IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Iowa politics , racism charges , racism issues , republicans , Steve King , white nationalism , white nationalists

Reply
Old 10th November 2018, 07:15 PM   #161
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
What? They didn't borrow from the Trump playbook when caught making highly controversial remarks and claim King was 'just joking'?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2018, 08:42 PM   #162
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by baron View Post
A flatulent way of saying We've told you what to think and if don't immediately fall in line you're a racist.

I haven't contested any of the views expressed about King's character, only the frothing, impermeable dynamics of the discussion, which you uphold admirably.

I wouldn't dream of doing that. But what I will say is that threads like this are great for people who want to whine and feed off each other's outrage, not so great for any form of discussion and positively useless for propagating a logical argument that might change people's minds.
I don't see any reason why the OP question can't be taken as an open invitation to do just that. I must have missed any attempt to do that.

There is a very valid reason to "label" King as a white nationalist: As a legislator in a position to influence public policy, we should expect that he will advance and favor white nationalist policies. Other than the Trumpian "he won" defense, and even getting away from personalities, do you have a logical argument to support advancing the white nationalist policy agenda?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 05:10 AM   #163
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by baron View Post
This is what I mean. Instead of challenging his views we're invited to entirely dismiss him and everything he stands for and everything with which he is associated in one fell swoop. And as if that's not enough we're told he probably has even more extreme views in private! You know, probably. Ever wondered why people who interview the likes of Stephen Molyneux and Jared Taylor frequently come unstuck? It's not because the latter have hit upon some revolutionary truth, or even that they're speaking logically half the time, but because the interviewers think that flinging mud will be enough to get them through. And it's not, and that's why people like this are experiencing a recent surge of support because when it comes down to actual debate and engagement, they dominate. Ten years ago, maybe even a couple of years ago, the label of racist was enough to dismiss a person out of hand but the technique is so cliched and overused that it retains little of its power, and in the absence of effective opposition the far right is going from strength to strength right across the Western world.
Thanks to Stacko:


Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
King has called immigrants "dirt" when he thought he was only with a sympathetic audience, and then lied about it when challenged by the Weekly Standard.

It wasn't much of a stretch prediction by me - hence my use of the word "probably". The far-right are well aware that their views are considered repugnant (repubgnant?) but are extremists because they have a lot of hate, so do often say worse in what they think is private.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 06:59 AM   #164
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We used to go into discussions already agreed on the language and actually talked about the thing we were talking about, not about the discussion about the thing we were talking about.
No we didn't. We might remember some good conversations where progress was had (and I've had some in the internet era, too) but mainly, 'twas ever thus.

If we're reminiscing like old farts, the change I miss are the bull sessions over beer. It's not the same when there's always some guy with his phone out to look stuff up on wikipedia or tvtropes.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 07:29 AM   #165
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I've ranted before about how the primary reason (out of many) that argumentatives on the internet are all functionally broken is that at some point the official state sponsored religion of the internet became pedantics, with language pedantics the largest denomination, and "Pretending I simply just can't understand what people are saying as a delaying and stalling tactic" becoming Sunday Mass.

One shouldn't be treated like the bum in town square yelling at pigeons for saying "You know it used to be people could get together and have a conversation without pretending we had to stop and rebuild the entire language from scratch."

But no, I'm crazy Ralph from the Friday the 13th movies:

*As I'm lead back to the home* "No I'm serious. We used to go into discussions already agreed on the language and actually talked about the thing we were talking about, not about the discussion about the thing we were talking about."

"Sure Grandpa, whatever you say." *Twirls finger next to head.*
It depends. I think of "pedantry" as pointless attention to semantic accuracy, just for its own sake or as a way of bragging about ones knowledge, or sometimes apparently to deflect from an uncomfortable issue. That kind of stuff is easy enough to spot. On the other hand, there's a very good reason why "formal" debates require debaters to define their terms: to avoid wasting time talking past each other. Perhaps some of those times people disagreed with you, it was because they were just thinking in different terms, and maybe there were times you thought people were agreeing with you, but they didn't really understand what you meant.

ETA: In that spirit, my own short definition of racism is any discriminatory behavior that results from race-based chauvinism and xenophobia. It's hard to know what people think, but it's easy to see how they behave.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 11th November 2018 at 07:41 AM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 07:40 AM   #166
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
No we didn't. We might remember some good conversations where progress was had (and I've had some in the internet era, too) but mainly, 'twas ever thus.
And see this is what I'm talking about.

"Hey how about we actually talk about the topic and not about the discussion" is now somehow a controversial statement because:

A) The popular opinion is there is no difference between the topic and the discussion, that the meta is the thing and vice versa

B) The simple idea that just having a discussion without prep work is insane to even suggest or an unreasonable expectation.

C) That two people speaking the same language just yelling "I don't know what you are saying" at each other back and forth is a meaningful discussion.

The idea that so many people think that internet style dueling pedantics either was, is, or should become the "norm" way for humans to interact scares the balls off of me.

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
It depends. I think of "pedantry" as pointless attention to semantic accuracy, just for its own sake or as a way of bragging about ones knowledge, or sometimes apparently to deflect from an uncomfortable issue. That kind of stuff is easy enough to spot. On the other hand, there's a very good reason why "formal" debates require debaters to define their terms: to avoid wasting time talking past each other. Perhaps some of those times people disagreed with you, it was because they were just thinking in different terms, and maybe there were times you thought people were agreeing with you, but they didn't really understand what you meant.
Okay I'd buy that if a demand to "Let's stop and make the language clearer before we continue" ever actually resulted in the stated goal.

Most of the the time a demand to "make the language clearer" is a Jabbian attempt to force the discussion into a framework where the side demanding clarity has already won before the discussion is started.

Most of the rest of the time it's delaying and stalling tactic.

I can count on one hand of a bad shop teacher the number times a demand for "clarity" ever actually lead to "Oh I understand now, we can continue the discussion."
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 08:10 AM   #167
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And see this is what I'm talking about.

"Hey how about we actually talk about the topic and not about the discussion" is now somehow a controversial statement because:

A) The popular opinion is there is no difference between the topic and the discussion, that the meta is the thing and vice versa

B) The simple idea that just having a discussion without prep work is insane to even suggest or an unreasonable expectation.

C) That two people speaking the same language just yelling "I don't know what you are saying" at each other back and forth is a meaningful discussion.

The idea that so many people think that internet style dueling pedantics either was, is, or should become the "norm" way for humans to interact scares the balls off of me.



Okay I'd buy that if a demand to "Let's stop and make the language clearer before we continue" ever actually resulted in the stated goal.

Most of the the time a demand to "make the language clearer" is a Jabbian attempt to force the discussion into a framework where the side demanding clarity has already won before the discussion is started.

Most of the rest of the time it's delaying and stalling tactic.

I can count on one hand of a bad shop teacher the number times a demand for "clarity" ever actually lead to "Oh I understand now, we can continue the discussion."
And all of that has always been the case. This isn't a decadent crumbling of modern society, it's basic human nature you're trying to fight. What makes you think it was different before the internet? You think there weren't pedantic jackasses who'd use encyclopedias the way they use wiki links today? You think people didn't whip out dictionaries like they do dictionary.com?

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 11th November 2018 at 08:12 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 08:11 AM   #168
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I can count on one hand of a bad shop teacher the number times a demand for "clarity" ever actually lead to "Oh I understand now, we can continue the discussion."
You may have responded before I edited my post to include my definition of "racism," because it doesn't seem that everyone in the thread is using the same definition. Do you agree with that definition, and if not, why not?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 08:21 AM   #169
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
You may have responded before I edited my post to include my definition of "racism," because it doesn't seem that everyone in the thread is using the same definition. Do you agree with that definition, and if not, why not?
Well that's sort of my point though. Clarity is a two way street.

Yeah we could argue that not everybody is using the same definition of racism and this is causing issues in this thread. And yes that's "technically true."

And I would counter that racism didn't used to have multiple definitions we had to suss out before we could get the party started.

Words having nuance and a variation of exact meanings depending on the exact context and "level" for lack of a better term the discussion is taking place at has always been a thing.

Everybody acting like Picard in that one episode of Star Trek where he's talking to the alien that can only speak in metaphors is new.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 08:25 AM   #170
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
And all of that has always been the case. This isn't a decadent crumbling of modern society, it's basic human nature you're trying to fight. What makes you think it was different before the internet? You think there weren't pedantic jackasses who'd use encyclopedias the way they use wiki links today? You think people didn't whip out dictionaries like they do dictionary.com?
Because I'm fairly certain at some point in the grand scope of human history we've actually had a discussion that actually went somewhere.

Like I said show me the last discussion on this board that went more than a page and involved an actual meaty topic that didn't devolve into pedantic quibbling and then just putter out.

Maybe you're correct and the pedantics have always been there. The difference is a conversation used to be able to go to pedantics and come back out because the pedants where edge cases that only had to be tokenly acknowledged, they weren't the conductors running the orchestra.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 09:00 AM   #171
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because I'm fairly certain at some point in the grand scope of human history we've actually had a discussion that actually went somewhere.
Well, yes, and I still find that's easier to do at the bar with two or three friends than on the internet. I try to ignore people who don't really want the discussion to "go somewhere" (okay, sometimes I can't resist a poke), and I try instead to engage with people who at least are trying to explain their positions. If I don't think one or the other of us (or some third party) might at least gain some perspective on an issue, whether or not we "resolve" anything, I don't waste my time.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 09:19 AM   #172
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,328
Can a racist be a fair legislator?
Can those feelings be put aside in the interest of the constituency?
At what point does the vehemence of racism preclude the benefit of the doubt?
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 09:37 AM   #173
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Can a racist be a fair legislator?
Can those feelings be put aside in the interest of the constituency?
At what point does the vehemence of racism preclude the benefit of the doubt?
Well, maybe when they support policies like The Wall, the Muslim Ban, the family separation policy, sending the army against asylum seekers, ending birthright citizenship, limiting immigration from "****hole" countries... stuff like that?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 10:01 AM   #174
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,328
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, maybe when they support policies like The Wall, the Muslim Ban, the family separation policy, sending the army against asylum seekers, ending birthright citizenship, limiting immigration from "****hole" countries... stuff like that?
I agree. I didn’t claim I was making a stout defense. But there are unquestionably folks in the US Legislative branch with racist tendencies who are able to legislate without their racism intruding
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 10:17 AM   #175
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, maybe when they support policies like The Wall, the Muslim Ban, the family separation policy, sending the army against asylum seekers, ending birthright citizenship, limiting immigration from "****hole" countries... stuff like that?
Is the latter something Steve King recommends? In which case I agree wholeheartedly. All immigration should be limited, and immigration from **** hole countries doubly so.

There, I knew I had it in me to defend him.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 10:18 AM   #176
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
I never doubted that, baron
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 10:25 AM   #177
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
When everyone is a racist, white supremacist, transhomophobe, misogynist, then no-one is.

Thankfully, Republicans aren't "everyone".

Originally Posted by baron View Post
I can't debate his views because I don't know them.
Originally Posted by baron View Post
There you go. Even saying that I don't know about his views is enough to be called out and labelled.

Well, what are we supposed to make of a person that instinctively throws up their shield to defend someone against accusations of racism, without caring if the person they are defending is actually a racist or not?

Almost as if racism itself is the thing you're defending by acting as if all accusations of such are ridiculous.

Seems understandable that one might question the motivation of such a wilfully ignorant and persistent defense.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 11th November 2018 at 10:26 AM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 11:02 AM   #178
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Your side has a literal racist Nazi elected to a position of government power and authority on it."
"Yeah but your side isn't arguing about it the right way"
QFT


Originally Posted by baron View Post
No worries, you carry on then, under the delusion that you're 'having a discussion' when it's clear what you're doing is making an assertion and daring anybody to even debate it, let alone disagree. You haven't understood a single word I've said.

Still, I'm not one to be contrary, so here goes. Ahem...

Steve King is a racist



OK, so that was great. To anybody else who wishes to join in this stimulating debate I urge you to copy and paste the above five words, with added invective if deemed necessary. In this way progress will be made.
Have you considered that the reason nobody can understand what you are saying is because you are being incoherent?

I have no idea whether you think that Steve King's racism is a good thing or a bad thing.

I have no idea what your point is - except possibly that some people might be unfairly accused of racism.

However in this case, that hasn't happened.

Maybe you think that some racists have good policies on (say) immigration, but because the proponents are fairly labelled as racist, people dismiss their policies.

Maybe you don't?

Who knows? From the evidence I can see, nobody in this thread does.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 11:16 AM   #179
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
I agree. I didn’t claim I was making a stout defense. But there are unquestionably folks in the US Legislative branch with racist tendencies who are able to legislate without their racism intruding
Yes, that's why my definition of racism is discriminatory behavior caused by certain beliefs. Some racists don't mind telling you exactly what those beliefs are, but sometimes we accuse people of being racists based on behavior that appears to have those same motivations, even though we don't really know what's going on in their heads. The defense against those accusations, however, is to give a credible non-racist explanation for the behavior. And of course, if racist beliefs don't actually result in racist behavior, we'd never know about them.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 11:32 AM   #180
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Is the latter something Steve King recommends? In which case I agree wholeheartedly. All immigration should be limited, and immigration from **** hole countries doubly so.

There, I knew I had it in me to defend him.
Why?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 12:21 PM   #181
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,328
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Why?
Well, I certainly didn’t expect a less-stout defense than mine, but here we are.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 12:28 PM   #182
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Can a racist be a fair legislator?
Can those feelings be put aside in the interest of the constituency?
At what point does the vehemence of racism preclude the benefit of the doubt?
If I am an elected "Representative" of a constituency, and hold a belief that some of my constituents (who are citizens) are "dirt" or probably criminals, then I can't represent them fairly. Likewise, if I am involved in the justice system and make my prejudices (indeed prejudicial biases) public I can't be seen to be impartial.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 12:29 PM   #183
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,819
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Why?
Why should immigration from ******** nations be restricted? Because ******** nations are ******** nations because the people there make them that way. Bring enough people from ******** nations into your nation and it will turn into a ******** nation.

If you want to improve the quality of life for people in ******** nations, you provide resources to help them in place. Bringing the best and the brightest from ******** nations into your country improves their lives but deprives the ******** nations of the people who can actually make a difference.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 12:35 PM   #184
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Why should immigration from ******** nations be restricted? Because ******** nations are ******** nations because the people there make them that way. Bring enough people from ******** nations into your nation and it will turn into a ******** nation.

If you want to improve the quality of life for people in ******** nations, you provide resources to help them in place. Bringing the best and the brightest from ******** nations into your country improves their lives but deprives the ******** nations of the people who can actually make a difference.
So, your defense of King is, "So what? Lots of us are racists."
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 12:49 PM   #185
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Why should immigration from ******** nations be restricted? Because ******** nations are ******** nations because the people there make them that way. Bring enough people from ******** nations into your nation and it will turn into a ******** nation.

If you want to improve the quality of life for people in ******** nations, you provide resources to help them in place. Bringing the best and the brightest from ******** nations into your country improves their lives but deprives the ******** nations of the people who can actually make a difference.
Has if occurred to you that s-hole nations are s-hole nations not because they have s-hole people but s-hole people in charge? The people have little power over corrupt governments that control the military and imprison or murder those who attempt to change those s-hole people in charge. Haiti is a classic example.

Do you think Trump gives a s*** about improving lives in those s-hole countries by sending them aid or doing jack else to help them? Hell no. Remember, he's "USA First" and screw everybody else. Get real.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 12:58 PM   #186
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
Seems the answer to the question why almost nobody from the right is calling out Steve King's racism is because they agree with his racism. At least if Baron and CaptainHowdy are representative of right wing thought.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 01:39 PM   #187
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,511
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Bringing the best and the brightest from ******** nations into your country improves their lives but deprives the ******** nations of the people who can actually make a difference.
It generally results in remittances sent directly to citizens of their country of origin, as opposed to foreign aid that is ripped off by corrupt governments. So it can make a difference in those countries.

I also think the U.S. benefits from these exchanges in several ways.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 03:17 PM   #188
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,328
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Why should immigration from ******** nations be restricted? Because ******** nations are ******** nations because the people there make them that way. Bring enough people from ******** nations into your nation and it will turn into a ******** nation.

If you want to improve the quality of life for people in ******** nations, you provide resources to help them in place. Bringing the best and the brightest from ******** nations into your country improves their lives but deprives the ******** nations of the people who can actually make a difference.
I’m going to, from now on, refer to the American south as “the ******** states.”
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 03:52 PM   #189
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,530
If bandying about stereotypes is a way to make a point...

What do the white trailer park trash knuckledraggers do to contributing to the S-hole status of the US? The nation would make a bloody good bargain if a one-for-one trade was made by shipping that lot to any one of the so-called "S-hole" countries in exchange for the same number of their citizens who *want* to emigrate. I guarantee you that.

But white racists consider even the lowest, meanest and dumbest of their kind to be superior to the best of the non-whites.

As noted already, those supposedly "S-hole" countries are in poorer straights because of economic history and poor management. And even then there's a tendency to exaggerate in the minds of the ignorant. For instance, as I understand it, the education level of the average Nigerian immigrant bests that of the average home-sprouted USAian.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 04:14 PM   #190
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because I'm fairly certain at some point in the grand scope of human history we've actually had a discussion that actually went somewhere.

Like I said show me the last discussion on this board that went more than a page and involved an actual meaty topic that didn't devolve into pedantic quibbling and then just putter out.

Maybe you're correct and the pedantics have always been there. The difference is a conversation used to be able to go to pedantics and come back out because the pedants where edge cases that only had to be tokenly acknowledged, they weren't the conductors running the orchestra.
Do you mean USA politics, or the ISF in general? There's been a lot of good threads on the science board that have changed my outlook on topics, sometimes in fairly dramatic ways. In USA politics, I fondly remember the Objectivism threads we had with Dinwar a couple of years ago. Those were also mostly pedantic quibbling, but about something that everyone involved cared about, pedantry or no.

Actually, a thought occurs to me. You're making the Democrat mistake of defending the means and assuming the ends will follow. It seems to me you should be less concerned with the form our arguments here take, and more concerned with how many of them are just people feeding trolls. It doesn't matter how pedantic people get as long as they care enough to wrestle to a conclusion. Nor does it matter how eloquent a troll or partisan hack can be, the discussion won't ever be productive because that's not why the troll/hack is in it.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 05:24 PM   #191
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
If his job is to set policies for how the company is run, punctuality and a good work ethic aren't enough.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, should your employer even know about your personal views? Much less act on them?

I seems like if we embrace that principle, it won't be long before business run by theists are firing atheists and vice-versa.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 05:59 PM   #192
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, should your employer even know about your personal views? Much less act on them?

I seems like if we embrace that principle, it won't be long before business run by theists are firing atheists and vice-versa.
If someone sits in the breakroom and loudly voices their repugnant views, I can’t really fault their employer for taking action.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 06:47 PM   #193
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
If someone sits in the breakroom and loudly voices their repugnant views, I can’t really fault their employer for taking action.
Nor would I, but if he's doing that he's not compartmentalizing and he has it coming.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 07:33 PM   #194
xjx388
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
I reject the whole “crappy” nation idea. I think they are nations with crappy leaders. America can benefit from the good people from them that want to come here. I think we should prioritize those people and limit other people. If you are smart, ambitious and want to contribute here, then I welcome you no matter where you come from or what color your skin is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 07:42 PM   #195
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Seems the answer to the question why almost nobody from the right is calling out Steve King's racism is because they agree with his racism. At least if Baron and CaptainHowdy are representative of right wing thought.
To be fair (if still not charitable), only about "half" of them. My best guess is the rest just don't care because it doesn't affect them personally.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 08:22 PM   #196
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
When you're talking about defending Steve King, are talking about the books or the movies?*



*with apologies to Joe Morque, of course.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2018, 08:27 PM   #197
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Nor would I, but if he's doing that he's not compartmentalizing and he has it coming.
Of course, when you are re-tweeting and rubbing shoulders with white supremicists, you aren't really compartmentalizing, either. So that's Steve King....
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 02:49 AM   #198
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by baron View Post
You haven't called me a racist, that's true, but you desperately want me to do anything other than vehemently condemn this King character so that situation may be remedied.
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Why should immigration from ******** nations be restricted? Because ******** nations are ******** nations because the people there make them that way. Bring enough people from ******** nations into your nation and it will turn into a ******** nation.

If you want to improve the quality of life for people in ******** nations, you provide resources to help them in place. Bringing the best and the brightest from ******** nations into your country improves their lives but deprives the ******** nations of the people who can actually make a difference.
So, your defense of King is, "So what? Lots of us are racists."
I sometimes wonder if I'm making a post or writing a script for a play. People just can't help themselves.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 04:46 AM   #199
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
It's kind of funny in that the argument comes full circle back on itself that way.

"Some people make overly broad generalizations with the label 'racism', don't really examine individual claims, and use it to stop conversations, therefore I'm going to assume you all are using it wrong like everyone on the left, will not examine this individual claim, and will not discuss this with you on the assumption you're arguing in bad faith."

It's just...painfully silly. Some people do misapply accusations of racism, use it to stop examining why those ideas are wrong, and use it to 'write-off' people completely. That does not support the conclusion that King isn't a serious problem that should be talked about.
But it makes a great way to ignore the nazi ties to the republican party. As seen here so often.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2018, 08:02 AM   #200
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,092
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I sometimes wonder if I'm making a post or writing a script for a play. People just can't help themselves.
Well, one thing you're not doing is "propagating a logical argument."

Originally Posted by baron View Post
Is the latter something Steve King recommends? In which case I agree wholeheartedly. All immigration should be limited, and immigration from **** hole countries doubly so.

There, I knew I had it in me to defend him.
Why?
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.