*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

Who'da saw that coming?

Well, one of the people who saw it coming was this guy on Twitter, who was talking about the poisoned spy...

My guess? This is part of a bigger script, with another "alleged Russian chemical attack" scheduled to happen in Syria within a few weeks. At which point the US and UK will claim to have justification for an all-out war in the Middle East.

[boost]

Well, one of the people who saw it coming was this guy on Twitter, who was talking about the poisoned spy...

If you're gonna tinfoil hat, then fucking tinfoil hat.

Your twitter friend could be a Russian agent, planting the seeds of chaos.

[Poopadoop]

If you're gonna tinfoil hat, then fucking tinfoil hat.

Your twitter friend could be a Russian agent, planting the seeds of chaos.

I don't think the Russian agent's story is that outlandish. Doesn't mean he isn't a Russian agent though.

What bemuses me most is how quick Ong is to assume the worst about his own government while simultaneously having such a hard time imagining the worst about any of its enemies.

[OngBonga]

If you're gonna tinfoil hat, then fucking tinfoil hat.

Your twitter friend could be a Russian agent, planting the seeds of chaos.

Sure it could be. Just like the perfectly English statement released by Yuria Skirpal could actually have been writeen by her.

But, to borrow a government phrase... balance of probabilities.

[OngBonga]

You can't be surprised at his response though given he just hired that war nut Bolton to head the NSA.

I guess I don't really pay attention to who he hires. He's in charge, isn't he? Well, it's not looking like it any more. I thought he was fighting the deep state for control, seems they won, or he was just always a liar.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...742275584?s=21

[Poopadoop]

The problem isn't that Trump is telegraphing his intentions when he previously criticised Obama for the same thing. The problem is he has no clear intentions to begin with and is just spouting off like a nutjob.

[wufwugy]

he has no clear intentions to begin with

He makes his core beliefs well known and doesn't telegraph his moves.

[boost]

He makes his core beliefs well known and doesn't telegraph his moves.

Handwaving.

[wufwugy]

Handwaving.

How so?

[OngBonga]

Handwaving.

He says, waving his hand.

[oskar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/u...rtnership.html

getting shit done!

[Jack Sawyer]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/u...rtnership.html

getting shit done!

Mr. Trump’s decision to throw out the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his pledge to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement were bedrock promises of his populist campaign, which centered heavily on unfair trade practices that he said had robbed American manufacturers and workers.

#MAGA

[Jack Sawyer]

Tonight:

[boost]

Ha, the worm one is good.

As for fire with fire, I think the phrase is implying that the use of fire in warfare is less than honorable, but if the other side uses it against you, you respond in kind. Not 100% on that, but, yeah, I think it's abbreviating "when you opponents fights with fire, you should fight with fire in response."

[oskar]

This is theology.

[wufwugy]

This is theology.

What is?

[wufwugy]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...343321600?s=09

Given his track record on tweeting "questions" that a few months later end up revealing as things he already knew the answer to, looks like we're in for some very enlightening shit.

[oskar]

What is?

I can't believe you're not seeing the ridiculousness of your comment, unless, and that might be the caveat, you also don't see the ridiculousness of theology.

[wufwugy]

What do you think I meant?

[oskar]

I don't think that you know what you meant. That's the point.
Only actions count. Why would I, or anyone, care what Trumps "core believes" are? He can believe he's a bunny rabbit for all I care. Makes no difference unless he acts on it.

[wufwugy]

Only actions count.

Absolutely. Those who pay attention to his actions mostly make up his supporters, which is why many know what he believes. Those who pay attention to his words instead of actions mostly make up his detractors, and they understand very little about him because of it.

[Jack Sawyer]

Absolutely. Those who pay attention to his actions mostly make up his supporters, which is why many know what he believes. Those who pay attention to his words instead of actions mostly make up his detractors, and they understand very little about him because of it.

TIL Trump is (More) Capitalist Joel Osteen

[oskar]

This is theology.

[Jack Sawyer]

This is theology.

More accurately, it's a cult of personality. Basically the same thing, except the deities are living entities and responsible for their own techniques.

I'd tell wuf to realize this and get out of it while he can, but this may be a truly hard thing to do.

[wufwugy]

Be sure to note that you guys are telling me I believe things that I do not.

[oskar]

It's frustrating to argue against. Do I really have to point out that if you put "which is why" in the middle of your sentence, the subsets before and after should be connected in some way?

Absolutely. Those who pay attention to his actions mostly make up his supporters, which is why many know what he believes. Those who pay attention to his words instead of actions mostly make up his detractors, and they understand very little about him because of it.

Two sentences. Two non sequitur's.
Even if it made any sense, why... why would you even waste your brain on thinking about that. This is of no substance any way you turn it. This is pure religion.

[oskar]

I'm not telling you that you believe things, I'm telling you that you're stumbling around in a fog, grasping at air.

[Jack Sawyer]

Be sure to note that you guys are telling me I believe things that I do not.

Ok ok

Millions of people understand his core beliefs quite well. Other millions don't pay attention to that which shows his core beliefs, instead paying attention to his surface level movement.

So do you or do you not believe in Trump's core beliefs, which as of right now are all over the place and changing every day which ends in a "y"?

The problem with Trump's core beliefs is his beliefs are whatever you want to believe they are. He is literally all over the place.

He does one thing and then his supporters will claim it is what he wanted to do all along, and then does the exact opposite thing, and then his supporters will still claim it is what he wanted to do all along. It's comical really when you look at it from a distance, but then becomes saddening and tragic once you realize he also has nuke codes AND takes orders, or at least suggestions on domestic and foreign policies which he executes with remarkable consistency, from a TV show. A fucking TV show.

Does he not have anything better to do than watch a TV show?

Take the TPP U-turn for example

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-deal-reversal

[oskar]

I disagreed with you using a meaningless and unprovable axiom to reach an unrelated, irrelevant conclusion. I understand perfectly well why I disagree with that, as should you.

edit: post deleted, but I'll leave the reply so I can copy and paste it when it becomes relevant again in a day or two.

[wufwugy]

I disagreed with you using a meaningless and unprovable axiom to reach an unrelated, irrelevant conclusion. I understand perfectly well why I disagree with that, as should you.

edit: post deleted, but I'll leave the reply so I can copy and paste it when it becomes relevant again in a day or two.

Here's what happened:

I said this:

He makes his core beliefs well known and doesn't telegraph his moves.

It is a key observation that many people have made in the past, yet it is an observation that is rarely accepted among those who do not like Trump. It is something that I have personally been consistent on, so I have at least an n=1 of behaving like his core beliefs and move telegraphs are distinct and understood by me.

Then I was told I was handwaving

Then I responded by pointing out that tons of people see it the way I do.

Then I was told I was saying something meaningless and being theological.

Then I was told that I don't even know what I meant (I do).

And then more of the above, but I'll stop here


The gap in this conversation is that it's not even a conversation. I'm being told what I think, that I don't know what I think, that my points are not points, etc..

[boost]

Here's what happened:

I said this:



It is a key observation that many people have made in the past, yet it is an observation that is rarely accepted among those who do not like Trump. It is something that I have personally been consistent on, so I have at least an n=1 of behaving like his core beliefs and move telegraphs are distinct and understood by me.

Then I was told I was handwaving

Then I responded by pointing out that tons of people see it the way I do.

Then I was told I was saying something meaningless and being theological.

Then I was told that I don't even know what I meant (I do).

And then more of the above, but I'll stop here


The gap in this conversation is that it's not even a conversation. I'm being told what I think, that I don't know what I think, that my points are not points, etc..

Quite the victim you are.

If you can't see how closely your argument regarding Trumps "core beliefs" mirrors a defensive Christians arguments regarding why god does/doesn't do this or that, then I'm not sure what to say. I'm open to the idea that my "trump-hate" is biasing me away from being able to discern his true message, but if this is the case, you're doing an awful job of making the case-- to make the case convincingly you need to clearly distinguish it from the "well it's because you don't have faith" argument the religious will throw at you.

[wufwugy]

I see you enjoy horoscopes.

Quite the victim you are.

If you can't see how closely your argument regarding Trumps "core beliefs" mirrors a defensive Christians arguments regarding why god does/doesn't do this or that, then I'm not sure what to say. I'm open to the idea that my "trump-hate" is biasing me away from being able to discern his true message, but if this is the case, you're doing an awful job of making the case-- to make the case convincingly you need to clearly distinguish it from the "well it's because you don't have faith" argument the religious will throw at you.

In literary analysis, it's really easy to miss the forest for the trees. My views looking theological is the trees.

In your defense, my articulation is probably misleading.

[oskar]

Some days ago:
https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/c...4f&sh=677fd317
https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/c...x4&sh=0f1283ee
https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/c...ge&sh=3132c687



https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/c..._so_perfectly/

[Poopadoop]

^ Cliffs:

When the Deep State wants missile strikes, they're deathmongers. When Trump does it, he's a hero.

[wufwugy]

^ Cliffs:

When the Deep State wants missile strikes, they're deathmongers. When Trump does it, he's a hero.

It's different people with different opinions, not the same people flipping about.

[Poopadoop]

It's different people with different opinions, not the same people flipping about.

They might as well be the same people. A bunch of them are looking to blame anyone but Trump for everything. Another bunch are giving Trump credit for everything.

[wufwugy]

They might as well be the same people. A bunch of them are looking to blame anyone but Trump for everything. Another bunch are giving Trump credit for everything.

Those certainly happen, and they're especially vocal when there is something new that touches their emotions (like Syria).

[wufwugy]

The_Donald definitely has every bit of problems as other echo chambers

[oskar]

It's different people with different opinions, not the same people flipping about.

I had a suspicion that this was incorrect and it's a good excuse to refresh my bash scripting.
Here's a list of users that the three before-posts had in common with the mission accomplished one. To their credit some didn't change their opinion.

[�]trollelepiped
[�]ZomboltLA
[�]medvedmama
[�]RichandlerCA
[�]socialgadfly420USA
[�]nickyfingazz
[�]Nalcomis
[�]NalgahydeAmerica
[�]stjdalen
[�]coralsnake1776
[�]obewan901
[�]retrosynthwave
[�]ZomboltLA
[�]medvedmama
[�]RichandlerCA
[�]socialgadfly420USA
[�]Nalcomis
[�]stjdalen
[�]coralsnake1776
[�]obewan901
[�]retrosynthwave
[�]theorymeltfoolGA[S]
[�]Vanguarde2020
[�]derkman96SD
[�]Hillarysdilddo_2016

might contain duplicates. I did it stupidly, but the overlap should be correct.

[wufwugy]

scripting

That's such a cool skill to have.

[oskar]

[wufwugy]

He makes his core beliefs well known and doesn't telegraph his moves.

I'll expound on why I say this:

He holds a lot of different surface level positions for purpose of negotiation, yet when things are all said and done, the results align with base beliefs that have been coherent from the beginning.

[wufwugy]

A good encapsulation of his core beliefs is his Supreme Court nomination. He's said all sorts of shit on courts; he's said stuff like his liberal pro-abortion sister would be a great SCOTUS judge (IIRC). When you look at what he has said on topics related to the Supreme Court, you can make an easy case that he's incoherent or not conservative or any sort of thing.

But what happened is that from the beginning, the majority of conservatives who voted for him believed that he was a strong conservative and that he would nominate a strong conservative to replace Scalia. How did they "know" that? Who knows? There are theories. Regardless, they believed it, and Trump confirmed it when his final move on the Scalia replacement was to create a list of acceptable conservative judges and promise to nominate one of them if he wins.

At that time, maybe he didn't know which judge, but every one of them was well liked by conservatives. Even so, a lot of discussion went on and that list got narrowed down and finally the judge Trump nominated was widely considered by conservatives the best choice he could have made given the circumstances.

So what we have here is a situation where if you look at what Trump says, you get all sorts of different stuff, but if you look at what Trump does (more specifically what his meaningful actions are), the result landed square on a strongly conservative position. The question then could be "but does he truly believe those conservative things", and the answer could be "who knows?" What we do know is that he consistently lands on results that conservatives like even though what he says might be all over the place.

Of course, this raises another question: "is what he says actually all over the place, or are we missing something or seeing something that isn't there?" I think the answer is probably yes and no. I think he truly does say some stuff he doesn't necessarily believe because that's good negotiation tactic. Though I also think that a good deal of the time he's saying what he truly believes but he doesn't articulate well, so it looks different than he intended. I could be wrong, who knows

[wufwugy]

i fuckin lol'd

[boost]

Thanks for asking.

Regarding politics, his core beliefs are a mix of conservative/libertarian/classic liberal, and they're pretty much all America First. This includes stuff like he wants to in general reduce government regulation of business, reduce taxes, and reduce crime. On social stuff, he generally wants increase individual freedom. On foreign policy, he respects domains (like he isn't into toppling regimes) and carries a big stick and follows through. On immigration and trade, he's about reducing crime and special treatment.

If we go into detail into any of these, I think we can find that even as what he telegraphs can be contradictory, the final landing spot is coherent. Taking Syria related foreign policy for example, he has said things like we shouldn't bomb yet also said things like we should bomb. Maybe it's poor articulation on his part for why he says inconsistent things or maybe it's negotiation tactic, but at least we have context to work with. The contexts show things like this: he thinks setting a red line and backing down is retarded, he thinks toppling regimes that haven't broken international relations enough and are not a threat to other countries to warrant toppling is retarded, he thinks telegraphing your actual moves in war is retarded.

A good encapsulation of his core beliefs is his Supreme Court nomination. He's said all sorts of shit on courts; he's said stuff like his liberal pro-abortion sister would be a great SCOTUS judge (IIRC). When you look at what he has said on topics related to the Supreme Court, you can make an easy case that he's incoherent or not conservative or any sort of thing.

But what happened is that from the beginning, the majority of conservatives who voted for him believed that he was a strong conservative and that he would nominate a strong conservative to replace Scalia. How did they "know" that? Who knows? There are theories. Regardless, they believed it, and Trump confirmed it when his final move on the Scalia replacement was to create a list of acceptable conservative judges and promise to nominate one of them if he wins.

At that time, maybe he didn't know which judge, but every one of them was well liked by conservatives. Even so, a lot of discussion went on and that list got narrowed down and finally the judge Trump nominated was widely considered by conservatives the best choice he could have made given the circumstances.

So what we have here is a situation where if you look at what Trump says, you get all sorts of different stuff, but if you look at what Trump does (more specifically what his meaningful actions are), the result landed square on a strongly conservative position. The question then could be "but does he truly believe those conservative things", and the answer could be "who knows?" What we do know is that he consistently lands on results that conservatives like even though what he says might be all over the place.

Of course, this raises another question: "is what he says actually all over the place, or are we missing something or seeing something that isn't there?" I think the answer is probably yes and no. I think he truly does say some stuff he doesn't necessarily believe because that's good negotiation tactic. Though I also think that a good deal of the time he's saying what he truly believes but he doesn't articulate well, so it looks different than he intended. I could be wrong, who knows

I see you enjoy horoscopes.

[oskar]

And thanks for clarifying.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

If you work at Starbucks, or know anyone who works at Starbucks.....tell them to call out sick on May 29th

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/17...-released.html

The chain announced Tuesday that more than 8,000 of its U.S. stores will close for several hours on May 29 to hold racial-bias training

[OngBonga]

If you work at Starbucks, or know anyone who works at Starbucks.....tell them to call out sick on May 29th

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/17...-released.html

Stop showing your innate racism and say sorry for being white.

[BananaStand]

Stop showing your innate racism and say sorry for being white.

I'm sure you're being sarcastic here. But there are millions of voices out there saying the same thing in a way that is NOT sarcastic. And it's a problem.

I really hope we see more pushback against this. We probably won't though, which is positively terrifying.

[BananaStand]

This bullshit needs to be STOPPED!!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/healt...cks/index.html

[OngBonga]

I really hope we see more pushback against this. We probably won't though, which is positively terrifying.

I'm not scared. I'll just quietly get old and give zero fucks what anyone else thinks of me. If the rest of the world wants to implode into a cesspit of hypocrisy, who am I to stop them?

I'll enjoy my white privilege by putting some reggae on and drinking a Chinese (or Indian?) beverage while smoking a plant that was once banned in USA to make it easier to criminalise blacks [citation needed].

#whitepower

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...] while smoking a plant that was once banned in USA to make it easier to criminalise blacks Nixon's political opponents, i.e. hippies [citation needed].

FYP

The difference in criminal punishments between powdered cocaine and rock cocaine is an example of laws which criminalize blacks differently than whites, since powdered cocaine use is more of a white people thing and crack (rock) cocaine use is more of a black people thing.
... as I understand it.

[BananaStand]

... as I understand it.

Your understanding is not great.

The difference in criminal punishments between powdered cocaine and rock cocaine is an example of laws which criminalize blacks cheaper, more addictive, more easily distributed and therefore more pervasive drugs differently than whites less cheap, less addictive, less easily distributed and therefore less pervasive drugs, since powdered cocaine use is more of a white affluent people thing and crack (rock) cocaine use is more of a black poor people thing.

FYP

One would think that trying to help the poor and lower class by clamping down hard on something that is a vicious scourge on their communities would be a good thing.

But not in Insane-o-merica

[OngBonga]

FYP

Yeah I knew full well I was on tenuous ground as I was typing, but I was also smoking and it seemed apt.

[BananaStand]

I'm not scared.

you should be

I'll just quietly get old and give zero fucks what anyone else thinks of me

That's fine. But it matters what you think of other people. And if they don't like what you think. they will MAKE you think something they like.

If the rest of the world wants to implode into a cesspit of hypocrisy, who am I to stop them?

Wrong question. The rest of the world wants to be able to MAKE you follow them into that cesspit of hypocrisy. So the right question is...how are you gonna stop them?

[OngBonga]

The rest of the world wants to be able to MAKE you follow them into that cesspit of hypocrisy. So the right question is...how are you gonna stop them?

I just won't follow them. How are they gonna make me?

[BananaStand]

I just won't follow them. How are they gonna make me?

Well, for one thing, you can't work at Starbucks unless you succumb to racial bias re-training. Also, from the CNN article, you can't be a commander in the Philadelphia Police Department either.

You are now required to submit your mind to processes engineered for the purpose of shaping your thoughts along the lines of someone else's preferred ideology. And if you don't, your livelihood will suffer.

This practice is very quickly spreading through corporations. At any moment, Ong, someone from your company's HR department could come up to you and say "Sir, you're white. And even though you've existed in society without incident for some 40+ years already, we've decided that your life's actions are not sufficient evidence to prove that you can interact objectively with people of other races. However, your mere skin color IS sufficient evidence to prove that you can't."

And then you either go along with that assessment, or you can't earn a living. By the way, you're forced to make this decision knowing that there is ZILCH for scientific evidence suggesting that implicit bias affects behavior.

Ya know Ong, I know your general philosophy of life is to "give zero fucks", but you really gotta draw a line somewhere. Are you really saying that 'thought control' is something you can just shrug off with a sip of tea and a spliff??

[oskar]

Are you familiar with the North Carolina voter ID law controversy? Since you don't seem to think that there has been any discrimination of minorities since 1863, I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.

[OngBonga]

Also, from the CNN article, you can't be a commander in the Philadelphia Police Department either.

I don't really see a problem with some kind of racial awareness training for the police, since they have a very sensetive job.

But, I would expect this to be a lesson in what kind of language and actions offends certain races and religions, for cultural reasons, ie shoes in mosques and all that shit. Not a lecture on white privilege.

[wufwugy]

Well, for one thing, you can't work at Starbucks unless you succumb to racial bias re-training. Also, from the CNN article, you can't be a commander in the Philadelphia Police Department either.

You are now required to submit your mind to processes engineered for the purpose of shaping your thoughts along the lines of someone else's preferred ideology. And if you don't, your livelihood will suffer.

This practice is very quickly spreading through corporations. At any moment, Ong, someone from your company's HR department could come up to you and say "Sir, you're white. And even though you've existed in society without incident for some 40+ years already, we've decided that your life's actions are not sufficient evidence to prove that you can interact objectively with people of other races. However, your mere skin color IS sufficient evidence to prove that you can't."

And then you either go along with that assessment, or you can't earn a living. By the way, you're forced to make this decision knowing that there is ZILCH for scientific evidence suggesting that implicit bias affects behavior.

Ya know Ong, I know your general philosophy of life is to "give zero fucks", but you really gotta draw a line somewhere. Are you really saying that 'thought control' is something you can just shrug off with a sip of tea and a spliff??

The minority rule. How a small subset changes the whole. It's like how it was easier for Coke to go entirely Kosher instead of partially Kosher or non-Kosher even though practicing Jews make up a very tiny portion of their customer base.

[OngBonga]

I guess there's not a lot I can do about it except for refuse to play their game.

If I was a Starbucks employee, I'd refuse to go. If my employers (who I value more than Starbucks) try to make me do this shit, well I'd either refuse to go, or if I sucked on it and just turned up, I would pay no attention and just consider it one long tea and biscuits break. You can take a horse to water blah blah.

Noone can make you do anything. You make decisions based on the potential outcomes. If being bored for half a day while I'm patronised to is better than losing my job, well I'll suck it up. But what changed? Nothing. My company ticked a fucking box, now they can't get sued for failing to train their staff when a white employee offends a minority.

Whatever. Tea and biscuits please.

[oskar]

Unless you can demonstrate that there is a company wide policy at starbucks to call the police on people who are sitting and waiting to order until their friend arrives, I don't think you can make the case that that incident had nothing to do with racism.

[BananaStand]

Unless you can demonstrate that there is a company wide policy at starbucks to call the police on people who are sitting and waiting to order until their friend arrives, I don't think you can make the case that that incident had nothing to do with racism.

I admit I haven't done a deep-dive into the facts of this case. But what's been reported by the handful of mainstream news sources where I've read stories about this....I don't see any facts whatsoever that suggest racism. The mere coincidence that the caller was white, and the arrested were black is evidence of nothing except the fact that some people are black, and some people are white.

From what I gather, they asked to use the bathroom and were told that it was for paying customers only. Instead of being decent members of the marketplace and buying a fucking cup of coffee, they decided to insist on an insane premise that they have the right to be on private property for no reason. WTF

And "I'm waiting for my friend" is not a valid reason. Wait for your fucking friend outside cunts.

They were asked to leave multiple times, and refused.

I'd call the cops too.

Starbuck's corporate response is so over-the-top it's almost disgusting. They're clearly incredibly afraid of being characterized as racist and suffering the PR consequences enacted by radical leftist ideologues. They are over-apologizing and deplorably hanging their employee out to dry. And by doing so...they are implicitly validating the claims of racism. And that just makes the identity politics monster even bigger.

[boost]

Also, let's back up a bit-- I believe your initial observation was that Trump makes his core beliefs clear to his supporters. Later you seem to pivot to the idea that his ultimate actions are used with hindsight to clarify what statements of his were real.

It seems like you're swapping the causation around as it suits you. Which is it? Or am I missing something here-- I don't want to put words in your mouth/tell you what you think.


In the mean time, I'll toss my theory hat into the ring-- I think you have most of the pieces right, and that you're the most right when you say that his actions make his core beliefs clear. What I think though is that he doesn't have any core beliefs in the sense you're using the term. I think he's extremely talented at reading his audience, and he uses them as a sounding board. Then he delivers on what gets the best response. The twist though is that this is just the first step. It creates a mental link between "Trumps decision" and "my preference" with his supporters. This is what is scary. This is what makes the "I could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square" quote so troubling. This is how cults of personality arise.

The leader doesn't kick off the party by cucking you and the rest of the men in the group... that comes after he's got you to tether your preferences to his desires.

[wufwugy]

I think you have most of the pieces right, and that you're the most right when you say that his actions make his core beliefs clear.

That's the crux of it.

What I think though is that he doesn't have any core beliefs in the sense you're using the term. I think he's extremely talented at reading his audience, and he uses them as a sounding board. Then he delivers on what gets the best response.

That can certainly be true. Though I approach that which caution since it is gonna be more rare for somebody like him and in this circumstance to be insincere than sincere.

The twist though is that this is just the first step. It creates a mental link between "Trumps decision" and "my preference" with his supporters. This is what is scary. This is what makes the "I could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square" quote so troubling. This is how cults of personality arise.

What's troubling? Do you think he actually could shoot somebody in Times Square and not suffer severe consequences from his base? Because he couldn't, not by a long shot. This "cult" is in peoples' minds who don't like him (or his supporters).

Here's what happened: he said something relatively normal and colloquial, and people laughed. Then others who make a living off of mischaracterizations, mischaracterized and fooled a bunch of good people into believing the mischaracterizations.

[oskar]

The reasoning in this case was that legislators had requested voter data by demographic, and later passed this law. It seems to me that they are making a correlation/causation link and I'm not seeing any evidence for that.

Why would they request a voter breakdown by race when the purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud?
And it isn't about just photo ID's. They systematically inconvenienced people based on race, and the supreme court agreed. There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier. You seem to know a good deal about it, but the actual supreme court document seems to have escaped you.

[BananaStand]

Why would they request a voter breakdown by race when the purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud?
And it isn't about just photo ID's. They systematically inconvenienced people based on race, and the supreme court agreed. There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier. You seem to know a good deal about it, but the actual supreme court document seems to have escaped you.

Then justice was served. What's your beef?

[oskar]

Then justice was served. What's your beef?

The only reason I asked is to see if I can find anything you would view as racist. If you don't think a law that the supreme court agreed targeted black people with surgical precision was racist, then I don't have to try to convince you of anything, because nothing can be racist in your eyes.

[BananaStand]

The only reason I asked is to see if I can find anything you would view as racist. If you don't think a law that the supreme court agreed targeted black people with surgical precision was racist, then I don't have to try to convince you of anything, because nothing can be racist in your eyes.

You're going to have to do more than just point to an outcome that disproportionally affects one segment of the population and then claim that segment is being victimized. That's like the reddest of red flags to me. Demanding equality of outcome, and then playing an oppressor/oppressed victimization game whenever you don't get it, is a deplorable method for influencing policy.

It's entirely possible that these guys in Starbucks just didn't like being asked to leave. For whatever entitled bullshit reason, they felt that they had some kind of right to occupy space inside a private business, without patronizing that business. And what you have there is a simple pissing match, not racist oppression.

The result in this case is the EXACT result that I literally fear will cause a civil war in this country. In this case, the conflict is de-escalated because of Starbucks' willingness to succumb to the radical leftists demands. First, it's to fire, shame, and besmirch the white oppressor, and then to brainwash the remaining employees into thinking exactly the way they identity politics ideologues demand that they think. That game is going to end real fucking bad.

because nothing can be racist in your eyes.

You've only presented me with two samples for evaluation. One is the starbuck's incident where the employee was simply enforcing company policy against two guys who deliberately chose to be stubborn ass holes. The other is a clear as mud controversy over a piece of legislation that is heavily disagreed upon among high-ranking justices.

I think it's pretty shitty to accuse me of having an overall philosophy of dismissing racial complaints based on these two murky-as-fuck situations. Yes racism exists. And it's bad. And I hope it's discovered, stopped, prosecuted, and punished whenever it happens. But that doesn't mean I'm about to blame white privilege, or rail against some nefarious anglo-saxon dominance heirarchy conspiracy. That's a fucked up game. And it's about political power, not equality.

Certain issues disproportionally affect black people because black people are disproportionally poor. They're disproportionally poor because of individual behaviors that affect prosperity. Your chances of living in poverty in America are less than 10% if you simply A) Finish high school B) don't have babies out of wedlock and C) Dont' have a baby before age 20. That's it. White privilege isn't making black boys drop out of school. White privilege isn't knocking up black teens. White privilege isn't preventing black couples from getting married and raising their kids in a cohesive nuclear family.

Show me where black kids are being denied opportunities, and I'll cry "racism" right along with you. But if you're going to point to inequalities of outcome, I'm just gonna shake my head.

[OngBonga]

I guarantee every single employee will pass. It'll be like when I got my fork lift license. You basically have to be missing an arm, or blind, to fail.

A given company will do this shit because they fear negative publicity or legal problems if one of their white employees fucks up by doing their job at a minority. So all the company gives a fuck about is signatures. All staff have signed to say "yeah we get it" so the company can bask in the good publicity that being racially aware brings.

Noone will get fired, because companies will also fear those consequences.

Our Starbucks employee got reassigned to another cafe, as I understand. That's not fired.

[wufwugy]

They systematically inconvenienced people based on race

How does this compare to what happened in control districts?

[BananaStand]

Why would they request a voter breakdown by race when the purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud?

I haven't seen where the two were specifically connected. Those could just be two things that happened. If your livelihood is dependent on election results, I would think that you would be interested in all sorts of data. Do we know for a fact that they ONLY asked for voter breakdown by race? Do we know for a fact that they had no access to voter data broken down by age, by income, or by any of dozens of other demographic factors??

And it isn't about just photo ID's.

Really? Every photo-ID legislation is accused of being about racism. It doesn't work the other way around?

They systematically inconvenienced people based on race,

That's a speculative accusation

and the supreme court agreed.

A possibly activist court agreed. Another court, also possibly activist, disagreed. So who knows what the "right" conclusion is. I'd say the picture here is about as clear as mud. So I'm really curious how you're so sure this is all driven by pure, malevolent racism.

There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier.

So??? There are probably dozens of reasons that certain polling location might be closed or moved. There are probably dozens of reasons why voting hours are what they are. It's possible that those reasons are benevolent. It's possible that they're not. But if they're not, it's possible they could be motivated by something other than racism.

It seems ridiculous to me that legislators would want to specifically suppress black people. A more effective game, would be to suppress low income voters. That's still bad, but it's not racist. If those voters just happen to be mostly black....that's black people's problem.

[oskar]

Thanks for asking!