Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 139: The Price for Tickets is $400,000

(+) Yeah! (+)

I think we can all agree that "not us = bad" is an unhealthy mindset to have. There's definitely a fair bit of it on all sides of politics these days. However, there is a difference between the far left and far right on this issue. The alt-right politics are inherently othering, with racism and homophobia/transphobia, etc. identifying groups and writing them off. The far left on the other hand lacks those inherent factors. While there's a lot of that there, it's entirely possible to be very far left without labeling any group as inferior.

So even ignoring the violent messaging the alt-right engages in, the difference between the far right and far left is how inherent othering is to the political beliefs.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

My Immortal posted...

Mega Mana posted...

Can we please stop running 100+ post chains about Corrik/Mersh/Ulti? We've got Breitbart scummery, Trump's ACA suppression, continued efforts with Puerto Rico, Las Vegas fallout, and who knows how many other things...

These topics turning into troll feeds for half their length are tiresome.

I will never understand how people don't learn this

The same people get baited every time, and when other people ask them to stop getting baited and leading to a long 'debate' that shits up the topic they go "sorry but I just can't help myself!". It's the biggest reason why I don't follow these topics much anymore.

Careful, you're coming off a bit sanctimonious here. I think. I don't know.

Corrik needs to fuck off and so does anyone who responds to him.
---

Yes, I agree
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

Corrik, when you make a statement such as "this thing is as bad as this other thing," you immediately are comparing what you use as an example to the worst of the examples for "the other thing"

I mean, no. You are trying to tell me what I am saying at your own discretion. When I say "this is just as bad as running people over with a car", then you are correct. You are framing it and most likely there are motives to do so in this topic because instead of actually discussing the video there is more interest in minimizing it with something else from the other side to handwave it.

When you say "This thing is as bad as this other thing," you are equating it to the worst thing, yes. Nobody says "Jim is just as bad as John" and means "Jim is as bad as John when John's having a good day and not really being that bad."

Well, the problem is the mindset and the "us vs them" mentality that causes the extremists to think either action is something that's acceptable. The specifics behind the action are going to vary based on the individual. There's nothing inherently far right about hitting a dude with a car.

Trying to specifically make it about hitting a dude with a car vs a dumbass filibuster is just trying to win the argument for the sake of winning an argument. That's clearly not what he was getting at

"Both are a problem" is a different argument than "X is just as bad as Y." The latter is an attempt to either make something seem less bad, or imply something else is of that same level, in an attempt to make whatever side you're supporting not stand out so much as "This is bad."

Neither are acceptable, yes, that is true. But to go "X is just as bad as Y" is an attempt to try to absolve one side a bit.

This is where you guys fall apart. I am saying both are bad. Not absolving one side at all. Both ends disgust me.
---

I once knew a centrist who was rude to the cashier at Walgreens so I'm actually disgusted by every single segment of the political spectrum (and am therefore more enlightened than yinz).
---

Lopen posted...

My WHOLE POST is about why the extreme right and extreme left are assholes and you shouldn't be defending either one, and that it's kinda upsetting that you're trying to say "oh well, at least extremists on MY side doesn't hit people with cars"-- they're not on your side. Disown them like you disown the Nazis.

Some here are the Far Left though, Lopen. They take bringing up these antics as an attack against them.
---

NFUN posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

My Immortal posted...

Mega Mana posted...

Can we please stop running 100+ post chains about Corrik/Mersh/Ulti? We've got Breitbart scummery, Trump's ACA suppression, continued efforts with Puerto Rico, Las Vegas fallout, and who knows how many other things...

These topics turning into troll feeds for half their length are tiresome.

I will never understand how people don't learn this

The same people get baited every time, and when other people ask them to stop getting baited and leading to a long 'debate' that shits up the topic they go "sorry but I just can't help myself!". It's the biggest reason why I don't follow these topics much anymore.

Careful, you're coming off a bit sanctimonious here. I think. I don't know.

Corrik needs to fuck off and so does anyone who responds to him.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'll backpedal a bit - if you define "far right" as "nazis/white nationalists/white supremacists" i would disagree that they're comparable to the far left. if you also define them as something different (like just super right-wing people) you could make a comparison with far left people, sure.

I would accept that if you could direct me to a lot of incidents where a vanilla super right-wing dude is causing as much of an uproar over nothing like the dudes in that youtube are. Cause I see a lot of it out of the "super left-wing." It seems like super right-wing guys that do that tend to fall into the white supremacist boat, and those who haven't gone all the way into naziland tend to not do so much of that at all, cause they haven't been warped by extremism.

That feels like the far left just haven't developed their infrastructure enough that they felt it could be done with any regularity. What do I mean by that? Well for instance, compare the relative influence of stuff like the KKK vs how it would've been even 50, 70, 100 years ago-- society in general would condemn them a lot less. Or consider whether the KKK would have much sway at all had slavery never been a thing in the US to begin with.

I think the only reason we don't see this out of the "far left" is society doesn't allow them to at the moment. But if you allow this kinda stuff to continue to swell, I don't see it getting better. The extremism is at the core of the problem much moreso than a difference in ideology (at the most extreme level, the ideologies are very similar, just inverting the values and hating "white privilege" rather than being white supremacists).

Perhaps that's incorrect, though. Time will tell. It's just how I feel about it. It's a dangerous road and one that's upsetting to watch. And people in this topic giving the feel of playing into the "us vs them" playbook while arguing with Corrik makes me even more concerned in that regard, as believe it or not I do envision the lot of you as being significantly more grounded than snotty college students.
---

Lopen posted...

vehicular manslaughter

Vehicular first degree homicide
---

Lopen posted...

I would accept that if you could direct me to a lot of incidents where a vanilla super right-wing dude is causing as much of an uproar over nothing like the dudes in that youtube are.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/14/11/432FCC4A00000578-0-image-a-19_1502706355463.jpg
---

Lopen posted...

(at the most extreme level, the ideologies are very similar, just inverting the values and hating "white privilege" rather than being white supremacists).

Again, equating white supremacy and the acknowledgement of white privilege as equals on opposite ends of the spectrum is super disingenuous.

Earlier you called it "white inferiority" which is totally off base.
---

Lopen posted...

(at the most extreme level, the ideologies are very similar, just inverting the values and hating "white privilege" rather than being white supremacists).

how are those similar whatsoever

they sound like opposites
---

Kenri posted...

yinz

I approve
---

Lopen posted...

And people in this topic giving the feel of playing into the "us vs them" playbook while arguing with Corrik makes me even more concerned in that regard, as believe it or not I do envision the lot of you as being significantly more grounded than snotty college students.

eh, i still disagree that we play into the "us vs them" playbook as badly as you're making it out to be. maybe you could make this argument if you look at the response to corrik's post in a vacuum, but in the past 138 politics containment topics there's been plenty of instances when we criticized other leftists.

it's weird that you keep accusing leftists of playing into the "us vs them" playbook because in my experience, the right-wing people on the board are far more guilty of that. don't know if you remember the "conservative politics containment topic" but that was basically the usual conservative suspects of the board having a massive circle jerk for hundreds of posts before they got bored.
---

"Hating inequality is the same thing as hating equality!"
---

Lopen, do you feel that whites are unfairly oppressed by the far left when they have power?
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

Corrik, when you make a statement such as "this thing is as bad as this other thing," you immediately are comparing what you use as an example to the worst of the examples for "the other thing"

I mean, no. You are trying to tell me what I am saying at your own discretion. When I say "this is just as bad as running people over with a car", then you are correct. You are framing it and most likely there are motives to do so in this topic because instead of actually discussing the video there is more interest in minimizing it with something else from the other side to handwave it.

When you say "This thing is as bad as this other thing," you are equating it to the worst thing, yes. Nobody says "Jim is just as bad as John" and means "Jim is as bad as John when John's having a good day and not really being that bad."

Well, the problem is the mindset and the "us vs them" mentality that causes the extremists to think either action is something that's acceptable. The specifics behind the action are going to vary based on the individual. There's nothing inherently far right about hitting a dude with a car.

Trying to specifically make it about hitting a dude with a car vs a dumbass filibuster is just trying to win the argument for the sake of winning an argument. That's clearly not what he was getting at

"Both are a problem" is a different argument than "X is just as bad as Y." The latter is an attempt to either make something seem less bad, or imply something else is of that same level, in an attempt to make whatever side you're supporting not stand out so much as "This is bad."

Neither are acceptable, yes, that is true. But to go "X is just as bad as Y" is an attempt to try to absolve one side a bit.

This is where you guys fall apart. I am saying both are bad. Not absolving one side at all. Both ends disgust me.

Do they disgust you equally tho?
---

Keep in mind I'm specifically referencing the most extreme level. Reigned in, actual equality is obviously superior, but that's not what the most extreme level of the far left is, despite what it claims.

You watch incidents like that video, are they truly going for equality there? Saying you want to stop white privilege, flying that as your banner, while at the same time telling anyone who would have the audacity to say anything to shut up and talk over the people.

And I don't feel the far left has ever had power so I don't know what you're asking.
---

Also keep in mind that nationalism, at a non extreme level, at its core boils down to limiting immigration and concern in the dealings of other countries when it's not to the benefit of the United States.

That's not a fundamentally racist or disgusting viewpoint-- there are certain benefits to be gained from that in terms of economics and security that could be weighed as a pros/cons thing, that wouldn't be rooted in race whatsoever. It's very easy to mistakenly make it about race, as certain races being more common in certain countries is just a fact that exists, but in theory it would entirely be about country of origin and not about race, as a black us citizen would have more "privilege" than a white immigrant from Ghana or whatever.

It's when taken to a more extreme level that it starts to gain a more deplorable and racist edge to it. Which, again, the extremism is the issue moreso than the nationalism.
---

Lopen posted...

Also keep in mind that nationalism, at a non extreme level, at its core boils down to limiting immigration and concern in the dealings of other countries when it's not to the benefit of the United States.

That's not a fundamentally racist or disgusting viewpoint

Honestly though it kinda is.
---

pretty sure nationalism is about stopping immigration, not limiting it. i doubt anyone says "i'm a nationalist and i just think immigration should be a bit more limited than it is now."
---

Not really, no

You'd let your brother or mother or friend spend the night at your house no problem if they needed somewhere to rest, or maybe even lend a few hundred bucks to em. You might even let someone you only casually knew from school if they really needed a place.

You wouldn't let some random dude off the street spend the night-- regardless of his race, you'd show some basic level of caution.

That's all nationalism is. Just at the level of country rather than home. I'm not saying that it's the best way of handling things necessarily, only that as an ideology in and of itself it's not really racist at all.
---

How many times has nationalism not led to racism and violence?
---

BowserCuffs posted...

How many times has nationalism not led to racism and violence?

India

uhhhh
---

Being at the country level is what makes it disgusting because it A) judges people off where they happened to be born rather than any inherent character trait and B) denies people that home-level control because now we CAN'T actually offer our home to whoever we want if the government ultimately controls who passes through borders and who doesn't.
---

How many times has anything not led to racism and violence? That's human nature, my dude.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i doubt anyone says "i'm a nationalist and i just think immigration should be a bit more limited than it is now."

Who said anything about "a bit" though. I just said limiting it. But any ideal has some amount of wiggle room. You can become a citizen of Russia for crissakes. I don't think anyone would deny Russia is nationalist.

The extent of limiting it is where the discussion is, and where you'd have the varying degrees of extremity in nationalism, but to say nationalism in and of itself outright bans all immigration no ifs ands or buts is silly.
---

Lopen posted...

Not really, no

You'd let your brother or mother or friend spend the night at your house no problem if they needed somewhere to rest, or maybe even lend a few hundred bucks to em. You might even let someone you only casually knew from school if they really needed a place.

You wouldn't let some random dude off the street spend the night-- regardless of his race, you'd show some basic level of caution.

That's all nationalism is. Just at the level of country rather than home. I'm not saying that it's the best way of handling things necessarily, only that as an ideology in and of itself it's not really racist at all.

There's a big difference between "I don't want a random dude in my house" and "I don't want a random dude in the same shopping mall as me."

Which is effectively what nationalism is on the individual level
---

StealThisSheen posted...

There's a big difference between "I don't want a random dude in my house" and "I don't want a random dude in the same shopping mall as me."

Which is effectively what nationalism is on the individual level

Nah. Your house is your country in this analogy. Random dude in the shopping mall is if nationalism didn't allow dudes in neighboring countries either.
---

Kenri posted...

A) judges people off where they happened to be born rather than any inherent character trait B) denies people that home-level control because now we CAN'T actually offer our home to whoever we want if the government ultimately controls who passes through borders and who doesn't.

That's still not racist in and of itself, though. There are reasons why that could matter that aren't rooted in race.

I don't support nationalism, and I think a lot of racist people claim they support it because they're racist, but it's not inherently racist.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

There's a big difference between "I don't want a random dude in my house" and "I don't want a random dude in the same shopping mall as me."

Which is effectively what nationalism is on the individual level

Nah. Your house is your country in this analogy. Random dude in the shopping mall is if nationalism didn't allow dudes in neighboring countries either.

But the analogy doesn't work. Unlike a house but much like a shopping mall, the chances of you even seeing this random dude are slim.
---

Lopen posted...

That's still not racist in and of itself, though. There are reasons why that could matter that aren't rooted in race.

I don't really care what the reasons are for it if the effect is hella racist.

(Or more specifically xenophobic if you wanna split hairs.)
---

Well no because you are not you in this analogy either. You are the Russian Federation. And yes the Russian Federation is gonna see this dude at all times.

Now, this is kinda why Nationalism has some problems-- because I don't want the country getting all up in my business that much-- but the analogy is accurate to what the ideal of Nationalism is.
---

Kenri posted...

I don't really care what the reasons are for it if the effect is hella racist.

(Or more specifically xenophobic if you wanna split hairs.)

Sure. I respect that too in saying why nationalism ain't all that. This is however more on the mindset of people who might be nationalists, and explaining why you can be a nationalist and not be a racist.
---

I mean, I'll agree that you can be nationalist and think you're not racist.
---

Lopen posted...

Well no because you are not you in this analogy either. You are the Russian Federation. And yes the Russian Federation is gonna see this dude at all times.

Now, this is kinda why Nationalism has some problems-- because I don't want the country getting all up in my business that much-- but the analogy is accurate to what the ideal of Nationalism is.

The analogy may work if you picture nationalism as a country that is somehow one individual, sure. But it doesn't work for those individuals who follow nationalism and believe in it.
---

What is inherently racist about it though?

Like, in pure nationalism, I could live next door to a Chinese dude, treat him with the utmost respect as a complete equal. Meanwhile, I could turn a white dude who's coming in from China away. These are things a nationalist can do and be completely consistent internally.

Because it's not about the race, it's just about where you were born-- and the more diverse the race makeup of the country, the less and less there's even a correlation.

It definitely fosters xenophobia, almost unavoidably, but that's also not necessarily something that's coming up in day to day life nearly as much. People don't wear their home countries on their sleeves. I'd imagine by the time you knew what specific country someone was from, you'd probably have overcome any inherent xenophobia stemming from nationalism.
---

Country as a house is a dumb analogy. You can't treat every single one of your countrymen the same as you would family, friends or roommates.

Apartment complex is a little better. You might not want a random stranger in your immediate living area, but one down the hall is not an issue
---

StealThisSheen posted...

The analogy may work if you picture nationalism as a country that is somehow one individual, sure. But it doesn't work for those individuals who follow nationalism and believe in it.

That's literally what nationalism is though. A strong unity between citizen and country is one of the hallmarks of the ideal. A pure nationalist (and yes I realize most nationalists wouldn't be considered this) is treating his country with the same respect he is treating his very own home.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

The analogy may work if you picture nationalism as a country that is somehow one individual, sure. But it doesn't work for those individuals who follow nationalism and believe in it.

That's literally what nationalism is though. A strong unity between citizen and country is one of the hallmarks of the ideal. A pure nationalist (and yes I realize most nationalists wouldn't be considered this) is treating his country with the same respect he is treating his very own home.

So then the idea is just as dumb as the analogy? Cool.

And you even admit most nationalists would not fall under that. Which means most nationalists are going to fall under something closer to the "I don't want a random dude in the same shopping mall" analogy. Which means a lot of nationalists are going to be more likely to be racist than "pure."
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Which means a lot of nationalists are going to be more likely to be racist than "pure."

Lopen posted...

I don't support nationalism, and I think a lot of racist people claim they support it because they're racist

Tru.
---

So, we thus get to the point that trying to describe a group by the pure form of the politics they label themselves under instead of the form they actually practice, and trying to say those should be treated separately, is weird.

Like, you're trying to say "Well, the alt-right are nationalists. Just because racist rednecks tend to be drawn to them doesn't really change that."

But the fact is that's a vast majority of the group, so trying to say "Well, the true form of the politics is this..." is in essence trying to hold the group up as something that it isn't.

You shouldn't separate the people/actions of the group from the politics of the group.
---

Keep in mind my entire point that got into this discussion was that alt-right people are extreme versions of an ideal that isn't completely broken-- since my whole point was that extremity is more of a problem than whether you're left or right.

I would in fact argue that if you're at the point where you can consider yourself a nationalist you're already too extreme and there's probably a better word for something that would preserve some good parts of the ideal without being totally xenophobic about it, but you know.

Point is, there are aspects of nationalism, that if taken to a much more conservative level, would not be something that would be inherently bad. I mean we already have that by controlling our borders at all, for example. I'm sure most people, even the most liberal of the liberal, think some amount of border control is a good thing.
---

Tomorrow's (or today I guess on the east coast) the one year anniversary of when the Billy Bush tape should have driven the final nail into the coffin of Donald Trump's campaign
---

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tillersonamerican-businesses-bribing-foreign-officials-2017-10

"After Trump took office, he told Tillerson that American businesses were being unfairly penalized by laws prohibiting them from bribing foreign officials"
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tillersonamerican-businesses-bribing-foreign-officials-2017-10

"After Trump took office, he told Tillerson that American businesses were being unfairly penalized by laws prohibiting them from bribing foreign officials"

Trump's been right about one thing - no matter what he does, people will continue to worship and adore him.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

Corrik, when you make a statement such as "this thing is as bad as this other thing," you immediately are comparing what you use as an example to the worst of the examples for "the other thing"

I mean, no. You are trying to tell me what I am saying at your own discretion. When I say "this is just as bad as running people over with a car", then you are correct. You are framing it and most likely there are motives to do so in this topic because instead of actually discussing the video there is more interest in minimizing it with something else from the other side to handwave it.

When you say "This thing is as bad as this other thing," you are equating it to the worst thing, yes. Nobody says "Jim is just as bad as John" and means "Jim is as bad as John when John's having a good day and not really being that bad."

Well, the problem is the mindset and the "us vs them" mentality that causes the extremists to think either action is something that's acceptable. The specifics behind the action are going to vary based on the individual. There's nothing inherently far right about hitting a dude with a car.

Trying to specifically make it about hitting a dude with a car vs a dumbass filibuster is just trying to win the argument for the sake of winning an argument. That's clearly not what he was getting at

"Both are a problem" is a different argument than "X is just as bad as Y." The latter is an attempt to either make something seem less bad, or imply something else is of that same level, in an attempt to make whatever side you're supporting not stand out so much as "This is bad."

Neither are acceptable, yes, that is true. But to go "X is just as bad as Y" is an attempt to try to absolve one side a bit.

This is where you guys fall apart. I am saying both are bad. Not absolving one side at all. Both ends disgust me.

Do they disgust you equally tho?

Pretty much.
---

How is being nationalist racist?

I think my country is better than France, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, India.

I hold the safety and regard of US citizens above all others. If saving 100,000 US citizens lives comes at the cost of 300,00 North Korean lives, I am forever supportive of it. If an African American, White American, Asian American, etc are at stake versus the lives of non-citizens of any race or nationality, I am choosing the citizens life barring extreme extenuating circumstances - mass murderer or such.

Supporting your country does not make you racist despite what the Left will tell you. It is respecting your country, understanding the goal of its government in protecting its country, and having pride and belief in your country's ideals.
---

It might not be racist, but it's xenophobic and downright nasty. In that post you just said that you value some lives over others based on the circumstances of their birth. That is pretty much the same key concept as racism, just targeted at nationalities instead of races. And they're both absolutely disgusting attitudes.

Anyway, I did just come into this topic to ask, has their been any discussion of the whole Bombadier situation? Because Trump is massively screwing the UK and Canada over.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

It might not be racist, but it's xenophobic and downright nasty. In that post you just said that you value some lives over others based on the circumstances of their birth. That is pretty much the same key concept as racism, just targeted at nationalities instead of races. And they're both absolutely disgusting attitudes.

Anyway, I did just come into this topic to ask, has their been any discussion of the whole Bombadier situation? Because Trump is massively screwing the UK and Canada over.

What is the point of our nation and defending of our nation and ideals if you do not put an importance of your citizens over others? What is even the point of governments and nations then to you? Why not just have one big world government? (Hint: it would never work practically)
---

the nationalist idea of "we should only care about our own nation" works when all governments are reasonably acceptable, but that's not the case, so...

north korea has literally been an open air concentration camp for ages, to say "welp, sucks for them, we have to care about our own citizens!" is incredibly immoral and totally lacking in empathy. i don't pretend to know what the best way of dealing with NK is, but doing nothing isn't it.
---