Neelix causes another government shutdown because he wants a bigger border wall

[Karha of Honor]

Trump is definitely responsible for this. Democrats are not exactly militant on Identity Politics. The public is, but the Democrats want your vote. Hillary brought it up in her campaign, but it was a blink and you'll miss it moment for me. So that's not a culture war, but... Actually no, I don't think anything the leftists did culminated into an anti-white sentiment until after Trump started getting power on his campaign. The culture war is largely due to Trump's influence on radical right empowerment, Brexit probably being the most signature of developments of that. These bigoted views were festering and had no real traction in media. Facebook had been around for a while at that point and it wasn't really a fuss. That and I still feel that post-Trump media attention to white nationalists and neo-nazis was more about them being more bold than influential. They started doing more marches, and I don't doubt there were more racially charged aggressions, but these people haven't gotten any real progress on establishment aside from Trump himself. Trump in turn just tries to tear down establishment.

Anyways, the likes of Metoo seemed mostly to be a result of people calling truth to power after Trump got elected. The sentiment was there, and social media was just clay ready to be molded into righteous squabbling.

Blink and you will miss a presidential candidate writing off a large chunk of the American public a hopeless subhuman orcs...

Ever since 2014 in the maisntream press there was a pathologization of whiteness however the fuck they even define it.

T Coates went from a joke to a sage way before Trump was elected.

MeToo's most talked about encounter, Aziz Anasari...
Truth to power...

Yet she won the popular vote...

Not sure what you're talking about with 2014.

And Ansari as far as I can tell was the trip-up that gassed the Metoo steam bubble. Though you're saying that he was talked about more than Weinstein, or was as groundbreaking as Spacey?

if i would have to bet i would say he was just as talked about.

The article account of his behavior was the most quickly dismissed metoo encounter. He seemingly got shamed into silence, but there was practically no social blowback as far as I can tell.

I mean, that lady from XxX had a full on scandal after that that had several turning points of misinformation, loyalty betrayal, extortion, posthumous recounting, leadership questioning...

XXX? The Vin Diesel or the Ice Cube one or the one with both?

[Karha of Honor]

Trump is definitely responsible for this. Democrats are not exactly militant on Identity Politics. The public is, but the Democrats want your vote. Hillary brought it up in her campaign, but it was a blink and you'll miss it moment for me. So that's not a culture war, but... Actually no, I don't think anything the leftists did culminated into an anti-white sentiment until after Trump started getting power on his campaign. The culture war is largely due to Trump's influence on radical right empowerment, Brexit probably being the most signature of developments of that. These bigoted views were festering and had no real traction in media. Facebook had been around for a while at that point and it wasn't really a fuss. That and I still feel that post-Trump media attention to white nationalists and neo-nazis was more about them being more bold than influential. They started doing more marches, and I don't doubt there were more racially charged aggressions, but these people haven't gotten any real progress on establishment aside from Trump himself. Trump in turn just tries to tear down establishment.

Anyways, the likes of Metoo seemed mostly to be a result of people calling truth to power after Trump got elected. The sentiment was there, and social media was just clay ready to be molded into righteous squabbling.

Blink and you will miss a presidential candidate writing off a large chunk of the American public a hopeless subhuman orcs...

Ever since 2014 in the maisntream press there was a pathologization of whiteness however the fuck they even define it.

T Coates went from a joke to a sage way before Trump was elected.

MeToo's most talked about encounter, Aziz Anasari...
Truth to power...

Yet she won the popular vote...

Not sure what you're talking about with 2014.

And Ansari as far as I can tell was the trip-up that gassed the Metoo steam bubble. Though you're saying that he was talked about more than Weinstein, or was as groundbreaking as Spacey?

if i would have to bet i would say he was just as talked about.

The article account of his behavior was the most quickly dismissed metoo encounter. He seemingly got shamed into silence, but there was practically no social blowback as far as I can tell.

I mean, that lady from XxX had a full on scandal after that that had several turning points of misinformation, loyalty betrayal, extortion, posthumous recounting, leadership questioning...

Quickly? How did that even make it into the New York Times?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

XXX? The Vin Diesel or the Ice Cube one or the one with both?

Asia Argento.

Quickly? How did that even make it into the New York Times?

Because it was notably topical. And I actually probably wouldn't call it as having been dismissed, but criticized in the manner that it was crafted.

Overall I don't really follow what you're saying about how it was the most talked about circumstance with metoo.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Honestly he defines it so broadly I'm not even sure what he means when he says the Culture War.

In what instances do you think i misused the term?

Any arc that bends towards justice will bend away from your favorite many-times bankrupt dumbass. Why don't you go hang out with Ben Garrison if you wanna jerk off to an idealist President Neelix?

Justice can work trough anyone. How is he my favorite?

I said you used it broadly, not that you misused it. You apply it so generally and with so little context or clarification that I rarely know what precisely you are talking about.

He seems to be your favorite the way you leap to his defense or to blame others for his deeds.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Honestly he defines it so broadly I'm not even sure what he means when he says the Culture War.

In what instances do you think i misused the term?

Any arc that bends towards justice will bend away from your favorite many-times bankrupt dumbass. Why don't you go hang out with Ben Garrison if you wanna jerk off to an idealist President Neelix?

Justice can work trough anyone. How is he my favorite?

I said you used it broadly, not that you misused it. You apply it so generally and with so little context or clarification that I rarely know what precisely you are talking about.

He seems to be your favorite the way you leap to his defense or to blame others for his deeds.

You said that Trump's at fault and the Democrats are not. He then asserted that the Democrats are what led to Trump, so it's their fault either way. What you were saying about calling people racist and the subsequent reactionist movement that propelled Trumpism is pretty consistent to the discourse up to that point. I mean, what you said about calling people racist fits into narrative of the culture war that provoked people into vibing with Trump.

The later assertion by another that you denied responsibility despite not actually being responsible thus committing a straw man fallacy isn't quite sound. It's reasonable to suppose that you align with the Democrats, and also that overly PC culture that involves being hyper vigilant against all acts deemed racist on seemingly casual or sensitive levels also aligns with the left, at least more than it does with the right.

Anyways, I just didn't really see it as a strawman, and the discourse that stems from that seemed to be heavily tangential.

[Karha of Honor]

XXX? The Vin Diesel or the Ice Cube one or the one with both?

Asia Argento.

Quickly? How did that even make it into the New York Times?

Because it was notably topical. And I actually probably wouldn't call it as having been dismissed, but criticized in the manner that it was crafted.

Overall I don't really follow what you're saying about how it was the most talked about circumstance with metoo.

Did i speculate that Ansari was the most talked about?

Honestly he defines it so broadly I'm not even sure what he means when he says the Culture War.

In what instances do you think i misused the term?

Any arc that bends towards justice will bend away from your favorite many-times bankrupt dumbass. Why don't you go hang out with Ben Garrison if you wanna jerk off to an idealist President Neelix?

Justice can work trough anyone. How is he my favorite?

I said you used it broadly, not that you misused it. You apply it so generally and with so little context or clarification that I rarely know what precisely you are talking about.

He seems to be your favorite the way you leap to his defense or to blame others for his deeds.

Culture was is very broard concept, so is Culture War.

Is the last post a response to me?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Did i speculate that Ansari was the most talked about?

At this time of the sub morning I'm not checking back to substantiate, but f'in lol yes that's my take on what you said.

[Darth Wedgius]

Honestly he defines it so broadly I'm not even sure what he means when he says the Culture War.

In what instances do you think i misused the term?

Any arc that bends towards justice will bend away from your favorite many-times bankrupt dumbass. Why don't you go hang out with Ben Garrison if you wanna jerk off to an idealist President Neelix?

Justice can work trough anyone. How is he my favorite?

I said you used it broadly, not that you misused it. You apply it so generally and with so little context or clarification that I rarely know what precisely you are talking about.

He seems to be your favorite the way you leap to his defense or to blame others for his deeds.

You said that Trump's at fault and the Democrats are not. He then asserted that the Democrats are what led to Trump, so it's their fault either way. What you were saying about calling people racist and the subsequent reactionist movement that propelled Trumpism is pretty consistent to the discourse up to that point. I mean, what you said about calling people racist fits into narrative of the culture war that provoked people into vibing with Trump.

The later assertion by another that you denied responsibility despite not actually being responsible thus committing a straw man fallacy isn't quite sound. It's reasonable to suppose that you align with the Democrats, and also that overly PC culture that involves being hyper vigilant against all acts deemed racist on seemingly casual or sensitive levels also aligns with the left, at least more than it does with the right.

Anyways, I just didn't really see it as a strawman, and the discourse that stems from that seemed to be heavily tangential.

"Calling people racist led to Trump" is a strawman because it's not something said by people he was arguing against. Call the KKK racist and you're not putting Trump in office. Call affirmative action racist and you're not putting Trump in office. Call all white people inherently racist and you are probably helping put Trump in office, but that's a proper subset of "calling people racist."

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Honestly he defines it so broadly I'm not even sure what he means when he says the Culture War.

In what instances do you think i misused the term?

Any arc that bends towards justice will bend away from your favorite many-times bankrupt dumbass. Why don't you go hang out with Ben Garrison if you wanna jerk off to an idealist President Neelix?

Justice can work trough anyone. How is he my favorite?

I said you used it broadly, not that you misused it. You apply it so generally and with so little context or clarification that I rarely know what precisely you are talking about.

He seems to be your favorite the way you leap to his defense or to blame others for his deeds.

You said that Trump's at fault and the Democrats are not. He then asserted that the Democrats are what led to Trump, so it's their fault either way. What you were saying about calling people racist and the subsequent reactionist movement that propelled Trumpism is pretty consistent to the discourse up to that point. I mean, what you said about calling people racist fits into narrative of the culture war that provoked people into vibing with Trump.

The later assertion by another that you denied responsibility despite not actually being responsible thus committing a straw man fallacy isn't quite sound. It's reasonable to suppose that you align with the Democrats, and also that overly PC culture that involves being hyper vigilant against all acts deemed racist on seemingly casual or sensitive levels also aligns with the left, at least more than it does with the right.

Anyways, I just didn't really see it as a strawman, and the discourse that stems from that seemed to be heavily tangential.

"Calling people racist led to Trump" is a strawman because it's not something said by people he was arguing against. Call the KKK racist and you're not putting Trump in office. Call affirmative action racist and you're not putting Trump in office. Call all white people inherently racist and you are probably helping put Trump in office, but that's a proper subset of "calling people racist."

Yeah lol it's a pretty jagged gray area as per what we're talking about. I feel like I was coming off a bit ominous last night. I see what you're saying, but in the context of who's at fault for the gvmnt shutdown, the condition of a culture war substantiating the liability in question is subject to a considerable amount of scrutiny. I think it's fair to say that things got out of hand a bit, but the Democrats at the center of things were not that domineering. I mean you'd have to establish quite a bit of contemptibility on their part in their progressive agenda to just say that they enabled this circumstance despite one third of government being rendered into a single man's renegade pursuit of a symbolic sunk cost fallacy fantasy.

[G-Man]

Most Mexican immigrants don't like illegal immigration ether. It's only when you scare them by assigning racist motivations to it that they fall in line.

I think that is true; Democrats want more immigration from the third world (especially of poor people) because they want more people whom they can make dependent on government. Constant denunciation of immigration restriction as racist is Democrats' weapon to limit the discussion of this issue. GOP donors love poor immigrants because it is a source of cheap labor to undercut American wages, so the GOP likes using this as a weapon to limit the discussion as well.

George Bush for all his many, many faults didn't hold the country hostage over the boarder fence, actively worked to reach out to the Latino community, and had an actually attempt at genuine immigration reform.

No, he had an attempt at a massive amnesty with an immigration surge. "Immigration reform" is liberal-speak for "open borders" or "closer to open borders."

And Bush's outreach to the Latino community consisted of what? (a) Pushing for amnesty, and (b) pushing for lenders to stop requiring down payments on homes in order to make it easier for Latinos to get mortgages. Of course, this caused housing prices to soar and in 2008 it became obvious why down payments are a good idea....

You don't have to assign racist motivations because the utterly broken immigration system that leads to people by passing it is the direct result of over 130 years of racist policy.

So unless we let everyone in who wants to come in, we are racist, and if someone bypasses our system, it's our fault for having a system that keeps them out. For those who believe that we have a right to determine who comes into our country, this is sort of like saying that sexual assault victims were assaulted because they would not consent quickly enough.

One, if illegal immigrants can't find work they also return home, or at least south of the border. Notably migration across the US-Mexico border has been net negative for years at this point.

Except they can also have anchor babies and then use the social welfare system. And several states will let them use the social welfare system anyway. And given that a recent study has suggested that we have twice as many illegal aliens in the U.S. as the official estimates suggest
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0201193
I do not trust those numbers (and has migration over the Mexican border been net negative, or just immigration from Mexico - most people crossing over the Mexican border actually start from countries other than Mexico).

Three, due to the use of juis soli ensuring that second generation immigrants always become citizens, and the fact that the US is a relatively young nation that's been in flux for much of that time the US has been far more successful at integrating immigrants that Europe has.

I think it is more that our immigrants tend much more to be Asian or Latino rather than African or Middle Eastern and they tend to have more cultural similarities so they integrate better - I don't think that indiscriminate jus soli itself integrates people, it just gives them a political say. If we do not actively pursue assimilation, what we are really creating are little subcultures who are in conflict with one another. That is what is happening now and why I fear balkanization. Look at how California ended its English-only education system (which had helped integrate people very successfully) in the last five years.

The lack of a unique culture is one of the main reasons why integration has been been successful time and time again. Rather than trying to bash them into a mold, whatever parts of the assimilated culture are worth keeping will permeate the loose soup that is American Culture.

Except Slash did not say that America has no unique culture, he said that under Progressive dominance America will have no unique culture.

America actually has had a fairly distinct culture until, say, the 1990s or so (although the move away probably started in the 50s and 60s). We had room for parts of other cultures, but you had to assimilate partway. We have been increasingly fracturing since then, and America has become more and more nothing but a marketplace for consumerism.

And the result has been that politics has increasingly become dominated by identity. Former Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois said that his loyalty was to the immigrant community, suggesting that he sees himself not as working for the good of the U.S., but for his own community to get as much out of the U.S. as it can.

And unlike white people who try to come up with moralistic reasons to oppose it, Asian-Americans who oppose Affirmative Action in, e.g. California, generally frame the issue as one of Asian-American interests rather than of America as a whole.

The emphasis of a strong, unique culture that you must fit a specific ideal lest you be deemed forever an outsider is a big reason why European countries have such a problem with large, insular cultural enclaves.

But there is a difference between being a strong, unique culture that has room for diversity, and being a non-culture that anyone can join because it has no content outside of an economy. No one is going to be willing to sacrifice for their mall. No emphasis on a strong culture means no real unity, and politics devolves into an ethnic/interest-group spoils system (what's in it for my group?)

If you can be Turkish or German and are shunned by the one you don't pick, it's not surprising that you have large Turkish enclaves in German. If you can be Irish and American, then it's not surprising that you have a significant portion of Irish-Americans that are indistinguishable from other Americans beyond using it as an excuse for why they got so Drunk on March 17th.

Except that people are not being both. They are being [ethnic group] with the rights of an American. In California, English-only education was wildly successful at helping Spanish-speakers integrate, but as soon as the Democrats got into complete power they overturned it, because they do not want integration.

The idea of "I don't see [ethnicity], we're all just Americans." is really something that mostly only whites believe (and those minorities who do feel this way tend to vote Republican). I don't think that the idea that ethnic identity is subsumed into the greater American identity is really something that the majority of minorities subscribe to.