Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Vol]

I've been disconnected from politics this weekend, is this impeachment thing still going or is there a new outrage?

@Maz: Fox has been moving more moderate, for whatever reason, since Murdoch's kids took over. You'd think being the only major conservative outlet and the largest overall would be their comfort place, but hey. What interests me more is how Vox and Mother Jones are so low for the conservatives. You'd think that all but a few of those outlets are biased against them would be reflected in the perception, as opposed to what the leftists do, where they're mostly having their beliefs reinforced and thus assume good faith.

[Mazder]

@Maz: Fox has been moving more moderate, for whatever reason, since Murdoch's kids took over. You'd think being the only major conservative outlet and the largest overall would be their comfort place, but hey. What interests me more is how Vox and Mother Jones are so low for the conservatives. You'd think that all but a few of those outlets are biased against them would be reflected in the perception, as opposed to what the leftists do, where they're mostly having their beliefs reinforced and thus assume good faith.

I just thought it was an interesting poll and that this thought should be looked into.
If it is the case that the right wing has an assumption that bias exists more than the left then what does it say for each camp's thought process when approaching news sources and the claims therein?

I mean if you take the non-median then more Right wingers assume their stereotypical news source (Fox) is biased than the left wing would admit/believe their stereotypical news source to be (CNN).
Does that mean that the right wing approaches their own news assuming it's biased and proceeds to mitigate that bias elsewhere more than the left, or does the left admit the bias but only because it's a bias in the way they support because they see it to be truer news?

Even with these results of this poll there is a lot more to consider but it's an interesting start point and I hope there is more research done into it, even in I don't fully understand it's end goal/purpose.

[Mazder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCj8llyzfWo&t=13s

I think this stance is tenuous at best.

I'll post my own comment from the comments of the video but TBH you just gotta watch it for yourself to understand that the point is less about the actual impact it could have and more the potential impact but not drawn to a full conclusion.

Okay so if we play as a Russian soldier are we suddenly a Socialist with all the evils of Stalin's rule? Or when we play the Empire in Star Wars Battlefront are we the literal Stormtroopers that burned Beru and Owen Lars? When we play as Bastion in Overwatch are we the hordes of Bastion robots that slaughtered humanity? Are we the Geth that did the same thing when playing as them in ME3's MP?
All of these have the implication of evil but non of them had the "consent" argument if you choose to impart it upon a player.
And if this was all a case of the player's choice being erased then surely they opted into that risk when buying the game.
And, even if all that is to be true then does the evil have to be from a literal source to be considered for this burden of evil placed upon a player in a multiplayer setting?

In all the impactful moments of a game that has a MP mode, ie, the single player story driven aspect, there is never a point where you're placed in the Nazi's shoes as an admirable position and it never coming about to it being the bad state of being and it being denounced as such.

I could go on that the USA and UK in WW2 also had conscription laws that if you refused and were found to be treasonous enough that it could lead to imprisonment and in the Russian armies "cowards and traitors were shot". But those are not the same as putting that same burden on the Nazi skin, right? No Russian soldier skin should have that caveat either despite Stalin also doing some terrible shit and any Russian soldier would be the same representation of their government's arm as a German soldier would if we're taking this assumption into the Multiplayer side of things.

Also "I didn't choose this" is kind of a dubious stance when you bought the game.
You chose that game.
You read the marketing material, you read reviews, you saw the developers express what the game was about and it's content. You consented to all the contents of the game upon purchase. If not then you should not buy the game. You should not place the burden of consent on to every multiplayer match when the game has already placed that consent onto you at purchase.
And if not you still have to do the research on things you buy and if any 18+ year old (as the ratings of these games usually are) can not do this then we have a much bigger problem of the consent argument. The agency is on the player to understand what they're getting into and if they buy the game and play it then they clearly understand all risks involved.

You're never "suddenly teleported into the Nazi's side as in most, if not all, of these games you have a screen of class customization where you are already in the Nazi's side of things when choosing the weapons you'd use. There isn't a "sudden drop into the Nazi's boots" as you've been shown there is a risk well before you actually start playing the Multiplayer. The same applies for the modern enemy of Terrorists.

If you want to have that big splash page of the evils of the Nazi party and it's ideology, fine, but you're going to find that players will find that insufferable and will most likely never play the games that include it, or find a way to skip it as at the end of the day the people of the age group these games are marketed to (ie, 18+) should already have that agency and intelligence involved to know the difference, and if not there is a much bigger problem than skins and it goes to the education of these people before they even got to the age of purchasing these games. And if the argument of "well their parents bought it for them" then the responsibility is on the parents.

[Vol]

Darn. Checking some artists' Twitter feeds while I have my coffee before work, see "Civil War" trending. Sadly, it's not finally here, but rather the usual blue checkmarks pretending that this time, unlike all the other times, impeachment is real and coming, because Trump quoted some dipshit pastor who claimed removing the president over nonsense would spark it off.

Spoilers: It wouldn't, maybe a few lone wolves, but you'll find the tolerance of the militant right in America to accept repression is much higher.

[Raga]

Pretty much everybody I know spewing partisan drivel on both sides would run for the hills the instant actual fighting broke out. However, if our cultural drama ever gets heavily overlapped with economic downfalls, that could change.

Article:

If you want the truth about impeachment, stay away from the fringes

[Alienmorph]

I think this stance is tenuous at best.

I'll post my own comment from the comments of the video but TBH you just gotta watch it for yourself to understand that the point is less about the actual impact it could have and more the potential impact but not drawn to a full conclusion.

Oh. It's THAT video. Yeah fuck that noise.

It's very obviously just another case of leftist whining thei're living in a society that normalizes hate and fascism. Once the video got downvoted to hell and back it was followed the usual load of "we're proud of upsetting bigots!" b.s. statements, that should tell you everything already.

Also, gotta love that the kind of people who normalized calling everyone they disagree with a nazi or a 'acist of sorts is now whining that pop culture normalizes nazism and hateful behaviour.

But yeah, if all that takes to become a nazi or a terrorist is play a nazi or a terrorist in a videogame, then it's basically like saying that all the people using videogames and violent media as scapegoats are actually right, and that you can't enjoy violent media without that having major negative effects on your mind and behaviour.

Once again, we have some people trying to be so politically correct they go all the other way around and end up acting like fucking puritans.

[Mobius_118]

They were Socialists. Fascism was specifically an outgrowth of Socialism. You are such a fucking head case.

Stop it. Get help. Or read a book. Preferably a history book. Or a fact-based destruction of your stupidity.

[Mazder]

Fascism isn't an outgrowth of Socialism but the Nazi party did co-opt the Socialist party in Germany to make their own Fascist base in Germany, there is no doubt on that.
The leaders weren't Socialist but they did use that base to gather support and then steer them towards Fascism.

Whether or not being in a Socialist base first made them more susceptible I can't say.
But I also can not say if it didn't either as Fascism was relatively new back then so it doesn't have the guidance of history like we do now to know the difference.

That doesn't mean that Socialism, or even Democratic Socialism, is 100% okay in it's own right, but compared with Fascism it's definitely a better alternative for the masses. Or at least the Democratic Socialism kind is.

[Alienmorph]

Yeah, while there were a few fascists members who did start their "career" on the left-leaning side of politics, including Mussolini himself who for a while after WWI has been a writer for a leftist newspaper, fascism was a mix of populism and right-leaning ideals about protecting the holy motherland and... basically... make Italy great again. See also our ridiculous attempts of conquering a few bits of Africa inbetween WWI and II and then acting like it was the start of a new Roman Empire.

The funny thing is that even the few good things done for the country under fascist rules were either straight-up copied from other european nations, or stuff the king had put in motion before the fascist takeover, and completed under the regime in a very minimal part. Yet the propaganda machine was so good there's people STILL phraising Mussolini for what he did for our country, even today.

Sigh.

[Vol]

As if there was something of value left in the American Right.

The right-wing has innate value in all nations, as it's purpose is cultural stasis, which keeps the successful paradigms going. And then the left is the destructive counterpart, it's value is in challenging and destroying the old. If the half of the country that is "right-wing" gave up that struggle, rampant change would be a pretty decisive coup-de-grace to the experiment. Other way around, it'd be a slow decay as other peoples outgrew the stagnation.

[Raga]

Fascism isn't an outgrowth of Socialism but the Nazi party did co-opt the Socialist party in Germany to make their own Fascist base in Germany, there is no doubt on that.
The leaders weren't Socialist but they did use that base to gather support and then steer them towards Fascism.

Whether or not being in a Socialist base first made them more susceptible I can't say.
But I also can not say if it didn't either as Fascism was relatively new back then so it doesn't have the guidance of history like we do now to know the difference.

That doesn't mean that Socialism, or even Democratic Socialism, is 100% okay in it's own right, but compared with Fascism it's definitely a better alternative for the masses. Or at least the Democratic Socialism kind is.

The most noteworthy similarity between Nazism and socialism (as full on bonafide actual socialism and not watery social democracy) isn't to do with economics anyway. It's that they are both totalitarian.

[Vol]

Pretty much everybody I know spewing partisan drivel on both sides would run for the hills the instant actual fighting broke out. However, if our cultural drama ever gets heavily overlapped with economic downfalls, that could change.

Article:

If you want the truth about impeachment, stay away from the fringes

I'd like to think I would acquit myself well if it actually came down to taking up arms against each other, but hey. Never know, might break and run. Prefer if it never came to that, but democracy isn't faring well in course-correcting lately. Maybe the scrawny white Maoists really do have the revolutionary zeal like their heroes.

[Vol]

Blizzard bowed to grorious Chinese investors who own 5% of Activision and banned some Hearthstone tournament player, plus stole his prize money due, for daring to support the Hong Kong protests. In an odd reversal, reddit and other nerd sites are angry about this. Usually Chicom propaganda and fluff pieces go under the radar, but I guess touching video games was a bridge too far. Overtly, because covertly they're also to blame for a lot of shit too.

Maybe if there's momentum, we can convince those same milquetoast moderates that China _is_ bad, trade war against them good, and giving up our manufacturing capacity to them was not some inevitable fact.

[Mazder]

Riot Games also censored Hong Kong in their broadcasts during the League of Legends Championships.

I see the Chinese INvestors pushing their influences.

[Raga]

Increased diversity decreases social trust, confirmed finding at the meta-analysis level

But don't worry. This is still just a statement about how white people feel and thus can be completely and utterly ignored. [/sarcasm]

Pretty good analysis of the study in laymen's terms

[Sinekein]

The French cosplay champion, Livanart, will not be able to compete in the Eurocosplay (apparently, the European Cosplay championships), because her cosplay is considered to be akin to blackface.

I will let you make your own opinion. I have to mention that I don't know zilch about that character since I have never played LoL. Also it's not soot or makeup but a silicon mask (as you can see on the picture below - same with the torso and the arms as, well...).




Apparently, the complaints (and insults)(and threats of harassment against her) mostly came from UK cosplayers with the support of US ones.

[Raga]

My opinion is basically this, written by John McWhorter is one of the saner commentators on race today and generally worth reading.

The gist is basically: Dressing up as racist stereotypes is bad and verboten. Dressing up in respectful homage to a black individual or character is fine.

[Mazder]

The French cosplay champion, Livanart, will not be able to compete in the Eurocosplay (apparently, the European Cosplay championships), because her cosplay is considered to be akin to blackface.

I will let you make your own opinion. I have to mention that I don't know zilch about that character since I have never played LoL. Also it's not soot or makeup but a silicon mask (as you can see on the picture below - same with the torso and the arms as, well...).

*image snips.*

Apparently, the complaints (and insults)(and threats of harassment against her) mostly came from UK cosplayers with the support of US ones.

Fantastic work.

And, well, if we're going to open the floodgates of "x skintone can only be characters of the same skintone if human because there used to be blackface" then I am going to point at the "no fun allowed" sign and ask that if that's the case then all human cosplays are off the table for everyone until racism is destroyed entirely as that's the only wan things will be 100% fair.

TBH I am just so annoyed with talent getting screwed over because of the issues of the past.

This doesn't looks derogatory, it's not a caricature, it's not trying to make the skin tone inferior or oppressed in any way to my eyes. If someone were to look at this and imply it's what she's doing it says a lot more about their world view than hers.

TBH the rightful issues of racism have kind of put us in this position. When you make every instance an offront then everything is offensive and everything gets hurt because of it.


And of course it's the UK Cosplay scene being a problem.
Can....can we just not be shit UK? For five minutes?!?!?!

[Alienmorph]

The French cosplay champion, Livanart, will not be able to compete in the Eurocosplay (apparently, the European Cosplay championships), because her cosplay is considered to be akin to blackface.

Can't say I'm surprised. I won't go into one of my rants but... yeah. Fookin' stoopid.

Also nice to notice that the whole "respekt whamen!" shtick only counts when they do stuff the 'tards on the Internet agree with. Again.

The cosplay itself is really fantastic, hopefully this whole situaon doesn't discourage Livanart from do more stuff like that in the future.

[Raga]

Did Europe even have minstrelsy? It seems like a weird transplant of a specifically American problem into Europe.

[Alienmorph]

Did Europe even have minstrelsy? It seems like a weird transplant of a specifically American problem into Europe.

Considering that there's people so nuts that they claim that posting memes featuring african americans count as "digital blackface", I think the origin of the phenomenon doesn't really matter. It's one more thing to use to play the "u humans all racists!" card.

[TTTX]

Did Europe even have minstrelsy? It seems like a weird transplant of a specifically American problem into Europe.

As far as I know Denmark didn't.

But then again we Danes generally make fun of a lot of things and can be weird (if you ever visit Denmark try go to the amusement park BonBon-land you pretty much get an idea of how weird and adult danish humor can be even for kids), at least it was when I was growing up.

[Sinekein]

Did Europe even have minstrelsy? It seems like a weird transplant of a specifically American problem into Europe.

I know that at least in Belgium and the Netherlands there are a couple of traditional festivals where people disguise themselves in blackface. But that's the actually problematic blackface - soot as makeup, lips, beastly/stupid behavior. And Belgium in particular has a particularly horrendous colonialist history (yes, I think I can say that despite being French) so I absolutely 100% understand why people say those shouldn't be a thing anymore.

Europe never had the same kind of power dynamic between black and white people the US did, so that might explain why this is extremely American.

On a sidenote, when reading about the aforementioned cosplay confusion, I saw several people mentioning that the outrage was something typically coming from American culture. Those who called for the removal of the cosplay mainly aimed from the UK with support from the US, while mainland Europe mostly did not participate.

There are several issues regarding these topics where the US and European stances are significantly different, and in which some people in the US try to force their cultural perspective in Europe (there was a bit of an outrage in France when Trevor Noah said that "Africa won the World Cup" because in France, you just do not call French players "African", you call them "French with [African country] origins" - only the further of the far-right describe people born in France and who own a French passport with their origins).

I've also read that chemtrails and antivaxx theories came from the US first but I have not looked much in it (and France always had antivaxx people, albeit without the link with autism before some starting using that BS).

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SLqdhkvJo

Shit better get back on message Razor. Don't want to go to gulag....

[Mazder]

Did Europe even have minstrelsy? It seems like a weird transplant of a specifically American problem into Europe.

The UK had it I think.

I also will state that the UK created racist terms for black poeple (wogs, junglebunnies, etc) were definitely on the way out.
Now we still have racist words for middle eastern/west asian/indian peoples fairly prevalent.
And the USA's N-word has grown in usage among racist and has outdone the removal of the old UK words so now it's just the N-word that is as popular as the old words were. Urgh.

There are several issues regarding these topics where the US and European stances are significantly different, and in which some people in the US try to force their cultural perspective in Europe (there was a bit of an outrage in France when Trevor Noah said that "Africa won the World Cup" because in France, you just do not call French players "African", you call them "French with [African country] origins" - only the further of the far-right describe people born in France and who own a French passport with their origins).

I've also read that chemtrails and antivaxx theories came from the US first but I have not looked much in it (and France always had antivaxx people, albeit without the link with autism before some starting using that BS).

Yeah, the USA influences are getting annoying.
As I said above, the N-word is "popular" over here due to America's influence in one way or another.

And, yeah, we've got anti-vaxers here now.
Urgh.

[Mobius_118]

Oh look, trump betrayed an ally AND allowed the resurgence of ISIS. Oh, and this move is a gift to Assad and Putin.

Can't wait for the mental gymnastics required to try and spin this in a positive light.

GAC, that's your cue to do what you do: Be a shitbag. Go on, do your trick.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh noooo we're reducing our involvement in Syria and allowing the Turks to mop up a bunch of communist militias ooooh nooo this is sooooo terrible.

Nobody gives a shit Mobius. The Syrian government won its civil war. Fuck off you fucking War Hawk.

[Alienmorph]

On a sidenote, when reading about the aforementioned cosplay confusion, I saw several people mentioning that the outrage was something typically coming from American culture. Those who called for the removal of the cosplay mainly aimed from the UK with support from the US, while mainland Europe mostly did not participate.

I've also read that chemtrails and antivaxx theories came from the US first but I have not looked much in it (and France always had antivaxx people, albeit without the link with autism before some starting using that BS).

It does seem to be something that primarily spawned from english-speaking countries yes. And what catches on and what doesn't indeed depends greatly by each country you look into. Here in Italy for example we have record numbers of "functional analphabets", aka people who CAN read and work in every day society, but are dumb and ingnorant as bricks. Plus a whole lot of bigotry and superstion. So we have very little amounts of woke and easily offended people (although having gone through art colledge I've met my fair share of those) but we have a record amounts of people like anti-vaxxers, conspiritards and people of general anti-scientific views. Guess having the heaquarters of one of the most influential religions in history stuck in the middle of our capital doesn't help with that either.

[Mobius_118]

Oh noooo we're reducing our involvement in Syria and allowing the Turks to mop up a bunch of communist militias ooooh nooo this is sooooo terrible.

Nobody gives a shit Mobius. The Syrian government won its civil war. Fuck off you fucking War Hawk.

Yeah it's not the first time maggots like you have abandoned the Kurds to be slaughtered despite them being the premier terrorist killers in the Middle East.

You are the definition of a blue falcon. Complete buddy fucker.

[Alienmorph]

Gonna be siding with Mobius on this one. The one population of middle-easterns that ISN'T a crazy teocracy, and they've been pissed on by all of their neighbours, Europe and the US ever since the end of WWI. Plus Turkey is on its way to become the next Iran and enabling them even inderectly doesn't really seems like the greatest of ideas...

[Mobius_118]

It's hard to defend trump's stupidity when the policy put in place by President Obama in Syria was working. ISIS was fragmented and broken, and now Turkish forces are slaughtering Kurdish civilians. ISIS will be making a comeback as well because of the turmoil.

I think that's a pretty big fucking problem.

[TTTX]

It's hard to defend trump's stupidity when the policy put in place by President Obama in Syria was working. ISIS was fragmented and broken, and now Turkish forces are slaughtering Kurdish civilians. ISIS will be making a comeback as well because of the turmoil.

I think that's a pretty big fucking problem.

although to be fair he isn't the first president to do such things (doesn't excuse him for being an idiot for repeating history).

Gonna be siding with Mobius on this one. The one population of middle-easterns that ISN'T a crazy teocracy, and they've been pissed on by all of their neighbours, Europe and the US ever since the end of WWI. Plus Turkey is on its way to become the next Iran and enabling them even inderectly doesn't really seems like the greatest of ideas...

we can pretty much blame this guy for the situation we are in today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLiI6kXZkZI

[Sinekein]

Oh noooo we're reducing our involvement in Syria and allowing the Turks to mop up a bunch of communist militias ooooh nooo this is sooooo terrible.

Kurds =/= PKK.

The main force of the Kurd militias (about 75% of their soldiers) are part of the Peshmerga, who are split between the Kurdistan Democratic Party, which is conservative, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is social-democratic. The actual communists of the PKK number for roughly 15% of the total forces, with the remaining 10% being split between a small group fighting in Iran against the local regime, and the female-only Women's Protection Union.

The only ones who like to equate Kurds to the PKK are the Turkish nationalists like Erdogan who are looking for excuses to wipe them out.

It also states once more that the USA cannot be trusted, except this time they did not renege on an economic or ecological deal (which is untrustworthy enough), but on a military one. Good luck to the next POTUS to try and find reliable allies after what is happening at the moment.

And another thing that Trump can be praised for is pushing Erdogan in Putin's lap. Russia now has direct influence on two major imperialistic powers in the Middle East with Turkey and Iran. The two that the US keep backing are in one case led by a caricature of a psychopath (MBS in Saudi Arabia), and the other is Israel - political lockdown at the moment, and less and less support from the Jewish diaspora because of how unhinged and gung-ho Bibi has been.

[Vol]

My opinion is basically this, written by John McWhorter is one of the saner commentators on race today and generally worth reading.

The gist is basically: Dressing up as racist stereotypes is bad and verboten. Dressing up in respectful homage to a black individual or character is fine.

Racial mockery is satire, and thus sacrosanct. There is no group, no matter how powerful or weak that are above being made fun of, and there never should be. No golden calves.

Gonna be siding with Mobius on this one. The one population of middle-easterns that ISN'T a crazy teocracy, and they've been pissed on by all of their neighbours, Europe and the US ever since the end of WWI. Plus Turkey is on its way to become the next Iran and enabling them even inderectly doesn't really seems like the greatest of ideas...

Can not Europe handle this then? The USA Is experiencing a shift away from neocon interventionism, there's plenty of room for other first world nations with armies to deploy them for ideological reasons.

[Sinekein]

Racial mockery is satire, and thus sacrosanct. There is no group, no matter how powerful or weak that are above being made fun of, and there never should be. No golden calves.

Can you give examples of blatantly racist anti-white comedy? Not anti-Jewish, or anti-redneck, or anti-Floridans. Just anti-white in general, mocking white people for the very fact of being white.

Because those should exist according to your definition. They should even have at some point been equally as influential as minstrelsy or depictions of Africans as savages.

Can not Europe handle this then? The USA Is experiencing a shift away from neocon interventionism, there's plenty of room for other first world nations with armies to deploy them for ideological reasons.

Europe shifted away from neocon interventionism way before the US did. This particular mess is 99% US-caused, since it's a direct consequence of the 2003 Iraq War that screwed the balance of power over in the area. You know, the one France and Germany strongly opposed, with UN speeches and all.

That'd be like, I don't know, the EU invading Canada, removing the elected government, causing Quebec and Inuit lands to secede, letting a terrorist group gain huge influence due to the lack of a centralized power, and then a couple of years later, the EU retreating because "it's not our problem anymore we changed our mind, deal with the terrorists, militias, genocides and mass migrations".

Also, for the record, when the UK decided to do the same "not our problem anymore" thing during the decolonization, it led to such conflicts as Israel/Palestine, or Pakistan/India. Basically because instead of accompanying the transition towards peace, they just ran away and left everyone else to deal with the crap.

[Raga]

This particular mess is 99% US-caused, since it's a direct consequence of the 2003 Iraq War that screwed the balance of power over in the area.

This is just not true. The mess in Syria predates the emergence of ISIS by nearly two years. And to equate the Arab Spring with the US invasion of Iraq is also inaccurate considering it started in North Africa in a completely different set of circumstances than Iraq and vicinity and spread from there.

It also completely ignores the interventions of Russia, Iran, and Turkey and suggests that those countries would have been content to sit on the sidelines and do nothing if only the US stayed out of Iraq.

Seriously, read the essay I posted a few days ago about US involvement. It gives an excellent summary of the background of the whole conflict and it's written by Mother Jones, an aggressively progressive magazine, so it's hardly trying to spin in the narrative in a pro-neocon direction or something.

Sidenote on Pakistan/India: It's also more the case that the Brits got booted out of India. They literally committed atrocities trying to hold onto it. A message of "we want to stay and guide you guys along because we don't think you can democracy" would almost assuredly not have gone over well.

(This is not a defense of abandoning the Kurds, per se. 1000 troops hanging around in Rojava is not a massive investment in the grand scheme of things. However, it's also fair to point out that that exactly how involvement in Vietnam started so I understand people's suspicion of the circumstances).

[Raga]

Racial mockery is satire, and thus sacrosanct. There is no group, no matter how powerful or weak that are above being made fun of, and there never should be. No golden calves.

I don't know why unqualified satire is somehow sacrosanct where pretty much no other form of unqualified resistance is. Because it's a form of expression? I'm close to a free speech purist, but performance, which is what dressing up is, is crossing some line into freedom of assembly and other rights. It's not just an act of mockery. It's also usually an intentional act of physical disruption. There's handing out satirical pamphlets on the sidewalk and then there's crashing some gathering space and grinding it to a halt by demanding everybody pay attention to you, literally or by virtue of being shocking. Those are related but clearly different.

[Mazder]

Can you give examples of blatantly racist anti-white comedy? Not anti-Jewish, or anti-redneck, or anti-Floridans. Just anti-white in general, mocking white people for the very fact of being white.

The only thing I can think of right now is the whole "white people can't handle spices" memes.
And that's not even that much in terms of comedy.

[Sinekein]

This is just not true. The mess in Syria predates the emergence of ISIS by nearly two years. And to equate the Arab Spring with the US invasion of Iraq is also inaccurate considering it started in North Africa in a completely different set of circumstances than Iraq and vicinity and spread from there.

It also completely ignores the interventions of Russia, Iran, and Turkey and suggests that those countries would have been content to sit on the sidelines and do nothing if only the US stayed out of Iraq.

99% is hyperbole, I'll admit it. But Russia, Iran and Turkey only intervened later on when the chaos erupted. The initial crisis was removing Saddam Hussein from power and creating a power vacuum without thinking about filling it. It was very much an American decision with the Brits tagging along because Blair felt sycophantic.

Russian interventionism in the Middle East came after the Iraq war (US & UK) and then the Libyan war (US, UK & France), because twice Russian interests in the area got trampled without them deciding put their foot down. Putin got the message, and now, he meddles too, but the initial crisis in the Middle East has little if anything to do with Russia. There was something akin to a bad balance before 2003. Turkey and Iran intervened as neighbors because the chaos directly influenced them.

The Arab Spring has a limited impact on the actual situation. There were cases where the Spring succeeded (Tunisia), where it got crushed (Egypt), and where it led to a civil war (Syria), but it should have remained a Syrian issue. The reason it became so huge is that ISIS profited from the lack of oversight in the area (in Iraq in particular) to emerge and gain influence, especially in Syria since Assad was busy trying to crush aspiring democrats.

Now, it is very complex. But it could only have become simpler without the 2003 invasion, which was very, very much wanted and performed by the US. Withdrawing now while it's even more of a clusterfuck would be cowardly even without the "leaving our allies to die without support" part.

Sidenote on Pakistan/India: It's also more the case that the Brits got booted out of India. They literally committed atrocities trying to hold onto it. A message of "we want to stay and guide you guys along because we don't think you can democracy" would almost assuredly not have gone over well.

(This is not a defense of abandoning the Kurds, per se. 1000 troops hanging around in Rojava is not a massive investment in the grand scheme of things. However, it's also fair to point out that that exactly how involvement in Vietnam started so I understand people's suspicion of the circumstances).

And that's the issue with imperialism and not taking responsibility for it. We got people in France claiming that Africa "doesn't understand democracy", ignoring that the current situations and borders are consequences of French decisions and that the (sometimes artificial) countries had to do with what was handed to them, it did not emerge organically.

The problem is of course that it is costly and difficult to take responsibility for your actions, way more than just GTFO. Considering the current POTUS is mentally impaired and has shown all the emotional maturity of a preschooler, it is not that strange to see him run away from his responsibilities, but democracies are supposed to have ways to prevent such crises when a moron is in charge.

[Raga]

Can you give examples of blatantly racist anti-white comedy? Not anti-Jewish, or anti-redneck, or anti-Floridans. Just anti-white in general, mocking white people for the very fact of being white.

The only thing I can think of right now is the whole "white people can't handle spices" memes.
And that's not even that much in terms of comedy.

There's that old Things White People Like blog from several years ago, but when you actually dig into it, it's clearly "Things Liberal, Youngish, Educated, Urban White People Like" and not really "What White People Like."

[TheodoricFriede]

Can you give examples of blatantly racist anti-white comedy? Not anti-Jewish, or anti-redneck, or anti-Floridans. Just anti-white in general, mocking white people for the very fact of being white.

White people have no rythem. White people cant jump. White people are inherently naive. White people are all racist. White men have small dicks. White women have no ass. White people are all rich.

Thats what I was able to think of, top of my head, in under a minute.

[Alienmorph]

White thrash. Crackers. Colonizers. Jersey Bros. All the stereotypes about brits, french, italians and so on. It's a pretty fucking long list.

[Sinekein]

No rhythm --> Specifically targets the cultural appropriation depicted in The Offspring's "Pretty Fly (for a white guy)" song. It's a way to mock white people trying to imitate black suburban culture without knowing much about it. It doesn't target, say, Russian people who are reknown for their dancing excellence.

Can't jump --> Aside from not being that insulting, it comes from the kind of racial studies depicted in "Get Out", ie the admiration/jealousy some white supremacists felt towards successful black athletes. It's closely tied to the stereotype of black people being all brawn and no brains.

Naive --> Never heard of that one so I won't comment.

All racist --> OK. But if the only racist thing you can throw at someone is "you're racist", it's pretty mild. Black people face an array of stereotypes - smelly, dumb, beastly, lazy... - that are way worse than "being racist". That also comes from the fact that white people have abused other ethnicities way, way, way, way more often than they got abused themselves, which is something people tend to somehow forget or consider irrelevant. Also, sidenote, but that one is pretty American, it was a total non-issue over her in France before it was brought through social media.

Small dicks/No ass --> Those two directly come from very racist stereotypes against black people, ie Mandingos and Hottentot Venuses. They're also not targeted at "white people" but at "all people who aren't black". Asians are thrown into the "small penis" bag too due to the racist fetishism towards black male virility.

All rich --> I fail to see how insulting it is. "Damn, you're so rich". Well thanks. That's way nicer than everything that can be said about black people at large. I think it's also kinda dying out because now pretty much everyone has realized many people from the Midwest are not that rich.

"White trash" --> Poor Midwestern white populations. Not all white people fall under that.

"Cracker" --> Same, "crack user". That's against poor white populations with high drug use.

"Colonizers" --> Well, aren't they? Okay, not all of them, then again when you live in non-colonial white countries, you don't get insulted like this. Like Sweden or Denmark. They were colonizers a very long time ago (and they colonized areas with white people so it would be hard to come with anti-white racist insults).

"Jersey Bros" --> As the name implies, that's against people from New Jersey.

"French/Belgian/Italian/British" --> specific white nationalities. Also nonwhite French are equally victims of those racist stereotypes.

So, that leaves white people as naive, rich racists. While black people are smelly, lazy, dumb monkeys (and that can be used whether they are from Senegal, Zimbabwe, Trinidad, Brazil or the US). I definitely know which group I'd rather belong to.

[Alienmorph]

So, that leaves white people as naive, rich racists. While black people are smelly, lazy, dumb monkeys (and that can be used whether they are from Senegal, Zimbabwe, Trinidad, Brazil or the US). I definitely know which group I'd rather belong to.

Except neither of those descriptions are true... I mean... that's what stereotypes ARE. You take the worst attribute of an handful of people and slap them on everyone else that reminds you of them. I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here.

[Sinekein]

Indeed, but overall those targeting black people - and other nonwhite people - are more hurtful, more widely spread, and have more direct consequences. Which is why it is not an equal action to embrace all kinds of satire in the name of "freedom of speech".

Personally I like to look at "laugh with/laugh at" (1st good, 2nd not so much usually), and also at who the target is (it's easier to make fun of people who have it easier than me). Which means that who is telling the joke matters a lot. You have a lot of fantastic Key and Peele shorts where they are roasting some aspects of black culture - but they're black themselves, it wouldn't be quite as funny if they were done by KKK members. Same as a holocaust joke can be hilarious when told by a Jewish comedian, less so when told by a neonazi.

[TheodoricFriede]

Translation.

"B-But it doesn't count when it doesn't suit my narrative!"

[Alienmorph]

Personally I like to look at "laugh with/laugh at" (1st good, 2nd not so much usually), and also at who the target is (it's easier to make fun of people who have it easier than me). Which means that who is telling the joke matters a lot. You have a lot of fantastic Key and Peele shorts where they are roasting some aspects of black culture - but they're black themselves, it wouldn't be quite as funny if they were done by KKK members. Same as a holocaust joke can be hilarious when told by a Jewish comedian, less so when told by a neonazi.

But that also leads to the whole "only black people can talk about black people or it's racist" "only gay people can talk of gay people or it's homophobe" and so on mentality that is literally sucking the fun and the freedom of expression out of almost everything. Of course a neo-nazi making holocaust jokes would be pretty fucking tasteless, but that's a very very narrow and specific case to consider, not something that's particularly healthy to reason with in broad strokes.

Unless... you know... you just want to pretend everyone who is white and is making jokes about non-white people is doing so out of hate, but at that point you're as racially and culturally biased as the person you're accusing of being that.

[Raga]

So Beto O'Rourke just flatly stated that he supports stripping tax exempt status from any religious organization that doesn't support same sex marriage.

In other words, "only non-profits with politics I approve of should be allowed."

God, this election. The last two presidential elections were both real stinkers. In both cases, I felt a general sense of disappointment and a disillusioned "Well, I'll pick this one, I guess" level of commitment to my lackluster candidate of choice.

This is the first one where I feel like I'm going to have to choose between two overt existential threats to the entire Republic.

Choose your poison:

the narcissistic manchild who conducts policy on a whim and interprets American democracy and himself as interchangeable - if you threaten one you threaten the other OR

the social justice commissar who believes that pretty much all of our institutions and founding principles are nothing but complex, overlapping systems of oppression that must be torn apart in order for New Foucauldian Man or whatever to emerge

I've never been this torn about an election before.

*Edit* typos

[Sinekein]

Translation.

"B-But it doesn't count when it doesn't suit my narrative!"

Translation:

"I wrote a bunch of random bullshit and complain people don't eat it".

[TheodoricFriede]

Translation:

"I wrote a bunch of random bullshit and complain people don't eat it".

Whatever makes you feel like God.