The bare minimum of intelectual honesty would have allowed you to acknowledge that.

But because you are an authoritarian at heart - which has been demonstrated beyond refutation at this point - you want to silence those who oppose your irrational immoral ideology and the only way you can think of is to smear them with the label "Nazi". The term "one-trick pony" comes to mind.

This is a cheap routine, taken from a c-grade stand up comedy number you don't even have the competence to pull off.


When your understanding of Nazism ends there, its no wonder that you don't recognize the ideology popping up elsewhere.
We also don't always have to talk about Nazism. Fascist movements that functioned in just the same way are plentiful. They may not all have ended in a world war and genocide but that had nothing to do with the ideology but rather with the economic context. The more powerful a country, the more dangerous its fascism.
Left-wing authoritarianism, disguised, as usual, as the best possible iintentions, represented so poorly here by you, is the most dangerous threat to western liberal democracies, you know, that which you continuously show contempt for.


The "too blinded" refers to the people who hate "the other"(Muslims, immigrants, refugees, various minorities)
Another misrepresentation, because misrepresentation is the only weapon in your arsenal.

People routinely don't "hate the other": They oppose Islam because it is intrinsically and fundamentally incompatible with western values. A western liberal democracy cannot function under Islamic orthodoxy but your ignorance or disingenuousness masking itself as charitability prevents you from acknowledging the fact.


and are so consumed by their hate that they assume it is a rational reaction to a realistic threat. From this perspective everyone who is calling out their hate has to have malicious intentions because not sharing their assessment of the threat must mean that they are a part of the threat.
Your seeming projection should be obvious to most people.

A simple fallacy in which the entire position of the person in question is based on one wrong but emotionally charged assumption that isn't to be questioned.
This group of people has fallen victim to the right wing fear mongering that has been going on for years.
It didn't even start with Trump. Trump is merely the consequence
There are many rational objective reasons for opposing Islam.
Not that Christianity isn't pernicious as well, but its influence on the west has long past its prime. It's gone through the Enlightenment whereas Islam hasn't had any equally consequential outside pressure towards secularization. Even countries which attempted a form of soft laicity seem to be backpedalling.

In conclusion, your case is piss poor and in an attempt to cover up the piss-poorness of your case you stoop down to crude insults, misrepresentation and the usual Strawman fallacies.
 
Last edited:

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,347
138
550
munich
Pathetic argument, but on par with the usual quality of your arguments.

His uncle agreeing he is a White nationalists is no voucher for the truth. This is such a fundamentally flawed argument, such a blunder it really speaks volumes.
So on top of his racist policies and racist rhetoric we have a member of his immediate family saying he is a racist.
What more do you want? What does a person have to do for you to consider them racist?
At this point I would argue if you don't think that his words and actions reflect his racism, that is because you are racist yourself but simply don't consider it racism.



So you don't even know the difference between ignorance and stupidity?

Oh, boy.
Nah, I won't call it ignorance for two reasons.
1. People have all the means to properly inform themselves.
2. Its not like these people simply don't care, they actually put effort into it, but they are too dumb to do it the right way and end up with opinions that reflect nothing but their biases and emotions.

Slanderous liues from you.
Slanderous lies of the lowest kind.
Ideology:
Nazis: Authoritarian nationalists.
Trump: Authoritarian nationalist.

Rhetoric:
Nazis: "Germany first", "they are animals, criminals, an infestation"(scapegoats: Jews, communists, gay people, sinti & roma, disabled), "lying press"(all media thats not pro Nazis), "corrupted elites"(Jews, academics, postmodernists)
Trump: "America first", "they are animal, rapists, an infestation"(Scapegoats: Mexicans, immigrants, refugees, muslims), "enemy press"(all media thats not pro Trump), "corrupted elites"(Academics, globalists, postmodernists, the latter two are actually usually just code for jews)

Policy:
Nazis: Slowly erasing civil rights of aforementioned scapegoats based on fabricated threats these scapegoats allegedly pose.
Trump: Slowly erasing civil rights of aforementioned scapegoats based on fabricated threats these scapegoats allegedly pose.


You being a prime example of that, given your pathetic attempt to associate Trump with Nazism.

Yet another buffoonish display from you.
See, this is an easy dispute right here.
What I argued so far is based on the academic research into the 3rd Reich. History, social sciences and political sciences offers comprehensive and conclusive looks.

If you disagree with it, your job would be to present me with a counter argument and ideally back it up with some sources. Spoiler alert: There are no reputable academic sources that offer a different evaluation of Nazi ideology than the one I presented you with, because Nazism is not a controversial ideology we have trouble understanding and interpreting.

But what you and others are often doing on here is rejecting the predominant academic view as if it were something completely ridiculous, but you don't offer any substantial or specific criticism, not do you offer a comprehensive alternative opinion that you can back up in any way.

Usually when I call people out on that what follows in basically conspiracy theories about how academia has a strong liberal bias. An allegation completely based on the fact that the academic position doesn't line up with your own view thats based on nothing more than personal bias, limited knowledge and a complete absence of the scientific method.

From an intellectual perspective you people are a waste of time. But thats whats so infuriating about the rise of the right and anti-intellectualism. It's a collection of ideas we already defeated with reason, but now they are back because they manage to evade reason by appealing to peoples emotions, mostly fear and insecurity.

In your case, I'd guess it's blatant ignorance, which you've demonstrated countless times in your trademark insufferable style.
In german there is this phrase "Wehret den Anfängen"("Beware of the beginnings") that specifically refers to the subversive nature of Nazism that starts of slowly and harmless. An ideology thats easy enough to adopt and support, but by the time you become aware of the extremist consequences of this ideology it is too late.

No, sir.
I'd say most people associate Nazism with very specific actions and a very specific ideology
Yeah, but thats a mistake.
Nazism is specific in the sense that it occurred in 1930s Germany and lead to WW2 and the Holocaust.
But the ideology still works completely disconnected from this context.
If you strip it of all the socio-economic and historical context you still have a core ideology thats essentially a form of ethno-nationalism willing to employ authoritarian means to further the interests of the group(however it may be defined).
This group may change and the scapegoats may change, but the core ideology stays the same.

Nazism wasn't just WW2 and the Holocaust.
Nazism was a civilizational ideology that 50 million german adopted for more than 12 years. Nazis weren't just the ones killing jews or the ones fighting on the frontlines. Nazis were everyday Germans who simply thought that ethnicity and nationality is very important, races shouldn't mix and a strong leader furthering the interests of their own group is the way to go.
Thats what so many people don't realize. Nazism worked because it was moderate enough to become mainstream. Moderate enough to be adopted by the general public. Moderate enough so that the people involved in it were still able to consider themselves to be on the right side of history, to consider themselves the moral ones.

, none of which have any ties with Trump's, no matter what you may think of his character or program. or presidential performance. The bare minimum of intelectual honesty would have allowed you to acknowledge that.
Trump called himself a nationalist, proudly.
He wondered why it had become "a bad word".

It became a bad word because nationalism is the very core of Nazism and if you don't believe that it is time to open up some books and read up on the research of the past 80 years.


But because you are an authoritarian at heart - which has been demonstrated beyond refutation at this point - you want to silence those who oppose your irrational immoral ideology and the only way you can think of is to smear them with the label "Nazi". The term "one-trick pony" comes to mind.
This isn't an authoritarian approach to debate but an academic one.
Not all opinions are equal. And disregarding the ones that don't meet certain standards is not silencing them.
Labels descriptors and the label "Nazi" applies to people who share Nazi ideology.
What do you think the average German believed in in the 1930s? What do you think made them Nazis? Can you even explain what makes a Nazi in your own words?


Left-wing authoritarianism, disguised, as usual, as the best possible iintentions, represented so poorly here by you, is the most dangerous threat to western liberal democracies, you know, that which you continuously show contempt for.
The left wing ideology you refer to is social democracy and it has existed across Europe for decades and it hasn't shown any measurable authoritarian tendencies whatsoever.
But keep believing what suits you best... if thats whats makes you happy.



People routinely don't "hate the other": They oppose Islam because it is intrinsically and fundamentally incompatible with western values.
See, thats a claim that requires A LOT of evidence put behind it and I would argue its a claim thats impossible to be upheld.
1. Religion is always a reflection of society, but society is not always a reflection of its most dominant Religion.
2. Western values are inherently a-religious and just like the Koran stands in conflict with them, the Bible and Torah are as well. And not to a lesser extent either.
3. When people criticize Islam, they mostly refer to the Islam that developed recently in war ravaged, politically unstable regions in northern Africa. Thats about as representative of Islam as Christianity in Nazi Germany was reflective of Christianity.

A western liberal democracy cannot function under Islamic orthodoxy but your ignorance or disingenuousness masking itself as charitability prevents you from acknowledging the fact.
A western liberal democracy also cannot function under Christian orthodoxy. Neither could it have functioned under the type of christianity that was mainstream in Europe 200 years ago. Nor could it function under the form of Christianity that existed between 1933 and 1945 in Germany.
I would even argue that fundamentalist Christianity is a major problem and even a great threat for the US' liberal democratic system. Even though the socio-economic context in the US automatically leads to less violent outbreaks, I would argue that American fundamentalist Christians are not much different from fundamentalist Muslims.

I actually remember having a debate about this more than 10 years ago where I argued that german Salafists are just as dangerous as straight up salafi terrorists, because they are ideologically the same. The only difference is that in the context of german society, this ideology is less likely to end in violence than it is in some unstable northern African country.
Back then I was talking about Pierre Vogel, who was able to spread his hateful propaganda through Youtube and other channels under the guise of free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Vogel
This man and his words radicalized thousands upon thousands of people and even though a direct connection is impossible to prove, this man is undoubtedly responsible for A LOT of violence, even though he himself never committed any violent acts(at least not that I am aware of).
Today his stuff is generally considered hate speech and not allowed a platform.
Side note: And just like I think people like him should be denied a platform, I also think that right wing hate-mongerers like Stefan Molyneux or Sargon Of Akkad should be denied a platform and just like Vogels words are being connected to violent acts of Islamists, I think their words should be connected to the violent acts of people like the Christchurch shooters.

Radicalization can happen in a violent and non-violent context, but just because a socio-economic context is non-violent, it doesn't mean that radicalization happening there can't turn violent.

One of the biggest sources of misunderstanding between left and right today stems from the lefts adoption of social scientific views, where peoples actions and behavior is always put into its historical and societal context of norms, standards and values, while the right still has an objectivist approach, judging peoples actions and behaviors on face value.
Thats why it makes zero sense to some people more on the right when a lefty equates fundamentalist christian ideology to fundamentalist islamic ideology. Because from their point of view one side is represented by their weird grandma who is a little too annoyingly fond of Jesus, while the other group is represented by News reports about explosions and death tolls halfway across the globe.
On first sight, these two have little in common and equating them seem ridiculous.

But considering how fast societal context can change, it is very important to look at the underlying logic of the ideologies in order to be able to remove the context from the equation and reveal the core ideology. How does it rationalize, how does it justify, how comprehensive is the world view, to which emotions does it appeal, what kind of ideal does it portray etc.

Just like Christianity was for millennia a tool to oppress the masses and justify violence and just like modern Christianity was within a couple of years instrumentalized by a genocidal regime and adopted by a modern western society about to embark in a world war and the industrialized extermination of millions of people - just like that, Islam can be retooled to fit any societal context, depraved and barbaric or liberal and enlightened.

If you look at Religions on a historical scale, the first thing you should notice is that its not religious teaching that shape society, but its society that shapes how Religions are lived.

Pointing to the middle east and claiming Islam is the problem is just wrong.

Your seeming projection should be obvious to most people.
While you write all this, do you realize that you practically never even engage in an actual argument?
You haven't made a single cohesive point so far, you do not pick up on my arguments, my structure or my examples.
You avoid debate completely with shitposts like this.

But the upcoming section is something that closely resembles an actual argument.

There are many rational objective reasons for opposing Islam.
Not that Christianity isn't pernicious as well, but its influence on the west has long past its prime. It's gone through the Enlightenment whereas Islam hasn't had any equally consequential outside pressure towards secularization. Even countries which attempted a form of soft laicity seem to be backpedalling.
So you realized that based just on the merits Christianity isn't any better than Islam, so you add some context. Namely the context of Christianity having gone though the enlightenment while Islam didn't.
But thats not nearly enough to make this a proper point.

1. Christianity has actually gotten more lethal after the enlightenment. The dialectic nature of the enlightenment is a fascinating topic and you definitely should read up on it.
100+ years ago many scholars believed that with Religion put in its place, nothing stands in the way of a perfect world. But what followed were the two most devastating wars mankind has seen between mostly Christian nations, as well as the tools of the enlightenment being used to most efficiently eradicate as many people as possible, also by a christian nation.
2. The enlightenment was a societal change that lead to a recontextualization of religious teachings and the role of religion in society. This was the culmination of 2000 years of history, political theory, societal development and cultural evolution. Its an event totally specific to the time and place it occurred in. It won't happen for Islam, even though Islam has historically been closer to the enlightenment as Christianity.
3. The question you should ask is: What needs to happen in Muslim societies for them to secularize? Or in other words: Whats keeping them from secularizing?

This way you'll be talking about problems like political stability, education, financial prospects and thats when you should realize that the fundamentalist nature of modern Islam has very little to do with the actual contents of Islam.
Heck, the full veil didn't even exist 70 years ago. Its a result of modern society reinterpreting religious values in the face of modern challenges.

In conclusion, your case is piss poor and in an attempt to cover up the piss-poorness of your case you stoop down to crude insults, misrepresentation and the usual Strawman fallacies.
For someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, as evident by the fact that you rarely make any counter points or engage in the points I made, you seem pathologically certain that I am wrong and you are right.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
606
873
220
So on top of his racist policies and racist rhetoric we have a member of his immediate family saying he is a racist.
What more do you want? What does a person have to do for you to consider them racist?
A racist is someone who believes in the inherent superiority or the inherent inferiority of a certain race or ethnic group.

Please provide direct quotes that allegedly express this view. Additionally, present examples of actions that unequivocally demonstrate his alleged belief one race is inherently superior or inherently inferior to the others.

At this point I would argue if you don't think that his words and actions reflect his racism, that is because you are racist yourself but simply don't consider it racism.
This smear campaign tactic is not going to cut it.
End of discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,347
138
550
munich
A racist is someone who believes in the inherent superiority or the inherent inferiority of a certain race or ethnic group.
By that definition calling someone the n-word wouldn't be racist.

Racism has little to do with superiority or inferiority, racism is the act of judging people based on a few characteristics that would make the supposed members of arbitrary groups for which people already hold preconceived judgements.
Who's inferior or superior is then just a matter of perspective.



Please provide direct quotes that allegedly express this view. Additionally, present examples of actions that unequivocally demonstrate his alleged belief one race is inherently superior or inherently inferior to the others.
The way Trump talks about Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, "shit-hole countries" and several other things clearly shows that he a) judges large amounts of people on the basis of very limited knowledge and b) considers them inferior to the point where they don't belong or don't deserve to be in the US.

This smear campaign tactic is not going to cut it.
End of discussion.
Interesting that you say this, because at the end of the day academics will be the judges of that and even though I don't want to spoil anything, but the jury has already come to an unanimous conclusion.
Trump will go down in history as a racist and probably as one of the greatest criminals in US history, too (based just on whats in the redacted Mueller report).
Because while people like you might be in the majority on forums like this, you are not present where it counts.


Edit: You don't have to respond to the rest of my post, but at least read it and think about it, will you?
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
2,394
4,058
535
ITT crybabies attached to a narrative redefine generations-old words in order to protect said narrative.

In doing so, they lose far more than they gain. Even more so when their bastardised definition is applied to reality.

Only more bastardisation of established terms and extraordinary amounts of double standards can allow them to keep up the narrative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
606
873
220
By that definition calling someone the n-word wouldn't be racist.
It's an objective historically consensual definition.

Racism has little to do with superiority or inferiority,
I fully reject that.

racism is the act of judging people based on a few characteristics that would make the supposed members of arbitrary groups for which people already hold preconceived judgements.
You can't be bothered to be precise with words, can you?

Stereotyping, pigeonholing et al could be grouped together with racism, but they are not one and the same thing. You are guilty of extremely loose definitions throughout your verbose post

Who's inferior or superior is then just a matter of perspective.
From the perspective of the person uttering, say, the racist slurs or engaging in the racist behaviour, obviously.
Don't play disingenuous.

The way Trump talks about Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, "shit-hole countries" and several other things clearly shows that he a) judges large amounts of people on the basis of very limited knowledge and b) considers them inferior to the point where they don't belong or don't deserve to be in the US.
I asked you for direct quotes and examples of actions that would back your accusations of Stephen Miller being a white nationalist.
You provided none.
Your dodge is acknowledged.

Interesting that you say this, because at the end of the day academic will be the judge of that and even though I don't want to spoiler anything, but the jury has already come to an unanimous conclusion.
Trump will go down in history as a racist and probably as one of the greatest criminals in US history, too (based just on whats in the redacted Mueller report).
Because while people like you might be in the majority on forums like this, you are not present where it counts.
How would you know I'm white?
Do you know my academic credentials? How many and what degrees I hold?
Stop pretending you know anything at all about me.

I'm white because you'd be prone to stereotyping people based off on their opinions, right? I hold certain views, therefore I must be white!
Ah, the cosmic irony!

Have some decency.

A report that has led to no charges of obstruction and/or collusion now supposedly aggregates evidence of criminal action? Goodness gracious, what sort of view do you even have on the American judicial system?!

Edit: You don't have to respond to the rest of my post, but at least read it and think about it, will you?
Debunking your points is a rather easy task, no matter what your hubris might say. I was about to do that to all of then when you implied I was a racist. It's a common tactic among the desperate, deeming their opponent a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, etc.

But since I don't take kindly nor lightly to such accusations, either you take it back or provide evidence I'm a racist. Otherwise, I'll let you go with a good old British "Sod off".
Is that crystal clear?
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
3,910
2,558
415
The way Trump talks about Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, "shit-hole countries" and several other things clearly shows that he a) judges large amounts of people on the basis of very limited knowledge and b) considers them inferior to the point where they don't belong or don't deserve to be in the US
Crying racism because he called a country a shit hole is a bit hyperbolic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Eiknarf

Neo Member
Mar 25, 2019
90
57
105
So on top of his racist policies and racist rhetoric we have a member of his immediate family saying he is a racist.
What more do you want? What does a person have to do for you to consider them racist?
At this point I would argue if you don't think that his words and actions reflect his racism, that is because you are racist yourself but simply don't consider it racism.




Nah, I won't call it ignorance for two reasons.
1. People have all the means to properly inform themselves.
2. Its not like these people simply don't care, they actually put effort into it, but they are too dumb to do it the right way and end up with opinions that reflect nothing but their biases and emotions.


Ideology:
Nazis: Authoritarian nationalists.
Trump: Authoritarian nationalist.

Rhetoric:
Nazis: "Germany first", "they are animals, criminals, an infestation"(scapegoats: Jews, communists, gay people, sinti & roma, disabled), "lying press"(all media thats not pro Nazis), "corrupted elites"(Jews, academics, postmodernists)
Trump: "America first", "they are animal, rapists, an infestation"(Scapegoats: Mexicans, immigrants, refugees, muslims), "enemy press"(all media thats not pro Trump), "corrupted elites"(Academics, globalists, postmodernists, the latter two are actually usually just code for jews)

Policy:
Nazis: Slowly erasing civil rights of aforementioned scapegoats based on fabricated threats these scapegoats allegedly pose.
Trump: Slowly erasing civil rights of aforementioned scapegoats based on fabricated threats these scapegoats allegedly pose.



See, this is an easy dispute right here.
What I argued so far is based on the academic research into the 3rd Reich. History, social sciences and political sciences offers comprehensive and conclusive looks.

If you disagree with it, your job would be to present me with a counter argument and ideally back it up with some sources. Spoiler alert: There are no reputable academic sources that offer a different evaluation of Nazi ideology than the one I presented you with, because Nazism is not a controversial ideology we have trouble understanding and interpreting.

But what you and others are often doing on here is rejecting the predominant academic view as if it were something completely ridiculous, but you don't offer any substantial or specific criticism, not do you offer a comprehensive alternative opinion that you can back up in any way.

Usually when I call people out on that what follows in basically conspiracy theories about how academia has a strong liberal bias. An allegation completely based on the fact that the academic position doesn't line up with your own view thats based on nothing more than personal bias, limited knowledge and a complete absence of the scientific method.

From an intellectual perspective you people are a waste of time. But thats whats so infuriating about the rise of the right and anti-intellectualism. It's a collection of ideas we already defeated with reason, but now they are back because they manage to evade reason by appealing to peoples emotions, mostly fear and insecurity.


In german there is this phrase "Wehret den Anfängen"("Beware of the beginnings") that specifically refers to the subversive nature of Nazism that starts of slowly and harmless. An ideology thats easy enough to adopt and support, but by the time you become aware of the extremist consequences of this ideology it is too late.


Yeah, but thats a mistake.
Nazism is specific in the sense that it occurred in 1930s Germany and lead to WW2 and the Holocaust.
But the ideology still works completely disconnected from this context.
If you strip it of all the socio-economic and historical context you still have a core ideology thats essentially a form of ethno-nationalism willing to employ authoritarian means to further the interests of the group(however it may be defined).
This group may change and the scapegoats may change, but the core ideology stays the same.

Nazism wasn't just WW2 and the Holocaust.
Nazism was a civilizational ideology that 50 million german adopted for more than 12 years. Nazis weren't just the ones killing jews or the ones fighting on the frontlines. Nazis were everyday Germans who simply thought that ethnicity and nationality is very important, races shouldn't mix and a strong leader furthering the interests of their own group is the way to go.
Thats what so many people don't realize. Nazism worked because it was moderate enough to become mainstream. Moderate enough to be adopted by the general public. Moderate enough so that the people involved in it were still able to consider themselves to be on the right side of history, to consider themselves the moral ones.


Trump called himself a nationalist, proudly.
He wondered why it had become "a bad word".

It became a bad word because nationalism is the very core of Nazism and if you don't believe that it is time to open up some books and read up on the research of the past 80 years.



This isn't an authoritarian approach to debate but an academic one.
Not all opinions are equal. And disregarding the ones that don't meet certain standards is not silencing them.
Labels descriptors and the label "Nazi" applies to people who share Nazi ideology.
What do you think the average German believed in in the 1930s? What do you think made them Nazis? Can you even explain what makes a Nazi in your own words?



The left wing ideology you refer to is social democracy and it has existed across Europe for decades and it hasn't shown any measurable authoritarian tendencies whatsoever.
But keep believing what suits you best... if thats whats makes you happy.




See, thats a claim that requires A LOT of evidence put behind it and I would argue its a claim thats impossible to be upheld.
1. Religion is always a reflection of society, but society is not always a reflection of its most dominant Religion.
2. Western values are inherently a-religious and just like the Koran stands in conflict with them, the Bible and Torah are as well. And not to a lesser extent either.
3. When people criticize Islam, they mostly refer to the Islam that developed recently in war ravaged, politically unstable regions in northern Africa. Thats about as representative of Islam as Christianity in Nazi Germany was reflective of Christianity.


A western liberal democracy also cannot function under Christian orthodoxy. Neither could it have functioned under the type of christianity that was mainstream in Europe 200 years ago. Nor could it function under the form of Christianity that existed between 1933 and 1945 in Germany.
I would even argue that fundamentalist Christianity is a major problem and even a great threat for the US' liberal democratic system. Even though the socio-economic context in the US automatically leads to less violent outbreaks, I would argue that American fundamentalist Christians are not much different from fundamentalist Muslims.

I actually remember having a debate about this more than 10 years ago where I argued that german Salafists are just as dangerous as straight up salafi terrorists, because they are ideologically the same. The only difference is that in the context of german society, this ideology is less likely to end in violence than it is in some unstable northern African country.
Back then I was talking about Pierre Vogel, who was able to spread his hateful propaganda through Youtube and other channels under the guise of free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Vogel
This man and his words radicalized thousands upon thousands of people and even though a direct connection is impossible to prove, this man is undoubtedly responsible for A LOT of violence, even though he himself never committed any violent acts(at least not that I am aware of).
Today his stuff is generally considered hate speech and not allowed a platform.
Side note: And just like I think people like him should be denied a platform, I also think that right wing hate-mongerers like Stefan Molyneux or Sargon Of Akkad should be denied a platform and just like Vogels words are being connected to violent acts of Islamists, I think their words should be connected to the violent acts of people like the Christchurch shooters.

Radicalization can happen in a violent and non-violent context, but just because a socio-economic context is non-violent, it doesn't mean that radicalization happening there can't turn violent.

One of the biggest sources of misunderstanding between left and right today stems from the lefts adoption of social scientific views, where peoples actions and behavior is always put into its historical and societal context of norms, standards and values, while the right still has an objectivist approach, judging peoples actions and behaviors on face value.
Thats why it makes zero sense to some people more on the right when a lefty equates fundamentalist christian ideology to fundamentalist islamic ideology. Because from their point of view one side is represented by their weird grandma who is a little too annoyingly fond of Jesus, while the other group is represented by News reports about explosions and death tolls halfway across the globe.
On first sight, these two have little in common and equating them seem ridiculous.

But considering how fast societal context can change, it is very important to look at the underlying logic of the ideologies in order to be able to remove the context from the equation and reveal the core ideology. How does it rationalize, how does it justify, how comprehensive is the world view, to which emotions does it appeal, what kind of ideal does it portray etc.

Just like Christianity was for millennia a tool to oppress the masses and justify violence and just like modern Christianity was within a couple of years instrumentalized by a genocidal regime and adopted by a modern western society about to embark in a world war and the industrialized extermination of millions of people - just like that, Islam can be retooled to fit any societal context, depraved and barbaric or liberal and enlightened.

If you look at Religions on a historical scale, the first thing you should notice is that its not religious teaching that shape society, but its society that shapes how Religions are lived.

Pointing to the middle east and claiming Islam is the problem is just wrong.


While you write all this, do you realize that you practically never even engage in an actual argument?
You haven't made a single cohesive point so far, you do not pick up on my arguments, my structure or my examples.
You avoid debate completely with shitposts like this.

But the upcoming section is something that closely resembles an actual argument.


So you realized that based just on the merits Christianity isn't any better than Islam, so you add some context. Namely the context of Christianity having gone though the enlightenment while Islam didn't.
But thats not nearly enough to make this a proper point.

1. Christianity has actually gotten more lethal after the enlightenment. The dialectic nature of the enlightenment is a fascinating topic and you definitely should read up on it.
100+ years ago many scholars believed that with Religion put in its place, nothing stands in the way of a perfect world. But what followed were the two most devastating wars mankind has seen between mostly Christian nations, as well as the tools of the enlightenment being used to most efficiently eradicate as many people as possible, also by a christian nation.
2. The enlightenment was a societal change that lead to a recontextualization of religious teachings and the role of religion in society. This was the culmination of 2000 years of history, political theory, societal development and cultural evolution. Its an event totally specific to the time and place it occurred in. It won't happen for Islam, even though Islam has historically been closer to the enlightenment as Christianity.
3. The question you should ask is: What needs to happen in Muslim societies for them to secularize? Or in other words: Whats keeping them from secularizing?

This way you'll be talking about problems like political stability, education, financial prospects and thats when you should realize that the fundamentalist nature of modern Islam has very little to do with the actual contents of Islam.
Heck, the full veil didn't even exist 70 years ago. Its a result of modern society reinterpreting religious values in the face of modern challenges.


For someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, as evident by the fact that you rarely make any counter points or engage in the points I made, you seem pathologically certain that I am wrong and you are right.

Fuck that nonsense.
First Trump would need to murder 100+ of his opposition and sieze power in one night like Hitler did in the night of the long knives!
Trump was duly elected by a democratic process. Clean and free.

Also there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with "america first," patriotism, securing the borders, deportation, or comparing violent criminals to animals!!!
Fuck these brainless attempts at moral equivalency!

Every other country on the planet, except hyper-liberal European states, emphasize and focus on their own nation first, serving their own people, and protecting and preserving their people and culture. Why must America disregard its own history and culture and allow it to be dismantled by foreigners who want to recreate their own cultures on America’s dime and using America’s hard-won infrastructure?

And, BTW, please name one civil right due to all American citizens that Trump has “slowly erased.” Name one!
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,012
395
785
I reject NAZI Germany as being the litmus test for Nationalism. We already established what Nationalism means in the United States of America, President Theodore Roosevelt had much to say on the subject.

If the leader of your country, any country, isn't a Nationalist, then they are a Globalist, which means they give fuck all about you in the greater scheme of things.
 

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
606
873
220
I reject NAZI Germany as being the litmus test for Nationalism. We already established what Nationalism means in the United States of America, President Theodore Roosevelt had much to say on the subject.

If the leader of your country, any country, isn't a Nationalist, then they are a Globalist, which means they give fuck all about you in the greater scheme of things.
Indeed.
What about left-wing nationalism?
Is it equivalent to Nazism as well?

GIgawatts uses extremely loose definition in the hopes of being seen as getting away with false equivalences. For example, let's review the initial steps of the Nazi chokehold on german society:

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#After_taking_power:_intertwining_of_party_and_state
):

1. During June and July 1933, all competing parties were either outlawed or dissolved themselves and subsequently the Law against the founding of new parties of 14 July 1933 legally established the Nazi Party's monopoly
On 1 December 1933, the Law to secure the unity of party and state entered into force, which was the base for a progressive intertwining of party structures and state apparatus.[82] By this law, the SA—actually a party division—was given quasi-governmental authority and their leader was co-opted as an ex officio cabinet member.
During the Röhm Purge of 30 June to 2 July 1934 (also known as the "Night of the Long Knives"), Hitler disempowered the SA's leadership—most of whom belonged to the Strasserist (national revolutionary) faction within the NSDAP—and ordered them killed. He accused them of having conspired to stage a coup d'état, but it is believed that this was only a pretence to justify the suppression of any intraparty opposition. The purge was executed by the SS, assisted by the Gestapo and Reimchswehr units. Aside from Strasserist Nazis, they also murdered anti-Nazi conservative figures like former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher.[84] After this, the SA continued to exist but lost much of its importance, while the role of the SS grew significantly. Formerly only a sub-organisation of the SA, it was made into a separate organisation of the NSDAP in July 1934
No matter how low your opinion of Trump is, you will be able to spot the glaring differences, There simply is no close or distant equivalent with him. Honest persons will recognize this, but Gigawatts will try to push the most nebulous blurry definitions in a petty attempt to conflate that which is fundamentally different. He was banking on historical ignorance.

Tough luck.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,012
395
785
That's because we live in a post-modern age where words both have no meaning, yet are also de facto violence.

Iron out the irony on that one.
 

Eiknarf

Neo Member
Mar 25, 2019
90
57
105
What ever happened to Vive La Difference? We are all different, we have different cultures, different interests, different strengths, and different weaknesses. Why can’t we be free to be ourselves as we allow others to be free to be themselves. If you don’t want to be “American” then stay the fuck home.

When my buddy lived in Saudi Arabia, he did not demand they be like America.
When he lived in Israel, he did not demand they be like America.
When he visited his parents in Panama, he did not demand they be like America.
And even when I visit China, I do not demand they be like America.

Why then must America feel pressured to accommodate all others when they come here??!! WHY!?

Obama (our worst white president) erased my right to choose to have health insurance or not. I was forced to by law. Obama helped codify the erasure of life rights for unborn human beings by mandating all health insurance pay for abortions and contraception in the name of “reproductive rights” when there is NOTHING reproductive about it. Obama significantly curtailed my right to true reproductive healthcare by burdening insurance companies with the cost of contraception and abortions such that none covered fertility treatments. Where is the screeching outrage against Obama’s clear erasure of fundamental human rights?