US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Optimus]

Or, you know, media and politicians are just pandering to what they think young people are into now a days like they always do.

I mean, that's just my theory.

And who popularized this shit amongst young people? I'm sure Buzzfeed and other clickbait rags for example had nothing to do with it , it just naturally happened, right?

I like this theory that the most powerful elements of society are secretly fomenting discontent towards cishet white guys. It has a certain je ne sais quoi.

lol @ cishet white guys, some people have been on neogaf for too long. They're forming discontent between different groups, men vs women, blacks vs whites and so on like they've always done except this time they're doing it in the name of so called tolerance because they can't use racism anymore like they did their rich daddies did some decades ago. Or they thought they couldn't, Trump proved them wrong on that one.

[Himu]

Um.

How did liberal elites start Blacks vs whites? Um. Pretty sure that's something that has 300 year history and more recently due to the treatment of Barack Obama by republicans, voter supression, black lives matters, the endless amount of documented footage of cops killing black people and getting away with it, the white response which is often plugging their ears or shouting all lives matter. You think someon is trying to divide us on this issue? How? It happened organically. When white people decided they don't like appreciate black people getting organized and rejecting a society that deems we are worth killing because of views create in antebellum, black and white relations got hella sticky and you'd have to be a fool to think it didn't happen any other way.

The same thing is with the women vs men. If you think this has something to do with what liberal elites have cooked up you have another thing coming. I went from man to woman. I had family take my opinion with respect and value to not remotely considering it. I have to make sure I don't speak loudly when I angry or else I'm a bitch. Have you ever had a man follow you for blocks and worry about your safety? But this is something that is recent? You are bugging.

Combine with the fact that social media has allowed people to seek people like themselves to form community and you have this result.

And thinking cis het comes from neogaf? Where did these new posters come from??

[Nola]

I do not disagree that identity politics and recent internet culture has been a contributing factor to the alt-right(or what we now define as the alt-right), but the primary driver? And rich liberal elites have driven this? I think as GAF overuses, I need to see receipts.

I mean just for instance, the whole identity politics being driven by the rich elite ignores the very real growth of "Privilege Theory" in academia and how that growth in prominence has shaped liberal youth. Maybe you have some citations of liberal elites chasing this strategy but I think it is a bit more nuanced and complex then that.

Intersectionality, critical race theory and other pseudo intellectual post-modernist bullshit have existed in academia for decades. The only thing that changed was that corporate media, and of course I'm including internet media in that list, started actively advertising it and hiring the unhirable idiots that graduated these degrees. The push for it the last 4-5 years has been so overwhelming and obvious that I don't really need more proof of it being shoved down our throats, the motivations behind it though are purely an educated guess. And I call it educated because this isn't the first and won't be the last time the ruling class is using identity politics to divide and distract the middle class, it's a historical fact that they're doing it especially in times of crisis.

You're cute.

[Optimus]

Um.

How did liberal elites start Blacks vs whites? Um. Pretty sure that's something that has 300 year history and more recently due to the treatment of Barack Obama by republicans, voter supression, black lives matters, the endless amount of documented footage of cops killing black people and getting away with it, the white response which is often plugging their ears or shouting all lives matter. You think someon is trying to divide us on this issue? How? It happened organically. When white people decided they don't like appreciate black people getting organized and rejecting a society that deems we are worth killing because of views create in antebellum, black and white relations got hella sticky and you'd have to be a fool to think it didn't happen any other way.

The same thing is with the women vs men. If you think this has something to do with what liberal elites have cooked up you have another thing coming. I went from man to woman. I had family take my opinion with respect and value to not remotely considering it. I have to make sure I don't speak loudly when I angry or else I'm a bitch. Have you ever had a man follow you for blocks and worry about your safety? But this is something that is recent? You are bugging.

Combine with the fact that social media has allowed people to seek people like themselves to form community and you have this result.

And thinking cis het comes from neogaf? Where did these new posters come from??

Oh please, don't act as if the media can't add fuel to the fire. A prime example of that is police brutality that, btw, affects everyone as the stats show. First they focus on police brutality from whites cops against black people to rile up black communities, not that some cops aren't racist pieces of shit but the exclusive focus on that is very telling, then when the riots happen they show black people fucking things up to rile up white suburban people.

And no I don't think cishet comes from neogaf, that's a monumentally dumb assumption to make, but I guess you really wanted to make it, didn't you?

You're cute.

k...

[Himu]

You...literally said Mandark has been on neogaf too much because he wrote cishet. Um...

As for the news media thing, um. I'll let someone else with a better temperament handle that one.

[Optimus]

You...literally said Mandark has been on neogaf too much because he wrote cishet. Um...

As for the news media thing, um. I'll let someone else with a better temperament handle that one.

Yes, I said it because neogaf is full of people obsessed with identity politics enough to use phrases like "cishet white guys". That doesn't mean I thought the term originated in GAF, obviously.

And sorry I made you angry by not following the official hipster narrative of the benevolent media that are just trying to educate society on the racial aspect of police brutality. I'm sure that's the only reason they're so obsessed with it the last few years. Funny how they don't do the same with the class aspect of police brutality for example, they might have found even more weird coincidences there. Gee, I wonder why.

[Nola]

Or, you know, media and politicians are just pandering to what they think young people are into now a days like they always do.

I mean, that's just my theory.

It can't be forgotten the bait and switch that happened in between his first posts and now lol. We went from a shadowy cabal of rich liberal elites that co-ordinated a successful mass propaganda campaign of the liberal wing of the country to adapt abrasive identity politics to it being an outcrop of organized corporate media interest-  that millennials don't really watch to begin with -  providing a platform for identity politics that founded the alt-right. As if the alt-right is some organic outcrop that just materialized and not just another in a long line of evolutions and re-branding and re-focusing of far-right conservatism.

[Optimus]

Or, you know, media and politicians are just pandering to what they think young people are into now a days like they always do.

I mean, that's just my theory.

It can't be forgotten the bait and switch that happened in between his first posts and now lol. We went from a shadowy cabal of rich liberal elites that co-ordinated a successful mass propaganda campaign of the liberal wing of the country to adapt abrasive identity politics to it being an outcrop of organized corporate media interest-  that millennials don't really watch to begin with -  providing a platform for identity politics that founded the alt-right. As if the alt-right is some organic outcrop that just materialized and not just another in a long line of evolutions and re-branding and re-focusing of far-right conservatism.

So let me summarize here, corporate media suddenly started spamming identity politics because, I don't know, they care, and the alt-right just started existing within a few years because it just did. There was absolutely nothing that the right reacted to to cause that monstrosity, right? Solid theories right there, you should write a book.

[Optimus]

dp

[Nola]

Or, you know, media and politicians are just pandering to what they think young people are into now a days like they always do.

I mean, that's just my theory.

It can't be forgotten the bait and switch that happened in between his first posts and now lol. We went from a shadowy cabal of rich liberal elites that co-ordinated a successful mass propaganda campaign of the liberal wing of the country to adapt abrasive identity politics to it being an outcrop of organized corporate media interest-  that millennials don't really watch to begin with -  providing a platform for identity politics that founded the alt-right. As if the alt-right is some organic outcrop that just materialized and not just another in a long line of evolutions and re-branding and re-focusing of far-right conservatism.

So let me summarize here, corporate media suddenly started spamming identity politics because, I don't know, they care, and the alt-right just started existing within a few years because it just did. There was absolutely nothing that the right reacted to to cause that monstrosity, right? Solid theories right there, you should write a book.

No, of course not. I mean who would ever be dumb enough to think this entire moment in history has numerous threaded influencers and causes. A complex alchemy of inputs. Some built up over years, decades even. That span everything from economics to social media culture to demographic shifts to urban/rural divides to education to shifts in journalism to multi-party partisan politics.

No, I am positive it is all the result of a coordinated effort on the part of shadowy liberal elites that no one can specify and their corporate media pawns. That over the course of just a few short years managed to successfully implement a mass propaganda campaign that indoctrinated millions of liberals into adapting abrasive identity politics athat created a completely new right-wing movement in response with followers that would of never ended up as right-wing apologists without that single variable. I mean what other possible explanation could there be?... Though for some reason the awe inspiring power to manipulate the minds of these people was unable to get people to actually vote when it mattered. Apparently they can influence to the very core of a vast swath of the electorate's thought process, but they can't get them to vote.

It all makes sense, I just wish someone out there had some concrete evidence that matches these bold claims with bold evidence.

[Optimus]

Or, you know, media and politicians are just pandering to what they think young people are into now a days like they always do.

I mean, that's just my theory.

It can't be forgotten the bait and switch that happened in between his first posts and now lol. We went from a shadowy cabal of rich liberal elites that co-ordinated a successful mass propaganda campaign of the liberal wing of the country to adapt abrasive identity politics to it being an outcrop of organized corporate media interest-  that millennials don't really watch to begin with -  providing a platform for identity politics that founded the alt-right. As if the alt-right is some organic outcrop that just materialized and not just another in a long line of evolutions and re-branding and re-focusing of far-right conservatism.

So let me summarize here, corporate media suddenly started spamming identity politics because, I don't know, they care, and the alt-right just started existing within a few years because it just did. There was absolutely nothing that the right reacted to to cause that monstrosity, right? Solid theories right there, you should write a book.

No, of course not. I mean who would ever be dumb enough to think this entire moment in history has numerous threaded influencers and causes. A complex alchemy of inputs. Some built up over years, decades even. That span everything from economics to social media culture to demographic shifts to urban/rural divides to education to shifts in journalism to political partisanship.

No, I am positive it is all the result of a coordinated effort on the part of shadowy liberal elites that no one can specify and their corporate media pawns. That over the course of just a few short years managed to successfully implement a mass propaganda campaign that indoctrinated millions of liberals into adapting abrasive identity politics that created a completely new movement with followers that would of never ended up as right-wing apologists without that single variable. I mean what other possible explanation could there be?... Though for some reason the awe inspiring power to manipulate the minds of these people was unable to get people to actually vote when it mattered. Apparently they can influence to the very core of a person's thought process but they can't get them to vote.

It all makes sense, I just wish someone out there had some concrete evidence that matches these bold claims with bold evidence.

History is also full of instances of the ruling class fueling tensions between different groups to distract, divide and blame others for their failures. I'm sure this has nothing with what is happening today, it's just a "complex alchemy of inputs" that suddenly happened the last ~5 years and you're apparently unable to pinpoint. But you're more than able to write 3 paragraphs full of sarcastic crap that pretty much summarizes into "Your theory is wrong, this happened because of reasons that aren't it".

[Mandark]

Multicausality itself is a myth propagated by our neoliberal overlords.

 

[Optimus]

Multicausality itself is a myth propagated by our neoliberal overlords.

 

So apparently not accepting a vague reference about an "alchemy of inputs"  as a valid counter-point to my very specific arguments is rejection of multicausality. That's some A+ quality mental gymnastics right there.

[Nola]

Multicausality itself is a myth propagated by our neoliberal overlords.

So apparently not accepting a vague reference about an "alchemy of inputs"  as a valid counter-point to my very specific arguments is rejection of multicausality. That's some A+ quality mental gymnastics right there.

You take issue with people not sourcing their opinions?

[Optimus]

Multicausality itself is a myth propagated by our neoliberal overlords.

 

So apparently not accepting a vague reference about an "alchemy of inputs"  as a valid counter-point to my very specific arguments is rejection of multicausality. That's some A+ quality mental gymnastics right there.

You didn't provide specifics, you provided assertions and declarations of fact.

Big claims require big evidence, so get getting.

I provided specific examples and specific arguments that are mostly based on by historical precedent. I thought it was a given that corporate media always tried to distract and divide the population, I wonder, are many of you liberals even doubting that part? I guess I've been hanging out in too many socialist hugboxes because I honestly thought that was a given.

[Nola]

Multicausality itself is a myth propagated by our neoliberal overlords.

 

So apparently not accepting a vague reference about an "alchemy of inputs"  as a valid counter-point to my very specific arguments is rejection of multicausality. That's some A+ quality mental gymnastics right there.

You didn't provide specifics, you provided assertions and declarations of fact.

Big claims require big evidence, so get getting.

I provided specific examples and specific arguments that are mostly based on by historical precedent. I thought it was a given that corporate media always tried to distract and divide the population, I wonder, are many of you liberals even doubting that part? I guess I've been hanging out in too many socialist hugboxes because I thought that was a given.

I think you confuse saying shit with sourcing shit.

Let me indulge your superiority for a minute, and perhaps hold my hand and walk me through this. Ideally with citations as my simple mind tends to get comfort from them. Explain to me how this shadowy conspiracy of coordinated liberal corporate media thats primary objective is to divide and conquer works? And to what end exactly?  And how that collaboration with rich liberal elites(which I assume you can name and thread how this process happened) was the sole cause of the rise of the alt-right and creation of abrasive identity politics?

I was formally under this, I guess, naive delusion that journalism and corporate media was heavily concentrated on TV and radio but relatively diversified elsewhere. That with regards to television, individual parent companies - that were often holders of a diverse portfolio of channels -  were primarily focused around profit generation. Beholden to what gets viewers and advertising dollars. Though, yes, some individual channels and even some parent companies have explicit political bends and agendas.

While alternatively internet and print is far more diversified and de-centralized. Where consumption is a product of personal desire or algorithmic formulas that cull feeds based on preferences. And then you have radio that is dominated by conservative programming across much of the country.


That this complex structure of news and entertainment was capable of both influencing and being influenced. And that such influences are not unique to this country. As many of the same themes, divides and cultural issues are present in many other Western societies right now. Lending to this naive notion in my head that at least some of this far-right rise is outside the control of American liberal influences and fuck ups and has other drivers feeding it.

[Optimus]

Multicausality itself is a myth propagated by our neoliberal overlords.

 

So apparently not accepting a vague reference about an "alchemy of inputs"  as a valid counter-point to my very specific arguments is rejection of multicausality. That's some A+ quality mental gymnastics right there.

You didn't provide specifics, you provided assertions and declarations of fact.

Big claims require big evidence, so get getting.

I provided specific examples and specific arguments that are mostly based on by historical precedent. I thought it was a given that corporate media always tried to distract and divide the population, I wonder, are many of you liberals even doubting that part? I guess I've been hanging out in too many socialist hugboxes because I thought that was a given.

I think you confuse saying shit with sourcing shit.

Let me indulge your superiority for a minute, and perhaps hold my hand and walk me through this. Ideally with citations as my simple mind tends to get comfort from them. Explain to me how this shadowy conspiracy of coordinated liberal corporate media thats primary objective is to divide and conquer works? And to what end exactly?  And how that collaboration with rich liberal elites(which I assume you can name and thread how this process happened) was the sole cause of the rise of the alt-right and creation of abrasive identity politics?

I was formally under this, I guess, naive delusion that journalism and corporate media was heavily concentrated on TV and radio but relatively diversified elsewhere. That with regards to television, individual parent companies - that were often holders of a diverse portfolio of channels -  were primarily focused around profit generation. Beholden to what gets viewers and advertising dollars. Though, yes, some individual channels and even some parent companies have explicit political bends and agendas.

While alternatively internet and print is far more diversified and de-centralized. Where consumption is a product of personal desire or algorithmic formulas that cull feeds based on preferences. And then you have radio that is dominated by conservative programming across much of the country.


That this complex structure of news and entertainment was capable of both influencing and being influenced. And that such influences are not unique to this country. As many of the same themes, divides and cultural issues are present in many other Western societies right now. Lending to this naive notion in my head that at least some of this far-right rise is outside the control of American liberal influences and fuck ups and has other drivers feeding it.

Within a couple of days facebook, google and a slew of other internet media companies suddenly decided that fake news is is the real culprit of the Trump phenomenon and took "appropriate" action. Within one fucking week everyone suddenly is talking about fake news, yeap, that's the real problem in American society. The narrative was also quickly adopted by traditional media.

But there's no collusion, the fact that this also happened with gamergate or other instances, like the week social media corporations out of the blue decided to enforce "anti-harassment" rules that aimed to turn social media into a liberal hugbox, is just mere coincidence. Nope no collusion there too. It's a diverse landscape of filthy rich San Fransisco hipsters that in no way collude with each other. As diverse as traditional media that are owned by a handful of people you could probably fit in a car.

[Nola]

So who's directing and coordinating those titans of industry and technology? And to what end and purpose? .....Wait, I think I figured it out!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

 

[Optimus]

So who's directing and coordinating those titans of industry and technology? And to what end and purpose? .....Wait, I think I figured it out!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

 

I gave specific examples of corporate internet media collusion that you asked for. Have the dignity to at least not respond.

[Nola]

So who's directing and coordinating those titans of industry and technology? And to what end and purpose? .....Wait, I think I figured it out!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

 

I gave specific examples of corporate internet media collusion that you asked for. Have the dignity to at least not respond.

You have unsourced declarations that are basically just excercises in begging the question.

As far as objective criteria for determining a persons assertions as being truth, we are currently on equal ground I feel.  You blame an unsourced cabal of coordinated liberal elites and media interests that are operating in uniform conspiracy to an end you can't specifiy in detail, while providing no concrete evidence to confirm this conspiracy...... I now blame the Jews. Just look at the evidence, it's self evident: AIPAC, Bob Iger, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Kissinger. How can you not see it!

   

[benjipwns]

I'm not sure exactly what is happening here but did want to comment out of my depth so Wrath and others can laugh at me. There's a fairly obvious explanation for why police brutality gets the coverage that it does in the way that it does favoring "identity" frames.

-People are sympathetic to victims of wrongs.
-But, people are generally pro-"law and order" and have no sympathy for criminals.

-Racist cops is an easy sell because they're, well, got an unique historical role that makes it easy to believe. And it also provides a simple solution, get rid of the clearly racist cops. It's the bad apple argument, it doesn't question the underlying system of abuse.

-A major cleavage watching coverage instantly will hook onto anything that "justifies" the police action, such as the person being a drug dealer, or possibly being involved in crime, or hypothetically sending mind bullets at police. A lot of the poor have this blight on their record, fairly or unfairly, or are doing something else wrong like being homeless or mentally ill. This justifies the "non-racist" abuse as can be seen in any comments section on a news story.

If the problem of police abuse is simply a racist one, it's solvable to Americans. You bring in a fixer like Trump and he gets rid of the bad apples and everything goes back to perfect where only criminals are being abused.

There doesn't need to be a secret cabal to back this up, most media relies on access to law enforcement authorities for most of their reporting. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. National news "escapes" this in a way that local news doesn't because talking heads at 30 Rock aren't the crime beat reporters in St. Louis or wherever.

[Optimus]

So who's directing and coordinating those titans of industry and technology? And to what end and purpose? .....Wait, I think I figured it out!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

 

I gave specific examples of corporate internet media collusion that you asked for. Have the dignity to at least not respond.

You have unsourced declarations that are basically just excercises in begging the question.

As far as objective criteria for determining a persons assertions as being truth, we are currently on equal ground I feel.  You blame an unsourced cabal of coordinated liberal elites and media interests that are operating in uniform conspiracy to an end you can't specifiy in detail while providing no concrete evidence to confirm this conspiracy...... I now blame the Jews. Just look at the evidence, it's self evident: AIPAC, Bob Iger, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Kissinger. How can you not see it!

   

As per usual you have said absolutely nothing. The FACT that these events I'm describing happened is indisputable and point to internet media collusion.  Facebook and google, the two biggest internet companies suddenly banning "fake news" (whatever the fuck that means given that there can't be an objective standard) is not a coincidence. The ridiculous number of articles that suddenly popped up spamming the internet is NOT a coincidence. But keep writing these pointless sarcastic posts, I'm sure they count as arguments in certain places.

[VomKriege]

I guess I've been hanging out in too many socialist hugboxes because I honestly thought that was a given.

Yes.

Identity issues have always been resolved throughout history by creating an educated, equal and stable society.

Please name your examples.

[Optimus]

I guess I've been hanging out in too many socialist hugboxes because I honestly thought that was a given.

Yes.

Identity issues have always been resolved throughout history by creating an educated, equal and stable society.

Please name your examples.

Reduction in racism, sexism, crime and so on is directly related to these factors. A very easy example of this is Scandinavian countries which has been confirmed both ways. To clarify, it was confirmed when these countries became social democracies and it's also being confirmed now that neoliberalism is sweeping Europe thanks to EU and even Scandinavian countries are starting to get affected so racism is on the rise. 

[benjipwns]

Please name your examples.

The 2002-03 San Antonio Spurs. The 2004-05 San Antonio Spurs. The 2006-07 San Antonio Spurs. The 2013-14 San Antonio Spurs.

[Nola]

So who's directing and coordinating those titans of industry and technology? And to what end and purpose? .....Wait, I think I figured it out!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

 

I gave specific examples of corporate internet media collusion that you asked for. Have the dignity to at least not respond.

You have unsourced declarations that are basically just excercises in begging the question.

As far as objective criteria for determining a persons assertions as being truth, we are currently on equal ground I feel.  You blame an unsourced cabal of coordinated liberal elites and media interests that are operating in uniform conspiracy to an end you can't specifiy in detail while providing no concrete evidence to confirm this conspiracy...... I now blame the Jews. Just look at the evidence, it's self evident: AIPAC, Bob Iger, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Kissinger. How can you not see it!

   

As per usual you have said absolutely nothing. The FACT that these events I'm describing happened is indisputable and point to internet media collusion.  Facebook and google, the two biggest internet companies suddenly banning "fake news" (whatever the fuck that means given that there can't be an objective standard) is not a coincidence. The ridiculous number of articles that suddenly popped up spamming the internet is NOT a coincidence. But keep writing these pointless sarcastic posts, I'm sure they count as arguments in certain places.

I said plenty that last post I fell. Proved nothing though. No dispute in that. Which unfortunately is where you are also at in my mind.

Pointing out observations or actions does not automatically prove a coordinated conspiracy amongst nameless elites and media titans to control people for nefarious purposes.

That is quite the leap to suggest any actions across multiple platforms must be indisputable proof of coordinated conspiracy with unified ulterior purpose...

Though I feel this is getting pretty far off track from the much more interesting earlier declarations that this same cabal orchestrated and coordinated a top down mass propaganda campaign to ingrain abrasive forms of identity politics to divide and conquer for more unspecified purposes.

[benjipwns]

President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday is expected to announce that he has chosen South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to be his ambassador to the United Nations, a source familiar with the decision confirmed.

[VomKriege]

I guess I've been hanging out in too many socialist hugboxes because I honestly thought that was a given.

Yes.

Identity issues have always been resolved throughout history by creating an educated, equal and stable society.

Please name your examples.

Reduction in racism, sexism, crime and so on is directly related to these factors. A very easy example of this is Scandinavian countries which has been confirmed both ways. To clarify, it was confirmed when these countries became social democracies and it's also being confirmed now that neoliberalism is sweeping Europe thanks to EU and even Scandinavian countries are starting to get affected so racism is on the rise.

Where do you rate sterilization programs disproportionately affecting women & questionable treatment of native populations on "identity politics" ?

EDIT : Let it me ask bluntly. Do you ascribe to historical materialism ?

[Optimus]

I guess I've been hanging out in too many socialist hugboxes because I honestly thought that was a given.

Yes.

Identity issues have always been resolved throughout history by creating an educated, equal and stable society.

Please name your examples.

Reduction in racism, sexism, crime and so on is directly related to these factors. A very easy example of this is Scandinavian countries which has been confirmed both ways. To clarify, it was confirmed when these countries became social democracies and it's also being confirmed now that neoliberalism is sweeping Europe thanks to EU and even Scandinavian countries are starting to get affected so racism is on the rise.

Where do you rate sterilization programs disproportionately affecting women & questionable treatment of native populations on "identity politics" ?

EDIT : Let it me ask bluntly. Do you ascribe to historical materialism ?

I don't have a strong opinion on it, I see it as a historical pattern not as a rule because if it were the second it would have numerous exceptions because humanity is... unstable.  There are certain aspects of human societies that depend on economics waaaay more than people realize though. Also, what does the first question have to do with the second one, I don't get it.

[Himu]

You...literally said Mandark has been on neogaf too much because he wrote cishet. Um...

As for the news media thing, um. I'll let someone else with a better temperament handle that one.

Yes, I said it because neogaf is full of people obsessed with identity politics enough to use phrases like "cishet white guys". That doesn't mean I thought the term originated in GAF, obviously.

And sorry I made you angry by not following the official hipster narrative of the benevolent media that are just trying to educate society on the racial aspect of police brutality. I'm sure that's the only reason they're so obsessed with it the last few years. Funny how they don't do the same with the class aspect of police brutality for example, they might have found even more weird coincidences there. Gee, I wonder why.

Who says I'm mad? I'm trying to learn how to be of the mindset that if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.

[Himu]

Or, you know, media and politicians are just pandering to what they think young people are into now a days like they always do.

I mean, that's just my theory.

It can't be forgotten the bait and switch that happened in between his first posts and now lol. We went from a shadowy cabal of rich liberal elites that co-ordinated a successful mass propaganda campaign of the liberal wing of the country to adapt abrasive identity politics to it being an outcrop of organized corporate media interest-  that millennials don't really watch to begin with -  providing a platform for identity politics that founded the alt-right. As if the alt-right is some organic outcrop that just materialized and not just another in a long line of evolutions and re-branding and re-focusing of far-right conservatism.

So let me summarize here, corporate media suddenly started spamming identity politics because, I don't know, they care, and the alt-right just started existing within a few years because it just did. There was absolutely nothing that the right reacted to to cause that monstrosity, right? Solid theories right there, you should write a book.

They covered it because it was relevant. It's not hard.

[agrajag]

 

[Himu]

Or, you know, media and politicians are just pandering to what they think young people are into now a days like they always do.

I mean, that's just my theory.

It can't be forgotten the bait and switch that happened in between his first posts and now lol. We went from a shadowy cabal of rich liberal elites that co-ordinated a successful mass propaganda campaign of the liberal wing of the country to adapt abrasive identity politics to it being an outcrop of organized corporate media interest-  that millennials don't really watch to begin with -  providing a platform for identity politics that founded the alt-right. As if the alt-right is some organic outcrop that just materialized and not just another in a long line of evolutions and re-branding and re-focusing of far-right conservatism.

So let me summarize here, corporate media suddenly started spamming identity politics because, I don't know, they care, and the alt-right just started existing within a few years because it just did. There was absolutely nothing that the right reacted to to cause that monstrosity, right? Solid theories right there, you should write a book.

No, of course not. I mean who would ever be dumb enough to think this entire moment in history has numerous threaded influencers and causes. A complex alchemy of inputs. Some built up over years, decades even. That span everything from economics to social media culture to demographic shifts to urban/rural divides to education to shifts in journalism to political partisanship.

No, I am positive it is all the result of a coordinated effort on the part of shadowy liberal elites that no one can specify and their corporate media pawns. That over the course of just a few short years managed to successfully implement a mass propaganda campaign that indoctrinated millions of liberals into adapting abrasive identity politics that created a completely new movement with followers that would of never ended up as right-wing apologists without that single variable. I mean what other possible explanation could there be?... Though for some reason the awe inspiring power to manipulate the minds of these people was unable to get people to actually vote when it mattered. Apparently they can influence to the very core of a person's thought process but they can't get them to vote.

It all makes sense, I just wish someone out there had some concrete evidence that matches these bold claims with bold evidence.

History is also full of instances of the ruling class fueling tensions between different groups to distract, divide and blame others for their failures. I'm sure this has nothing with what is happening today, it's just a "complex alchemy of inputs" that suddenly happened the last ~5 years and you're apparently unable to pinpoint. But you're more than able to write 3 paragraphs full of sarcastic crap that pretty much summarizes into "Your theory is wrong, this happened because of reasons that aren't it".

There's definitely a party that causes division by pointing out the other and they're having it better of a time than you and it's not democrats. Btw, using poor white peoples predisposition to feel superior to others is how elite whites have managed to rein in white people and cause division for decades if not centuries. They don't want poor whites to realize they share the same grievances of the system as black people or Latinos or natives. So they point how these people are ruining their livelihood. Once you do that, poor whites lose their damn minds. This tactic is nothing new and your school education has drastically failed you if you don't realize this. So you're kind of right, you're just using bad examples and lack the historical knowledge to articulate it.

It's not that the democrats are pointing out these things to divide. They point them out to help people. It's a part of the leftovers from when the Democratic Party was a party for the working class and fought for civil rights. Republicans wanting to fight this is what causes division. You have it the other way around.

[Himu]

You are really, really misinformed.

fake news thing started with an article post election from a journalist (forgot which, think it was guardian of wapo) pointing at Facebook for contributing to the election. It's a part of the "bubble" argument in that everyone is in their own bubble with their own views that can't be countered due to Facebook algorithms. A lot of people then on these sites post fake news links which spread misinformation and there's no one to say "lol that's fake don't believe their lies" because society is more insular due to social media. Zuckerberg even said "no Facebook fake news didn't contribute to this!" He was in denial. Over the next few days he came around and companies who once  shielded fake news are now fighting it because they now see the damage it can cause. They have realized that through this election their social media platforms without proper filters contributed to the election result. It isn't the main problem with society as you said, but it's definitely a problem. And those tech companies - most of whom are liberal - are flabbergasted by the result as anyone.

It's not hard.

[Himu]

Demi please close registration.

[Phoenix Dark]

Can we talk about David Brooks or something instead guys.

[Mupepe]

Demi please close registration.

Well look who turned into the Bore's Trump.

[etiolate]

You are really, really misinformed.

fake news thing started with an article post election from a journalist (forgot which, think it was guardian of wapo) pointing at Facebook for contributing to the election. It's a part of the "bubble" argument in that everyone is in their own bubble with their own views that can't be countered due to Facebook algorithms. A lot of people then on these sites post fake news links which spread misinformation and there's no one to say "lol that's fake don't believe their lies" because society is more insular due to social media. Zuckerberg even said "no Facebook fake news didn't contribute to this!" He was in denial. Over the next few days he came around and companies who once  shielded fake news are now fighting it because they now see the damage it can cause. They have realized that through this election their social media platforms without proper filters contributed to the election result. It isn't the main problem with society as you said, but it's definitely a problem. And those tech companies - most of whom are liberal - are flabbergasted by the result as anyone.

It's not hard.

jesus fuck you're all sorts of wrong

The media is scared that the clickbait route they took to stay financially afloat is having drawbacks. They SHOULD look at their own ethics, but it's easier to spin shit so schmucks think that some fake news turned the election.

This isn't real srs news v fake news. This is more National Enquirer vs Weekly World News. The stuff people are clicking through on facebook and reposting is ridiculous opinion pieces, celebrity gossip and various other non-news. This is true whether its buzzfeed, NYT or Breitbart. The real news went too far to the tabloid side and now realize they must fight other tabloid like crap.

The problem isn't trailer trash reading National Enquirer type stuff. The problem is the real news has a huge credibility problem. Rather than address that they are distracting you with this fake news bullshit. "All those fake sites are bad! Please listen to us who got the election all wrong! Not those fake sites that predicted this!"

If you don't want eight years of Trump then get your shit together.

[VomKriege]

My remark is that you state that "identity politics" (under which I assume you fill sexism & racism) resolves itself in just and equal societies, but Scandinavian Social Democracies have plenty of skeletons in their closets on this front too. The sterilisation policy was voted in by Social Democrats at the dawn of "Nordic Social Democracy" (with some racial and eugenics justifications, among other) and was kept in place until the mid-70, with questionable cases of targeted uses against native populations and what we now refer to commonly as Roma people, and very overwhelmingly was applied to woman (90%+, I believe). Sweden also forced sterilisation as a necessary step for transgender individuals until very recently (as a number of European countries still do).

It's not that I object that those issues are better adressed (or better buried) in a just & equal society, or that economic duress is a source for the popularity of regressive ideologies, but by and large "identity politics" transcends economic issues, and it is readily apparent in the history of most of what one could dub progressive countries or movements throughout the last two centuries. In that discussion you seem to belittle "identity politics" to little more than a subproduct of economic conditions / class struggle (hence my question) if not an outright fabrication of liberal elites. You also -something we exchanged quickly about in the GAF thread- seem to consider the so called "alt-right" hot topic purely as a reaction to "liberal discourse" -and similarly link the rise of apparent racism in Sweden to economic liberalism- all while being reluctant to accept the argument that it may also has its own agency, history and responsability running parallel and that the "alt-right", despite its nebulous borders, shares many arguments, methods, ideological focal points & personalities with longstanding far-right and neofascists movements that have existed continuously for the last 70 years.

I will have to side with Nola that you made some incredibly large and sweeping statements and offered no specifics beyond the supposed self-evidence of your examples.
The rise of coverage about police brutality may, for instance, also stem from the fact video evidence has become in the last 10 years widely more frequent because of smartphones and bodycams.

I'm not really interested in making walls of text on the matter, so agree to disagree I guess.

[Himu]

You are really, really misinformed.

fake news thing started with an article post election from a journalist (forgot which, think it was guardian of wapo) pointing at Facebook for contributing to the election. It's a part of the "bubble" argument in that everyone is in their own bubble with their own views that can't be countered due to Facebook algorithms. A lot of people then on these sites post fake news links which spread misinformation and there's no one to say "lol that's fake don't believe their lies" because society is more insular due to social media. Zuckerberg even said "no Facebook fake news didn't contribute to this!" He was in denial. Over the next few days he came around and companies who once  shielded fake news are now fighting it because they now see the damage it can cause. They have realized that through this election their social media platforms without proper filters contributed to the election result. It isn't the main problem with society as you said, but it's definitely a problem. And those tech companies - most of whom are liberal - are flabbergasted by the result as anyone.

It's not hard.

jesus fuck you're all sorts of wrong

The media is scared that the clickbait route they took to stay financially afloat is having drawbacks. They SHOULD look at their own ethics, but it's easier to spin shit so schmucks think that some fake news turned the election.

This isn't real srs news v fake news. This is more National Enquirer vs Weekly World News. The stuff people are clicking through on facebook and reposting is ridiculous opinion pieces, celebrity gossip and various other non-news. This is true whether its buzzfeed, NYT or Breitbart. The real news went too far to the tabloid side and now realize they must fight other tabloid like crap.

The problem isn't trailer trash reading National Enquirer type stuff. The problem is the real news has a huge credibility problem. Rather than address that they are distracting you with this fake news bullshit. "All those fake sites are bad! Please listen to us who got the election all wrong! Not those fake sites that predicted this!"

If you don't want eight years of Trump then get your shit together.

 

What does the media have anything to do with Google and Facebook cracking down on fake news? Are they in cahoots with the media?

[Himu]

My remark is that you state that "identity politics" (under which I assume you fill sexism & racism) resolves itself in just and equal societies, but Scandinavian Social Democracies have plenty of skeletons in their closets on this front too. The sterilisation policy was voted in by Social Democrats at the dawn of "Nordic Social Democracy" (with some racial and eugenics justifications, among other) and was kept in place until the mid-70, with questionable cases of targeted uses against native populations and what we know refer to commonly as Roma people, and very overwhelmingly was applied to woman (90%+, I believe). Sweden also forced sterilisation as a necessary step for transgender individuals until very recently (as a number of European countries still do).

It's not that I object that those issues are better adressed (or better buried) in a just & equal society, or that economic duress is a source for the popularity of regressive ideologies, but by and large "identity politics" transcends economic issues, and it is readily apparent in the history of most of what one could dub progressive countries or movements throughout the last two centuries. In that discussion you seem to belittle "identity politics" to little more than a subproduct of economic conditions / class struggle (hence my question) if not an outright fabrication of liberal elites. You also -something we exchanged quickly about in the GAF thread- seem to consider the so called "alt-right" hot topic purely as a reaction to "liberal discourse" -and similarly link the rise of apparent racism in Sweden to economic liberalism- all while being reluctant to accept the argument that it may also has its own agency, history and responsability running parallel and that the "alt-right", despite its nebulous borders, shares many arguments, methods, ideological focal points & personalities with longstanding far-right and neofascists movements that have existed continuously for the last 70 years.

I will have to side with Nola that you made some incredibly large and sweeping statements and offered no specifics beyond the supposed self-evidence of your examples.

I'm not really interested in making walls of text on the matter, so agree to disagree I guess.

Cuba is another place to look at.

There's rising hate crime against non-whites in countries like Sweden. But somehow these countries just don't have these problems! What.

It seems my pinning him as a brogressive was on the nose. He probably gets his news from r/socialism

[etiolate]

You are really, really misinformed.

fake news thing started with an article post election from a journalist (forgot which, think it was guardian of wapo) pointing at Facebook for contributing to the election. It's a part of the "bubble" argument in that everyone is in their own bubble with their own views that can't be countered due to Facebook algorithms. A lot of people then on these sites post fake news links which spread misinformation and there's no one to say "lol that's fake don't believe their lies" because society is more insular due to social media. Zuckerberg even said "no Facebook fake news didn't contribute to this!" He was in denial. Over the next few days he came around and companies who once  shielded fake news are now fighting it because they now see the damage it can cause. They have realized that through this election their social media platforms without proper filters contributed to the election result. It isn't the main problem with society as you said, but it's definitely a problem. And those tech companies - most of whom are liberal - are flabbergasted by the result as anyone.

It's not hard.

jesus fuck you're all sorts of wrong

The media is scared that the clickbait route they took to stay financially afloat is having drawbacks. They SHOULD look at their own ethics, but it's easier to spin shit so schmucks think that some fake news turned the election.

This isn't real srs news v fake news. This is more National Enquirer vs Weekly World News. The stuff people are clicking through on facebook and reposting is ridiculous opinion pieces, celebrity gossip and various other non-news. This is true whether its buzzfeed, NYT or Breitbart. The real news went too far to the tabloid side and now realize they must fight other tabloid like crap.

The problem isn't trailer trash reading National Enquirer type stuff. The problem is the real news has a huge credibility problem. Rather than address that they are distracting you with this fake news bullshit. "All those fake sites are bad! Please listen to us who got the election all wrong! Not those fake sites that predicted this!"

If you don't want eight years of Trump then get your shit together.

 

What does the media have anything to do with Google and Facebook cracking down on fake news? Are they in cahoots with the media?

cahoots? They have a business relationship.

It's the "real" news that's doing the fake news narrative and pulling it right after they fell flat on their face. The only "fake" news are sites that mimic popular news sites in the url like abc.com.co. However, the fake news narrative separates a Conservative Truthr or whatever from a site like Buzzfeed when both sites push out ridiculous crap.

The echo chamber of social media algorithms isn't what's being debated even though that's an actual issue.

[Great Rumbler]

Uh...what? There are actual, legitimately fake news articles being spread around on Facebook, I personally saw one during the election about how the Pope supported Donald Trump [or something to that effect]. It was categorically false in every sense of the word, not some opinion piece. Or what about the Macedonian village that was churning out news articles? We can have an argument about whether this problem is worth tackling or not, or whether it actually effected the election, to be to completely deny that this was a real thing is pretty ridiculous.

[etiolate]

I didn't deny there were fake news stories.

I am saying the narrative on this is spin from news outlets that don't want to compete with non-traditional outlets and that these traditional outlets lost a ton of credibility from posting false stories themselves and relying on sensational/outrage non-news stories for profit.

[Human Snorenado]

Guys, please don't talk to etoilet like he's a real person with opinions worth listening to. It triggers me.

[Samson Manhug]

#givehimachance

spoiler (click to show/hide)

People talk to am nintenho like he's a real person now

 

[close]

[Optimus]

My remark is that you state that "identity politics" (under which I assume you fill sexism & racism) resolves itself in just and equal societies, but Scandinavian Social Democracies have plenty of skeletons in their closets on this front too. The sterilisation policy was voted in by Social Democrats at the dawn of "Nordic Social Democracy" (with some racial and eugenics justifications, among other) and was kept in place until the mid-70, with questionable cases of targeted uses against native populations and what we now refer to commonly as Roma people, and very overwhelmingly was applied to woman (90%+, I believe). Sweden also forced sterilisation as a necessary step for transgender individuals until very recently (as a number of European countries still do).

It's not that I object that those issues are better adressed (or better buried) in a just & equal society, or that economic duress is a source for the popularity of regressive ideologies, but by and large "identity politics" transcends economic issues, and it is readily apparent in the history of most of what one could dub progressive countries or movements throughout the last two centuries. In that discussion you seem to belittle "identity politics" to little more than a subproduct of economic conditions / class struggle (hence my question) if not an outright fabrication of liberal elites. You also -something we exchanged quickly about in the GAF thread- seem to consider the so called "alt-right" hot topic purely as a reaction to "liberal discourse" -and similarly link the rise of apparent racism in Sweden to economic liberalism- all while being reluctant to accept the argument that it may also has its own agency, history and responsability running parallel and that the "alt-right", despite its nebulous borders, shares many arguments, methods, ideological focal points & personalities with longstanding far-right and neofascists movements that have existed continuously for the last 70 years.

I will have to side with Nola that you made some incredibly large and sweeping statements and offered no specifics beyond the supposed self-evidence of your examples.
The rise of coverage about police brutality may, for instance, also stem from the fact video evidence has become in the last 10 years widely more frequent because of smartphones and bodycams.

I'm not really interested in making walls of text on the matter, so agree to disagree I guess.

You said it yourself, it was at the Dawn of Nordic Social Democracy. social democracy doesn't educate people or create better individuals that respect others instantly, it takes time to create a mature society. The same applies to how that society is undone, capitalism has been creeping in Sweden for many years now and it's just showing.

And take into account that my every opinion is in comparison to the alternative. I'm not saying for example that economic solutions will solve everything but it's a far better path than obsessing over identity politics. We've seen what that will do to people, for every one of you that is interested in civil discussion there are five raging assholes like Himuro that firebomb every discussion and not only don't convince anyone but push people to the other side. The cancer of identity politics liberals has done far more harm than good, until ~2010 when these idiots appeared there was no alt-right and society was progressing pretty fucking smoothly despite the usual angry reactionary voices.

As for these people not being responsible for alt-right, dude I've seen it happen real time both in society and certain large online communities like reddit. For reddit specifically I've seen idiot SJWs push a large part of the power user community into the hands of the alt-right with their obnoxious behavior and authoritarianism. You can't dispute what happened with the_donald for example that was created mostly by contrarians who fucking despised reddit's leadership. And yes, it's that easy to push people to the other side, so maybe we should tell people to stop fucking doing it?

[Rufus]

#givehimachance

spoiler (click to show/hide)

People talk to am nintenho like he's a real person now

 

[close]

I've been trying to remember the name of that self-described schizoid dude who left around the time Magus took off, and all I can ever come up with is this, even though I know it's wrong. There has to be a connection to Nintendo, but I just can't remember.

[etiolate]

I will proudly continue to make the sociopaths uncomfortable. 

[Himu]

#givehimachance

spoiler (click to show/hide)

People talk to am nintenho like he's a real person now

 

[close]

Who is Am Nintenho now? Did he get a name change?

[I'm a Puppy!]

I will proudly continue to make the sociopaths uncomfortable. 

what you think you're doing


What you're really doing

[etiolate]

Honey, don't even try.

[Himu]

We've seen what that will do to people, for every one of you that is interested in civil discussion there are five raging assholes like Himuro that firebomb every discussion and not only don't convince anyone but push people to the other side. The cancer of identity politics liberals has done far more harm than good, until ~2010 when these idiots appeared there was no alt-right and society was progressing pretty fucking smoothly despite the usual angry reactionary voices.

I'm fucking lost, everyone. Civil discussion? Firebomb? You want civil discussion? You've been nothing but vague and pedantic this entire discussion?

[Rufus]

#givehimachance

spoiler (click to show/hide)

People talk to am nintenho like he's a real person now

 

[close]

Who is Am Nintenho now? Did he get a name change?

Browndolicious

[Himu]

Why are these right sympathetic people always conspiracy theorists?

[I'm a Puppy!]

Because the right loves authority. They can't conceive of a world where there's not some shadowy authority pulling the strings everywhere.

[Himu]

Let's firebomb this discussion Puppy-san.

[Phoenix Dark]

 Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary. Wow...

game over folks

spoiler (click to show/hide)

benji pls

[close]

[Himu]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-11-23-14-01-10

We are fucked.

[Steve Contra]

The cancer of identity politics liberals has done far more harm than good, until ~2010 when these idiots appeared there was no alt-right and society was progressing pretty fucking smoothly despite the usual angry reactionary voices.

Society was progressing smoothly until 2010?  Where in the fuck are you getting this stuff?