NegativeSoul said: For any problems he had, he's a good person and that's enough for me.
Celesphonia said: I don't care what he is to them or what they did to him, but for me, Joe Biden is a good man. See you, Space Cowboy.
And the hair sniffing? Not a red flag? How about a few classics from the man himself; "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle" "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean." "You ain't black."
Besides, why would you make such character judgements about a guy you've only known from mass media? I feel pretty confident in betting that you're not his friends and don't know him personally.
Calling everyone who doesn't vote for your party "garbage" is definitely something a decent person would do.
Not defending Biden, that was certainly a very unprofessional thing to say, but keep in mind that it came from Trump, his news network, and his supporters saying far worse about Biden and dems for years before, unprovoked and often totally baseless.
Not to mention that again the entire thing was prompted by a speaker from Trump's own camp deciding to call US citizens "island of garbage" and his crowd cheering for it. That's what tribalism turn people into, squablling bullies whose entire egos are based on throwing childish insults to the opposition.
azurelorochi said: keep in mind that it came from Trump, his news network, and his supporters saying far worse about Biden and dems for years before, unprovoked and often totally baseless. on.
The Puerto Rico joke certainly seems unwarranted, don't know where that came from. But do you really want to suggest the left is a bunch of innocent angels who didn't spend about a decade by now calling Trump supporters "deplorables", uneducated, racists, fascists, nazis, homophobes, bigots, "domestic terrorists", "a clear and present danger to our democracy", etc.? At least don't say there was no provocation. Yes, the partisan insults can be traced back further than either of us can trace, but it was when Trump ran for presidency that the gloves and civility really came off, and the left (and a good deal of the establishment right) went from mockery to broad, moral condemnation of Trump supporters in a way no other set of US voters have been treated with in living memory.
It is bit weird, I have seen tons of people openly call to kill all whites but at least I have not seen open call to incite violence against minorities.
Against pedophiles, sure, but they abandoned human rights with their deeds. If violence against pedophiles feels attack againt aphabet-people, maayybe the cult is a problem..
The Puerto Rico joke certainly seems unwarranted, don't know where that came from. But do you really want to suggest the left is a bunch of innocent angels who didn't spend about a decade by now calling Trump supporters "deplorables", uneducated, racists, fascists, nazis, homophobes, bigots, "domestic terrorists", "a clear and present danger to our democracy", etc.?
As said, both sides are guilty of reducing all conversations to insult-shit throwing. Both sides call the other side fascist, and the current split and radicalization clearly came from the fact both sides' politicians and news medias actively encourage this behavior.
But that said, at least from my POV the left at least is much more willing to criticize their leaders whereas the right's entire identity is that their god emperor Trump can do no wrong. Not to mention the right's more "USA first" jingoism clearly breeds a lot more of bully attitude be it the fearmongering against minorities which is the whole heart of Trump's platform, and after January 6, I think calling Trumpism a "threat to democracy" is very much warranted.
Should point out, the historian who literally wrote the book for which the definition of fascism is defined today is based on has called the MAGA movement a fascist movement. He though also admitted using such terms today serve no value for a lay person, since it has been watered down so badly as an insult. From a purely scholarly perspective though that is what it is and it is what historians will be calling it.
azurelorochi said: But that said, at least from my POV the left at least is much more willing to criticize their leaders whereas the right's entire identity is that their god emperor Trump can do no wrong.
Well I've seen plenty of right wingers who have disregarded Trump since that "operation warp speed" that he was so proud off, for not just failing to "clean up the swamp" but to hire lots of "swamp creatures" for his administration, and the ones who really are very strongly against minorities dislike Trump for being very pro-jewish and being okay with non-white mass immigration so long as it is legal. I'm personally rather right wing, as you may have surmised, and I consider him a filthy centrist. As for the left being more willing to criticize their leaders, said left spent years pretending Biden wasn't obviously senile. There's clearly also a willingness to NOT criticize.
GreyOmega said: Should point out, the historian who literally wrote the book for which the definition of fascism is defined today
But why should HIS definition be the right one, and not Mussolini's? Benito was the one who actually invented that system and coined the term, so why should this unnamed historian be considered to have more rightful ownership of it? You wouldn't let me define what Communism is and just disregard Marx, would you?
But why should HIS definition be the right one, and not Mussolini's? Benito was the one who actually invented that system and coined the term, so why should this unnamed historian be considered to have more rightful ownership of it? You wouldn't let me define what Communism is and just disregard Marx, would you?
The "nameless" historian is Robert Paxton. Doesn't matter who named the system, it's only after the fact that people look at the elements that led to the movements creation and rise. Compare what they claim ideologically versus what they actually do ideologically and write down the actual core traits of such movements.
Marx may have generated the ideology for Communism, but that doesn't mean he defined how a Communist movement actually operates in real life.
GreyOmega said: Compare what they claim ideologically versus what they actually do ideologically and write down the actual core traits of such movements.
Anyone can do that and so you can get a million definitions of any political system, as many as there are opinions about that system. Using the original term for the original idea leaves you with only ONE definition, instead of both the theoretical definitions and a million "practical" definitions. If you then want to describe ANOTHER system claiming to be one thing but not fitting the definition, then you should use ANOTHER word for that other thing. It leaves a lot less room for confusion, arguments about semantics, arguments about what really characterized one government or another, and appeals to authority. AND it won't leave room for watering down the terms. God I wish for people to stop vandalizing language.
Again, the term fascist has been watered down to a meaningless insult to the point it doesn't mean much more for a lay person. The fact that you're having such an extreme volatile reaction to the movement being called that is clear enough of an example. There is no value in continuing this.
GreyOmega said: Again, the term fascist has been watered down to a meaningless insult to the point it doesn't mean much more for a lay person. The fact that you're having such an extreme volatile reaction to the movement being called that is clear enough of an example.
No, if something doesn't mean much to someone, then they obviously aren't going to have an "extreme volatile reaction" about it. And that's beside the fact that what I was talking about (with you) was the matter of the semantics, not the use of the word.
GreyOmega said: There is no value in continuing this.
Was there value in *starting* this discussion of semantics?
I see it's time for the right-wing lunatics, who contribute nothing but shitpost comments, to rise up.
Fuck off outta the comment section and help out the site, please. Add artist entries. Upload some art. Fix a wiki.
Just because you contribute doesn't make your freedom to argue about politics greater than that same freedom of other users, whether they contribute or not.
Just because you contribute doesn't make your freedom to argue about politics greater than that same freedom of other users, whether they contribute or not.
Should put an asterisks there. A brand new account joining in a political discourse with some hot takes to rile up people shouldn't be held equally to other users, since most of those accounts are purely used for trolling purposes (not the case here, but there are past cases). More so if they're reviving a comment thread that has already died down.
Should put an asterisks there. A brand new account joining in a political discourse with some hot takes to rile up people shouldn't be held equally to other users, since most of those accounts are purely used for trolling purposes (not the case here, but there are past cases). More so if they're reviving a comment thread that has already died down.
Well that's obviously not the same as talking about a normal user who spends their time, partially or totally, engaging with political topics. Do we really need to qualify everything with obvious exceptions? Obviously day 1 troll accounts shouldn't be put on the same level as a normal user, that applies to anyone making an account just to be a pain in the ass, not just political discussions.
My point is that someone doesn't get to act like they aren't doing the exact same thing as the people they're criticizing just because they contribute and those people don't. And they don't get to act like they're "justified" doing those things just because they contribute.
One of the hardest I have laughed at a Khyleri drawing. He is one of my favourite artists for sure, just an amazing style and is very funny while often being more subtle. Just everything about this is perfect, hilarious stuff.
