Extremist rhetoric on Trump threads

RDM_83 again

Wouldn't one of the more important aspects of this, rather than any potential offense or possible double standards is that the rhetoric is really boring and adds nothing, like if people wanted to read that stuff its going to be all over their Facebook anyway.

JRant

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that this isn't the case nearly as often as is being made out if it ever happens at all. I'm not sure how you're supposed to respond to someone who's automatically written off any news source they disagree with as elitist.

That's exactly my point and we are probably in agreement here. Indeed how can any conversation take place when both extremes go straight for an 'ist', be it elitist, facist or racist. It is impossible to have a discussion in that type environment.

I also think it happens quite a bit to be honest. Like last night in the multicultural thread. There was an interesting conversation about the wars of antiquity and the role of multiculturalism. It was very interesting until someone came in a dropped a post saying the Nazi's were against multiculturalism, ergo anyone against multiculturalism is a nazi. It makes discussing anything further difficult. If that is the type of posting that is allowed or encouraged then nothing will improve.

Cabaal

FA Hayek wrote: »

Being Jewish is more about ethnicity rather than religion per say. It is entirely possible to be an Atheist Jew, indeed many of them died in the Holocaust.

Atheist is a lack of belief,
You can be no more am atheist then you can be a atheist Catholic. You can be a former Jew who is now a atheist but you can't be both a Jew and atheist.

Atheism being a lack of belief in a religion /God.

You can of course be an Irish atheist or Israeli Atheist if that helps you.

Christy42

Cabaal wrote: »

Atheist is a lack of belief,
You can be no more am atheist then you can be a atheist Catholic. You can be a former Jew who is now a atheist but you can't be both a Jew and atheist.

Atheism being a lack of belief in a religion /God.

You can of course be an Irish atheist or Israeli Atheist if that helps you.

Jewish atheist means you are from Jewish heritage but don't believe in God. Jew is frequently used to refer to race and/or religion.

It is a limitation of language due to this situation or people from non Jewish heritages converting but it is all the language provides.

frostyjacks

mansize wrote: »

This site has attracted a more "alt-right" poster of late. Shame.

You prefer discussions with people who share the same opinion as yourself?

I believe society in general is moving towards the right, not just this site.

Robxxx7

mansize wrote: »

This site has attracted a more "alt-right" poster of late. Shame.

strange as i see it the other way ... guess its all about perceptions ..

mansize

frostyjacks wrote: »

You prefer discussions with people who share the same opinion as yourself?

I believe society in general is moving towards the right, not just this site.

Alt-right, nazism, no

drunkmonkey

This is terrible, there should be some legal consequences for these trolls when they express a view speaking on behalf of Ireland they shouldn't be allowed to, fine if they want to express their own view but saying it on behalf of the rest of us should not be allowed.
We've rules around blasphemy we should have rules around speaking on behalf of Ireland.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/trump-ally-paul-ryan-expressed-pride-in-his-irish-roots-the-feeling-wasnt-mutual-775324.html

Christy42

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This is terrible, there should be some legal consequences for these trolls when they express a view speaking on behalf of Ireland they shouldn't be allowed to, fine if they want to express their own view but saying it on behalf of the rest of us should not be allowed.
We've rules around blasphemy we should have rules around speaking on behalf of Ireland.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/trump-ally-paul-ryan-expressed-pride-in-his-irish-roots-the-feeling-wasnt-mutual-775324.html

Most people think we should not have rules around blasphemy. Your own proposal for legal action here is hilarious in its stupidity. You are free to message Paul Ryan and assure him some people in Ireland like him though. Heck you can even claim the entire country likes him if you like. I mean you would be wrong but I would prefer that over your hilarious idea of what should bring legal action.

Edit: apologies, thought I was in a different thread. Maybe this and the post I am replying to should be put in a thread about Republicans or Trump maybe?

Flint Fredstone

Robxxx7 wrote: »

strange as i see it the other way ... guess its all about perceptions ..

If you oppose far left ideas that makes you alt-right/nazi/racist in some people's eyes.

osarusan

drunkmonkey wrote: »

we should have rules around speaking on behalf of Ireland.

No we shouldn't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FA Hayek

Cabaal wrote: »

Atheist is a lack of belief,
You can be no more am atheist then you can be a atheist Catholic. You can be a former Jew who is now a atheist but you can't be both a Jew and atheist.

Atheism being a lack of belief in a religion /God.

You can of course be an Irish atheist or Israeli Atheist if that helps you.

Oh, yes you can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

There are many many Jewish Atheists, like Dave Rubin, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Woody Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Natalie Portman etc..
I am sure they know more about their own identity then you, as much as though you want want to claim an authority on who they are.

The Nazi's did not ask Jews did they believe in God before they chucked them into ovens, they looked at bloodlines and who their relatives were.

Christy42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"They". I have seen one post in a joke thread wishing death on him. The post was lambasted by plenty on the left. Have I missed some?

What is wrong with speculating if he will be assinated or not. It is a distinct possibility given presidents tend to draw assignation attempts and he has pissed off more people than most of them.

We have also speculated about war with Russia or China, either of which would kill millions and be horrific. It does not mean we want it. Merely that we acknowledge the possibility of it.

Lovely Bloke

Christy42 wrote: »

"They". I have seen one post in a joke thread wishing death on him. The post was lambasted by plenty on the left. Have I missed some?

What is wrong with speculating if he will be assinated or not. It is a distinct possibility given presidents tend to draw assignation attempts and he has pissed off more people than most of them.

We have also speculated about war with Russia or China, either of which would kill millions and be horrific. It does not mean we want it. Merely that we acknowledge the possibility of it.

here, are you alright?

Having a go at someone for using "they" then going on to use "we".

Are you a bit confused or what?

kunst nugget

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You seem to be missing the antagonistic posts that are constantly on this site about loving to see the salty tears of liberals and the constant denigration of anyone that doesn't share the notion that Donald Trump is the best thing since sliced bread being a libtard snowflake that's been brainwashed by the mainstream media. The nonsense cuts both ways. In my near forty years in Ireland I never heard anyone be called a liberal until all this guff started getting imported and copied from American sites.

Christy42

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

here, are you alright?

Having a go at someone for using "they" then going on to use "we".

Are you a bit confused or what?

Not really sure what the condescending tone is about or what your point actually is.

I asked the poster for examples of posters wishing death on Trump which was the claim. Unless you want me to provide proof of posters speculating about war with China and Russia I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kunst nugget

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you see what you want to see sometimes. I see an upswing in right wing posters and 'special snowflake libtard' comments, you don't. You see reactionary left wing lashing as the predominant force, I don't.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd be totally in favour a nonsense approach to stomping out the name calling. That said, I think we should still be allowed to be robust enough when it comes to talking about the politicians and the policies involved. The main problem at this stage though is that it has descended in to obnoxious point scoring - 'Well, Donald said that… Actually, Hillary did this…' and lashings of whataboutery which has become extraordinarily tiresome.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's fair and should be carried across the board.

Memnoch

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think you see what you want to see sometimes. I see an upswing in right wing posters and 'special snowflake libtard' comments, you don't. You see reactionary left wing lashing as the predominant force, I don't.



I'd be totally in favour a nonsense approach to stomping out the name calling. That said, I think we should still be allowed to be robust enough when it comes to talking about the politicians and the policies involved. The main problem at this stage though is that it has descended in to obnoxious point scoring - 'Well, Donald said that… Actually, Hillary did this…' and lashings of whataboutery which has become extraordinarily tiresome.



That's fair and should be carried across the board.

Saying that Trump is a racist is not name calling. It is a statement of fact that should not be censored. It would be a shameful condoning of disgusting and vile behaviour. It would be normalising this kind of behaviour and saying that this is the kind of society we want to live in where Racism and sexism are par for the course without criticism or censure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

weisses

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

If you oppose far left ideas that makes you alt-right/nazi/racist in some people's eyes.

I opposed "far" right ideas with facts in the immigration thread and was labelled lefty and communist ....

It works both ways .... If you cannot see that I think you would have a problem

kunst nugget

Memnoch wrote: »

Saying that Trump is a racist is not name calling. It is a statement of fact that should not be censored. It would be a shameful condoning of disgusting and vile behaviour. It would be normalising this kind of behaviour and saying that this is the kind of society we want to live in where Racism and sexism are par for the course without criticism or censure.

I was talking about lashing out at other posters in terms of calling them rightwing nutjobs or libtard snowflakes. That's why I said we should still be able to have robust debate about politicians and policies.

kunst nugget

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think we're both in agreement on that point. I think a major problem with political debate at the moment is the tendency to ascribe a hivemind mentality to opponents, based on the worst elements that follow some or all of those beliefs. It therefore makes it very easy to denigrate or dismiss anything that someone who doesn't agree with your philosophical outlook is saying. 'Did you see that idiot that killed those people in the mosque? He's a Trump supporter. They're all violent, racist scumbags!' 'Did you see that white cuck idiot at the BLM protest! That's what being a liberal leftie does to you!'

Flint Fredstone

weisses wrote: »

I opposed "far" right ideas with facts in the immigration thread and was labelled lefty and communist ....

It works both ways .... If you cannot see that I think you would have a problem

You're taking my post out of context. I wasn't just randomly making that point.

demfad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think that's pretty thin skinned stuff. If people are expressing white supremacist views (you call alt-right), then they will have their views challenged. We are in the unusual position of having a white supremacist (Bannon) as de facto most powerful man in the world. In the last comparable situation in world politics nearly 100 million people died violently.
If you are going to support people who are following a similar trajectory to people who massacred so many years ago, then you need to be able to defend your point. Trying to bend the rules here to suit your POV as Trump does wont cut it.

Mark Hamill

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Some people are racist fascist nutjobs though. You are saying we should not point that out out of fear of offending those same racist fascist nutjobs?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Some people are racist fascist nutjobs though. You are saying we should not point that out out of fear of offending those same racist fascist nutjobs?

Nutjob is probably never a helpful term to use in fairness. Whatever about fascist or racist, sometimes, maybe, possibly those might just be the best words and the most accurate description. There's never any need to call somebody a nutjob or a libtard or a cuck. They're purely inflammatory.

It's not a case of fear of offending someone, it's a case of what's the point? What's to be achieved? Because it won't be a debate that's productive to take part in or enjoyable to read.

I've never really used the ignore function on here before but I have been since the election.

demfad

Ian Disgusting Superscript wrote: »

Nutjob is probably never a helpful term to use in fairness. Whatever about fascist or racist, sometimes, maybe, possibly those might just be the best words and the most accurate description. There's never any need to call somebody a nutjob or a libtard or a cuck. They're purely inflammatory.

It's not a case of fear of offending someone, it's a case of what's the point? What's to be achieved? Because it won't be a debate that's productive to take part in or enjoyable to read.

I've never really used the ignore function on here before but I have been since the election.

If you are debating with someone who's arguments substantiate that they are being racist or fascist then I would say it's strategically wise to call them out.
Fascists are unlikely to change their minds, but when others see why these people's viewpoints are fascist and what fascism is they may learn from it.

osarusan

Ian Disgusting Superscript wrote: »

Whatever about fascist or racist, sometimes, maybe, possibly those might just be the best words and the most accurate description. There's never any need to call somebody a nutjob or a libtard or a cuck. They're purely inflammatory.

This is an important distinction to make, I think. There are words that have no real use beyond being inflammatory - feminazi is one that springs to mind.

But in other cases, the words have real meanings, and it's a case that they are just thrown about too casually - misogynist and misandrist are a pair that get used as as kind of cover-all terms. Still, there are times when these words are accurate and appropriate.

It won't impact on me as I don't post in the Politics cafe, but while you can call for a blanket ban for certain terms, in other cases, it will become a question of whether the term is appropriate in that particular case, or even whether it is the case that the user considered it appropriate and the use of the term was genuine.

I'd expect a lot of debate over that among the mods.