So a year of President Trump in office has passed.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Seanchaidh:

starbear:
My point wasn't just that Trump is "ignorant, lazy, intellectually bankrupt buffoon with no understanding or experience of how government works": its that Trump is "ignorant, lazy, intellectually bankrupt buffoon with no understanding or experience of how government works, who has stood by while the incompetent fools he has surrounded himself with have systematically run down the US Federal Government."

The people he surrounded himself with are the same ilk that George W. Bush and company are.

"Ilk" is subjective.

George W Bush was a traditional president: as has every other president of the United States. The state department was always fully staffed. Science departments weren't purged. We disagree with many of the things he did as president. But the government kept running.

They aren't doing anything particularly worse than George W. Bush, it just looks worse because Trump is bad at public relations with ~65% of the population, and the media establishment wants him gone because he lacks the subtlety necessary to pretend that Republicanism is anything other than naked kleptocracy.

Yes they are. Read the Vanity Fair article. That has nothing to do with "public relations." It has everything to do with taking the normal, everyday functioning Federal Government and fundamentally crippling it.

Substantively, most of the bad things Trump has actually accomplished are simple continuations of Bush and/or Obama policy. And he hasn't actually started a war like Iraq yet (or dropped the ball on preventing a terrorist attack like 9/11).

How is what Trump has done to the Department of Energy or the State Department remotely close to a continuation of Bush or Obama policy?

Here's some more damage.

https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/sidelining-science-from-day-one

You take any organization, appoint someone who has a fundamental opposition to the mission of that organization to run it, and then let everybody who knows how to run that organization (with years, sometimes decades of experience) leave and not replace them: then things are going to break. The people that are left behind will do the best that they can: but they can't do everything. So things will break. Its impossible for them not too. We don't know what is slipping through the cracks, what "time bombs" are being set right now that might not "blow up" in the not-to-distant future. Imagine a bio-diversity disaster, that is developing right now somewhere in the United States, that is being completely overlooked because the scientists have been fired and the department bosses don't care. The oversight has gone.

This is unprecedented. It didn't happen under Bush, it didn't happen under Obama. And it will do more damage to America than anything that Bush ever did.

Even the fucking wall is now essentially just a border fence, and guess what? We already have a border fence. This is not a new concept. Extending it is wholly unnecessary and a waste of resources, but it's not novel.

Who cares about the fucking wall? The wall has nothing to do with my point.

BeetleManiac:

That last part is an important qualifier. The executive branch is witnessing an unprecedented brain drain because of the Trump administration. We've lost most of our senior scientists and almost our entire senior diplomatic staff. That's the sort of thing that takes years, if not generations to recover from. All because the stupid people had to declare, "My ignorance is equal to your education!" and the lobbyists preyed on that to enrich themselves.

Beyond brain drain, there's also the question as to exactly what Trump's tenure for the next three-odd years, (God Willing no more than that,) is going to have on what are nominally supposed to be the government's regulations and function, as Trump himself is an unstable element in every sense of the word. Although both Republicans and Democrats have been unable to resist fiddling with the proverbial dials meant to restrain their authority when they held the power to do so, something that has at least somewhat tempered the impulse has been, among other things, knowledge that what might benefit their party in the short-term could absolutely hurt them in the long-term. Dissolving checks on their authority might get them what they need for the next few years, but if the 'other guys' end up turning the tables on them, then they'll find themselves at the same disadvantage they subjected their political opponents to. It's happened before, it'll absolutely happen again.

But Trump has... well, zero long-term considerations, be they political or even to the benefit of the nation as a whole; he doesn't care if he leaves the doors and windows wide open for his eventual replacement, Republican or Democrat, so long as he gets what he wants in the here-and-now. On top of that, the man absolutely loathes losing, in any form, and regularly lashes out at whatever individual or organization gets in his way on a given issue. Whether it's the courts, an outside agency, or even just laws themselves, he's regularly chafed against anything that restrains or denies him what he wants to see happen. And his administration is likely going to be spending the next three years trying to find every way they can to bend or otherwise alter whatever rules or individuals hamper their goals.

One recent development I have my eye on at the moment was a surprising decision made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday; Energy Secretary Rick Perry (siiiiigh) had proposed a rule that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants for keeping a certain amount of extra fuel on hand. Perry's justification was that these plants were needed to maintain grid reliability, which by all other accounts was a big load of bullshit. What it would have ended up doing was costing taxpayers billions of dollars, done little to 'improve' grid reliability, and ultimately only really benefit, well, the companies who would be getting the subsidy. Of course, obviously this would have been a big ol' step towards Trump's promises to prop up the fading coal industry, which is why it was particularly surprising that the five-man FERC panel- most of whom had been appointed by the Trump administration, iirc- unanimously voted against Perry's proposal, killing it.

So as things currently stand, the subsidy is dead. The Department of Energy simply do not have the clout, the jurisdiction, whatever you want to call it, to implement this without FERC approval. The aforementioned Commission came down against the proposal without a single hint of doubt or uncertainty. Trump-allied coal boss Robert Murray is obviously pissed about this, decrying the decision by accusing the Democrat commissioners of political bias and insisting the Republicans commissioners need to have their decision overturned. I'd be seriously surprised if he hasn't spent the last two days trying to get Trump on the phone to yell "WHAT THE FUCK, BRO?!"

The Trump administration now faces a challenge, of sorts; either let the Commission's decision stand and respect their authority, or shove their greasy mitts into the situation to try and push things back in favor of coal and nuclear power.

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
I've already delared Dubya no longer the stupid one. He still opened up a war in the wrong country, but he is clearly somewhat better than Trump.

Yes, I'm sure the 174,000 who died in Iraq and the millions who suffered think Trump's far worse than Bush.

Don't get me wrong, Trump could very well do much worse before his time's up. But perspective.

Hey look! It's that all-or-nothing attitude that completely overlooks the fact that the war was acknowledged.

Catnip, just stop. You don't have perspective. Stop trying. You have niggling ineffectual attacks that don't mean anything. You don't get kudos for it. You missed the point, again.

Zontar:
Much as the progressive and corporatist left is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist right is about to feel the same gut punch.

Actually, Zontar, you've got that backwards.
As much as the regressive and corporatist right is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist left is about to feel the same gut punch, if they don't change course.

Much of the right is still currently being propped up on an aging populace, while certain parts of the left are at least trying to appeal to a younger audience. There may be a rather dramatic shift in party support as the Baby Boomers - people born around 1946-1964, meaning the youngest of this group are around 53 years old now - die off.

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:
Much as the progressive and corporatist left is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist right is about to feel the same gut punch.

Actually, Zontar, you've got that backwards.
As much as the regressive and corporatist right is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist left is about to feel the same gut punch, if they don't change course.

Much of the right is still currently being propped up on an aging populace, while certain parts of the left are at least trying to appeal to a younger audience. There may be a rather dramatic shift in party support as the Baby Boomers - people born around 1946-1964, meaning the youngest of this group are around 53 years old now - die off.

I think someone's forgetting about the fact Gen Z exists and is both the most right leaning and anti-authoritarian generation since the war.

Zontar:

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:
Much as the progressive and corporatist left is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist right is about to feel the same gut punch.

Actually, Zontar, you've got that backwards.
As much as the regressive and corporatist right is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist left is about to feel the same gut punch, if they don't change course.

Much of the right is still currently being propped up on an aging populace, while certain parts of the left are at least trying to appeal to a younger audience. There may be a rather dramatic shift in party support as the Baby Boomers - people born around 1946-1964, meaning the youngest of this group are around 53 years old now - die off.

I think someone's forgetting about the fact Gen Z exists and is both the most right leaning and anti-authoritarian generation since the war.

Internet echo chambers does not the world make mate...

Source it up.

Also, current the current altright is the posterboy for authoritarianism. The favt that you agree with their form of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Zontar:
I think someone's forgetting about the fact Gen Z exists and is both the most right leaning and anti-authoritarian generation since the war.

The defining trait of "Generation Z" is not support for conservatism, but apathy towards politics in general. The study I assume you're referring to - because it's the only one I can find at the moment - breaks it down this way:

Donald Trump - 32%
Hillary Clinton - 22%
Third-party - 9%
Write-in - 4%
Abstention - 31%

Donald Trump does not enjoy any more support among members of that age group than he does with America at large. What happened was that Clinton was historically unpopular among members of that age group. I mean, the same study you're citing shows that 43% of Gen Z members approve of Obama's job performance, compared to a disapproval rating of just 23% - better than both 2016 candidates and hardly a rebuke to his ideology.

The best assessment of the political leanings of the next generation of voters is that they are fiscally conservative due to growing up during a worldwide economic downturn, but socially progressive on questions such as abortion, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration and climate change. But most of all, they are simply disillusioned.

Zontar:

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:
Much as the progressive and corporatist left is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist right is about to feel the same gut punch.

Actually, Zontar, you've got that backwards.
As much as the regressive and corporatist right is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist left is about to feel the same gut punch, if they don't change course.

Much of the right is still currently being propped up on an aging populace, while certain parts of the left are at least trying to appeal to a younger audience. There may be a rather dramatic shift in party support as the Baby Boomers - people born around 1946-1964, meaning the youngest of this group are around 53 years old now - die off.

I think someone's forgetting about the fact Gen Z exists and is both the most right leaning and anti-authoritarian generation since the war.

How can they be anti-authoritarian AND right leaning? That just doesnt add up. No, opposing equal rights is not anti-authoritarian.

Fasicm is authoritarian.

Zontar:
I think someone's forgetting about the fact Gen Z exists and is both the most right leaning and anti-authoritarian generation since the war.

Uhh, considering I'm right at the very tail end of the Millennial/Gen Y generation - born in '93 and the Gen Z starts at around '95 - you have no idea just what Gen Z in the US really is like, although Statistics Canada defines Gen Z as starting in '93, so if we go by their definition I am Gen Z.

The tail end of the Millennials, and the Gen Z'ers are mostly apathetic about politics, rotten politics and rampant capitalism is what's gotten us into the clusterfuck we're in now. As much as I'd like to stay on top of things and be the change I want to see in the world, I'm at the point where I'm disillusioned enough with the American system that it just needs to torn down and rebuilt from the ground up to actually serve the people. No amount of tweaks will change what's become so broken, especially when the people no longer have the power to change it, it needs to be scrapped and re-made. bastardofmelbourne has nailed it pretty much, fiscally conservative - everyone wants an effective government that spends responsibly -, but socially progressive. Even accounting for fiscal conservatism, being socially progressive places them on the left side of the American political spectrum.

You're wrong, Zontar.

It's pretty safe to say that the hypermasculine, corporate culture of the 70's and 80's, the culture that Trump both embodies and parodies, is pretty much dead. It's not an exaggeration in stating that we're seeing a culture shift in light of the economic recession.

Pretty much no one born in the 90's and onward has any deal faith in the corporate, capitalist system since we more or less feel like we've been taken advantage of by big banks and businesses, as well as the political structure that's supported them. It really shouldn't be that surprising that so many millennials and those before and after them have a much more favorable viewpoint on leftism since it's not hard to see what the problem is.

With Trump in office, with Trump running the government like how he and most CEOs and capitalists run businesses, anyone that still supports that kind of administration is either tone-deaf or willfully ignorant.

Zontar:

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:
Much as the progressive and corporatist left is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist right is about to feel the same gut punch.

Actually, Zontar, you've got that backwards.
As much as the regressive and corporatist right is about to die due to how unpopular it is with the young, the corporatist left is about to feel the same gut punch, if they don't change course.

Much of the right is still currently being propped up on an aging populace, while certain parts of the left are at least trying to appeal to a younger audience. There may be a rather dramatic shift in party support as the Baby Boomers - people born around 1946-1964, meaning the youngest of this group are around 53 years old now - die off.

I think someone's forgetting about the fact Gen Z exists and is both the most right leaning and anti-authoritarian generation since the war.

Right wing and anti-authoritarian. Those are some pretty contradictory statements to make, considering that the right leaning population in this country are ok with some pretty nasty shit. Discrimination against LGBT citizens, bypassing due process and abuse of authority (See Joe Arpaio, the sheriff who created a self described concentration camp where over a hundred people died, was found guilty, pardoned by Trump, and is now running for senator of Arizona and is in a tight second place for the Republican primary there, and I'm only scratching the surface of the shit he's done) almost electing a pedophile as senator of Alabama, being ok with harsh penalties for minor drug charges, including loss of civil liberties, generally lashing out viciously at any criticism of the police or the military, electing a guy who has regularly threatened to restructure libel laws in a response to being criticized and who has regularly claimed people should be fired for exercising their freedom of speech in ways he doesn't like, yeah, not really seeing the anti-authoritarian nature of the right in this country. I don't stand for the pledge of allegiance when I substitute teach, and I imagine a lot of right wingers would be screaming that I should be fired if I told them that, even though this kind of thing has gone to court before and I'd be protected under the first amendment.

Unless we go by the right's definition, which is "it's authoritarian when someone else does it, it's patriotic when I do it, and if you're not ok with what I'm doing you hate America." You'd be surprised how often criticism of right leaning actions get met with accusations of hating America.

FalloutJack:
Hey look! It's that all-or-nothing attitude that completely overlooks the fact that the war was acknowledged.

Catnip, just stop. You don't have perspective. Stop trying. You have niggling ineffectual attacks that don't mean anything. You don't get kudos for it. You missed the point, again.

You stated that a president who started a war in the wrong country is somehow better than Trump. By acknowledging the war, you are stating that you think the death toll is somehow less important than what Trump has done.

I mean, fine, that's potentially a valid argument if you can back it up with anything. But I'd be interested to see what weighs more heavily in your mind than 174,000 dead and the sum of the injured (not even counting the knock on effects in the region).

Samtemdo8:
I like for someone to categorize what this man has done since he assumed office right until the end of the year in December 31st.

Is he any worse or better than when George Bush Jr. in his first year?

The only thing I know is the attempted Repeal of Obamacare, the posturing against North Korea, and the Tax Cut, the latter I don't know what the outcome will happen unless explained.

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
Hey look! It's that all-or-nothing attitude that completely overlooks the fact that the war was acknowledged.

Catnip, just stop. You don't have perspective. Stop trying. You have niggling ineffectual attacks that don't mean anything. You don't get kudos for it. You missed the point, again.

You stated that a president who started a war in the wrong country is somehow better than Trump. By acknowledging the war, you are stating that you think the death toll is somehow less important than what Trump has done.

I mean, fine, that's potentially a valid argument if you can back it up with anything. But I'd be interested to see what weighs more heavily in your mind than 174,000 dead and the sum of the injured (not even counting the knock on effects in the region).

I'll be fair that using the Iraq war against Bush in particular is based on a big "if" of the idea that under a different president it wouldn't have happened. Considering after 9/11 the american populace wanted to "get back" at something for it, the faulty intelligence that justified the war and (if I recall correctly) both parties agreeing to the Iraq war it is likely the same would have happened under a different president of either party.

inu-kun:
I'll be fair that using the Iraq war against Bush in particular is based on a big "if" of the idea that under a different president it wouldn't have happened. Considering after 9/11 the american populace wanted to "get back" at something for it, the faulty intelligence that justified the war and (if I recall correctly) both parties agreeing to the Iraq war it is likely the same would have happened under a different president of either party.

To be completely honest, I don't really have a problem with Bush. I do believe most administrations would have done similar. I don't like people saying that "despite Iraq, Trump is worse" with no rationalisation though. Like I said, there are arguments you could use to try and justify it. But it needs the justification.

Catnip1024:

inu-kun:
I'll be fair that using the Iraq war against Bush in particular is based on a big "if" of the idea that under a different president it wouldn't have happened. Considering after 9/11 the american populace wanted to "get back" at something for it, the faulty intelligence that justified the war and (if I recall correctly) both parties agreeing to the Iraq war it is likely the same would have happened under a different president of either party.

To be completely honest, I don't really have a problem with Bush. I do believe most administrations would have done similar. I don't like people saying that "despite Iraq, Trump is worse" with no rationalisation though. Like I said, there are arguments you could use to try and justify it. But it needs the justification.

In general comparing presidents (or any government head) is kinda pointless. You can have the useless president ever but if you live in a time of steady economic rise everyone will remember him fondly, you can have one of the most devoted and capable president ever but if you live in economic decline and blowing scandals people will remember him badly. Everyone likes to say "if it was my side's president everyone will be roses" or alternatively "they did the best with their situation" but the truth of the matter is impossible to tell (without a working time machine).

bastardofmelbourne:

The defining trait of "Generation Z" is not support for conservatism, but apathy towards politics in general. The study I assume you're referring to

Not in the slightest, I didn't even know about that one, I was referring to the repeated studies over the past few years that indicate that Gen Z is pretty damn libertarian. Why that is I can only speculate, but people seem to think it's just the regular cycle of one generation leaning the other way from the other. Given how many millennials are left wing authoritarians, I can't say it doesn't look that way.

Saelune:
How can they be anti-authoritarian AND right leaning?

erttheking:

Right wing and anti-authoritarian. Those are some pretty contradictory statements to make

Alright let me ask you this: how can you be left wing and anti-authoritarian? Yes I know that's a fucking retarded thing to ask, but I hope it's blunt enough to make realize how moronic what you've posted is, not to mention bigoted and intentionally ignorant. Where did the myth that the left is inherently introspective and self aware arise from again? Because it doesn't come from a place in the real world.

Dr. Thrax:

You're wrong, Zontar.

You say that, and yet the only thing you have are words from a bias source put up against what I see with my own eyes. Maybe Quebec is different from the rest of the West (but still also in line with what sociologists are claiming to observe) but maybe, just maybe, the left wing authoritarianism that's so popular with millennials is something Gen Z doesn't like (because it is trying to censor our entertainment, and taking away one's circuses is a terrible idea) and the ideas of libertarianism are more stomach-able? I know I, while once socialist leaning, sure as fuck didn't care about actually getting involved in politics until fascists who claimed to fight for social justice tried to brake every community I was a part of.

The modern far left is its own worst enemy and the right's greatest recruiting tool.

Zontar:

Saelune:
How can they be anti-authoritarian AND right leaning?

erttheking:

Right wing and anti-authoritarian. Those are some pretty contradictory statements to make

Alright let me ask you this: how can you be left wing and anti-authoritarian? Yes I know that's a fucking retarded thing to ask, but I hope it's blunt enough to make realize how moronic what you've posted is, not to mention bigoted and intentionally ignorant. Where did the myth that the left is inherently introspective and self aware arise from again? Because it doesn't come from a place in the real world.

Instead of addressing all the shitty and well documented things that right wingers do and that I pointed out which supports the idea that the right is not anti-authoritarian, you deflect and attempt to go on the offensive, while providing no evidence to counter my evidence. Business as usual in talking with you it seems.

The only way you've realized how what I posted was moronic was that I realized I was trying to present evidence to a person who flat out ignores any evidence that is inconvenient to his world view. I can't help but notice that about you. You can never declare how right you are without heavily ignoring the points I bring to the table. Hey, Zontar? Let me know when the left starts seriously considering electing pedophiles and people who run self described concentration camps. Then you can play the victim. Not until then.

Oh, and to answer your question, that's how you can be left wing and anti-authoritarian. The left thinks people who ran self styled concentration camps that got over a hundred people killed should not be senator of Arizona. No level of snark from you will change which side of the political spectrum is ok with a man like that being senator and which isn't.

Not that you'll ever admit it.

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:

The defining trait of "Generation Z" is not support for conservatism, but apathy towards politics in general. The study I assume you're referring to

Not in the slightest, I didn't even know about that one, I was referring to the repeated studies over the past few years that indicate that Gen Z is pretty damn libertarian. Why that is I can only speculate, but people seem to think it's just the regular cycle of one generation leaning the other way from the other. Given how many millennials are left wing authoritarians, I can't say it doesn't look that way.

Saelune:
How can they be anti-authoritarian AND right leaning?

erttheking:

Right wing and anti-authoritarian. Those are some pretty contradictory statements to make

Alright let me ask you this: how can you be left wing and anti-authoritarian? Yes I know that's a fucking retarded thing to ask, but I hope it's blunt enough to make realize how moronic what you've posted is, not to mention bigoted and intentionally ignorant. Where did the myth that the left is inherently introspective and self aware arise from again? Because it doesn't come from a place in the real world.

Dr. Thrax:

You're wrong, Zontar.

You say that, and yet the only thing you have are words from a bias source put up against what I see with my own eyes. Maybe Quebec is different from the rest of the West (but still also in line with what sociologists are claiming to observe) but maybe, just maybe, the left wing authoritarianism that's so popular with millennials is something Gen Z doesn't like (because it is trying to censor our entertainment, and taking away one's circuses is a terrible idea) and the ideas of libertarianism are more stomach-able? I know I, while once socialist leaning, sure as fuck didn't care about actually getting involved in politics until fascists who claimed to fight for social justice tried to brake every community I was a part of.

The modern far left is its own worst enemy and the right's greatest recruiting tool.

See, you dont get it because you think opposing bigotry is bigoted.

Bigotry is authoritarian. The left opposses bigotry.

Zontar:

The modern far left is its own worst enemy and the right's greatest recruiting tool.

Then why does Alabama have a democrat senator?

Zontar:
Not in the slightest, I didn't even know about that one, I was referring to the repeated studies over the past few years that indicate that Gen Z is pretty damn libertarian. Why that is I can only speculate, but people seem to think it's just the regular cycle of one generation leaning the other way from the other. Given how many millennials are left wing authoritarians, I can't say it doesn't look that way.

So...if you're not working off the Hispanic Heritage Foundation study, what are you working off? Do you have another source I can look at? Do you care to address the findings in the study that I linked?

Where are you getting all this from?

Zontar:
You say that, and yet the only thing you have are words from a bias source put up against what I see with my own eyes.

Man, this is a recurring problem with you. You value your narrow personal perspective above any kind of broader perspective derived from statistics or research, and you automatically assume the latter is biased.

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
Not in the slightest, I didn't even know about that one, I was referring to the repeated studies over the past few years that indicate that Gen Z is pretty damn libertarian. Why that is I can only speculate, but people seem to think it's just the regular cycle of one generation leaning the other way from the other. Given how many millennials are left wing authoritarians, I can't say it doesn't look that way.

So...if you're not working off the Hispanic Heritage Foundation study, what are you working off? Do you have another source I can look at? Do you care to address the findings in the study that I linked?

Where are you getting all this from?

His friend group has a lot of "libertarians". Which is to say, a lot of folks reading Ayn Rand for the first time and not having the life experiences to know it's bunk. Same thing happens every generation. Part of that "every generation thinks they invented sex" sort of thing.

Zontar:
You say that, and yet the only thing you have are words from a bias source put up against what I see with my own eyes.

Either you and I must be living in two completely different realities, or you're looking in the wrong places, or need to get your eyes checked out. Either way, this is the United States we're talking about, not Quebec, what applies in Canada does not necessarily apply to the US.

Maybe Quebec is different from the rest of the West (but still also in line with what sociologists are claiming to observe) but maybe, just maybe, the left wing authoritarianism that's so popular with millennials is something Gen Z doesn't like (because it is trying to censor our entertainment, and taking away one's circuses is a terrible idea) and the ideas of libertarianism are more stomach-able? I know I, while once socialist leaning, sure as fuck didn't care about actually getting involved in politics until fascists who claimed to fight for social justice tried to brake every community I was a part of.

The modern far left is its own worst enemy and the right's greatest recruiting tool.

You still haven't even shown just what exactly "left wing authoritarianism" even is, I've been questioning your understanding of the concept of authoritarianism ever since the words fell onto your keyboard and into the Escapist forums. A few loud libertarian Gen Z'ers does not define the entire generation, as they're mostly still too young to form their own full opinions, typically following along what celebrities and their family tells them to. There's been many young libertarians speaking at CPAC only to turn face and reject what they previously preached a couple years later. You probably were never "socialist leaning", Zontar, and you honestly wouldn't know what a fascist was even if it stood on a podium and proudly declared "I am a fascist!"

The right's greatest recruiting tool is the use of misinformation and lies, and the reliance on ignorance and bigotry to spread its message and have unquestioning belief in it, and rejecting anything that disagrees or proves them wrong, even the words they just spoke a week ago.

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
Not in the slightest, I didn't even know about that one, I was referring to the repeated studies over the past few years that indicate that Gen Z is pretty damn libertarian. Why that is I can only speculate, but people seem to think it's just the regular cycle of one generation leaning the other way from the other. Given how many millennials are left wing authoritarians, I can't say it doesn't look that way.

So...if you're not working off the Hispanic Heritage Foundation study, what are you working off? Do you have another source I can look at? Do you care to address the findings in the study that I linked?

Where are you getting all this from?

Zontar:
You say that, and yet the only thing you have are words from a bias source put up against what I see with my own eyes.

Man, this is a recurring problem with you. You value your narrow personal perspective above any kind of broader perspective derived from statistics or research, and you automatically assume the latter is biased.

Zontar is very pro-Trump.

Trump literally calls all criticism of him fake news.

Saelune:
Bigotry is authoritarian. The left opposses bigotry.

Now, the larger debate here, I am overlooking. This statement is just plain bizarre.

Bigotry isn't inherent to any particular part of the political spectrum. There're plenty of left-wing parties with serious issues to support that assertion.

Likewise, why is your implied stance that the left is anti-authoritarian? An idealised socialist world has more things run by the state, more people dependent on the state, more regulations telling you what you can or can't do (for your own good). It's not some sort of anarchic paradise with no rules.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Bigotry is authoritarian. The left opposses bigotry.

Now, the larger debate here, I am overlooking. This statement is just plain bizarre.

Bigotry isn't inherent to any particular part of the political spectrum. There're plenty of left-wing parties with serious issues to support that assertion.

Likewise, why is your implied stance that the left is anti-authoritarian? An idealised socialist world has more things run by the state, more people dependent on the state, more regulations telling you what you can or can't do (for your own good). It's not some sort of anarchic paradise with no rules.

Ever see an authoritarian government that wasnt bigoted and right wing? And no, Nazis having 'socialist' in their names doesnt make them left-wing or even socialists.

Bigotry and right-wing go hand in hand. As left/right is really a scale, further right, more bigoted, further left, less. Any bigotry in any 'left-wing' group, is really some right-wing influence that should probably be removed.

As many left-wing critics of hers like to point out, Hillary is not really that left-wing, but compaired to Republicans, she very much is.

Saelune:
How can they be anti-authoritarian AND right leaning? That just doesnt add up. No, opposing equal rights is not anti-authoritarian.

Fasicm is authoritarian.

That's because you look at things in only one dimension. Left & right can refer to both economic and social stances. I suppose that what Zontar likely meant (?) is that Gen Z is economically right wing while socially "leftish" (I say leftish because it seems the left is more and more in favor of authoritarian social engineering).

And Fascism isn't just a "right wing" ideology. There is nothing economically right wing about anti-capitalism and an economy controlled by the state (but with micro-management left to corporations, in the boundaries of the very strict state imposed rules).

Saelune:
Ever see an authoritarian government that wasnt bigoted and right wing?

Now that one is easy, the Kim's, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hoxha, Nyerere and Castro are some examples on top of my mind.

I also wonder, if you were to describe the political bias of "The Economist" would it be left or right?

Catnip1024:
Bigotry isn't inherent to any particular part of the political spectrum. There're plenty of left-wing parties with serious issues to support that assertion.

For an obvious example of this, just look at the schism among feminists about whether transwomen are actually real women or not. Both sides have some very good arguments, but in the refusal to acknowledge camp you also get people that openly state that men will always be men (even after hormone therapy and corrective surgery) no matter how much they want to be women and as such should not be accepted as 'real women'.

To me bigotry isn't as much authoritarian as it is character flaw found in all of us to some degree. That being said, some political movements, on the far right in particular, appeal more openly to bigotry then most others.

Gethsemani:

To me bigotry isn't as much authoritarian as it is character flaw found in all of us to some degree. That being said, some political movements, on the far right in particular, appeal more openly to bigotry then most others.

Every extremist political stance is bound to be bigoted, singling the far right in particular is false. This is mainly that going on the deep end of an ideology will get you to hate with a passion groups that are considered by it to be "problematic", be it Fascists who consider Jews to be traitors against the country of Communists who consider Jews the icons of Capitalism. I can also mention the British Labour party with anti semitic controversies or the disgusting "Race=Power+Discrimination".

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Bigotry is authoritarian. The left opposses bigotry.

Now, the larger debate here, I am overlooking. This statement is just plain bizarre.

Bigotry isn't inherent to any particular part of the political spectrum. There're plenty of left-wing parties with serious issues to support that assertion.

Likewise, why is your implied stance that the left is anti-authoritarian? An idealised socialist world has more things run by the state, more people dependent on the state, more regulations telling you what you can or can't do (for your own good). It's not some sort of anarchic paradise with no rules.

Difference between theory and practice. "The left" says it's anti-bigotry and anti-authoritarian. It is lying about that less often than the right, as a rule. How much less often varies alot.

inu-kun:
This is mainly that going on the deep end of an ideology will get you to hate with a passion groups that are considered by it to be "problematic", be it Fascists who consider Jews to be traitors against the country of Communists who consider Jews the icons of Capitalism.

That one is not accidental though.

Like, the first half of the 20th century saw massive gains made by socialist movements in Europe (and to a lesser extent in the US). This culminated at the situation at the end of the first world war when for a while people genuinely wondered if the world revolution had begun with two of the "great powers" having fallen to socialist revolutions and labour movements gaining momentum across the rest of the world.

Because of this, the far right realised that their political survival hinged on being able to counter socialist arguments, and they did this (incredibly effectively) by framing class struggles as racial struggles, appealing to a sense of nationalism or cultural exceptionalism. It wasn't always Jews who were the targets (in Italy, before the pact of iron at least, Jews were pretty safe). But in Germany, where extreme anti-Semitism was already deeply rooted in the culture the right wing reaction to socialism zeroed in on Jews, and as Germany (rather than Italy) became the centre of far-right thought in Europe this tendency spread across the whole continent and beyond.

So no, it's not an accident that the far right depictions of Jews mirrors the far left depiction of capitalists, because that was a deliberate strategy by the far right to blame the Jews (or other national or racial enemies) for the problems which socialists were arguing (with a great deal of success) were caused by capitalism. Ordinary people live in extreme poverty? Nope, capitalism isn't the problem guys, it's just that Jews are greedy parasites. Global markets have crashed leading to hyperinflation. Nothing to do with the general unreliability of the business cycle, it's just Jews who have sneakily engineered it as part of their plan for world domination. Jews are even depicted in "capitalist" clothes in some Nazi propaganda posters, just to make the association clear.

You are correct in one regard, though, in that a few people on the modern left have been "taken in" just as many on the right have been over the years and continue to be (except, of course, we are now told to blame all our economic and social woes on "immigrants" or the suspiciously Jewish-coded "urban elite" rather than literally all Jews).

But the idea of a straightforward comparison between the two as if they are equivallent is absurd and shows a degree of brainwashing I can't even begin to fathom. Look at the history of socialism in practically any given region of Europe and America and you will people of Jewish ancestry at the centre. Heck, this was one of the major Nazi accusations against Marxist socialism (Marx, of course, was of Jewish ancestry himself). There is, again, nothing accidental about this, Jews had plenty of reason to aspire for a better world free of the nationalism and racist extremism propagated by the right.

And again, most of these "anti-semitic controversies" in the Labour party occurred when the leader of the party was a secular Jewish atheist whose parents fled the holocaust and whose father was, at the same time, being hatcheted in the right-wing press for being a dirty foreign immigrant who hated Britain and had specifically raised his sons as some kind of infiltration units to bring down the British government. But you didn't read about that, did you..

Catnip1024:
Likewise, why is your implied stance that the left is anti-authoritarian? An idealised socialist world has more things run by the state, more people dependent on the state, more regulations telling you what you can or can't do (for your own good). It's not some sort of anarchic paradise with no rules.

The funny thing is, a lot of "socialists" are also literally anarchists. Heck, I think if I had to pin myself down I am literally an anarchist, I am also literally a socialist. An anarchic paradise with no rules, of course, wouldn't be a paradise at all, but that's because authority isn't just something wielded by the state, is it. The idea that being anti-authoritarian simply means being anti-state is exactly why libetarianism makes no sense to anyone who has experienced genuine persecution.

Catnip1024:
Worthless face-saving pro-Trump nonsense

Save it. The bad move was noted, the task made unforgiveable, and it is so by all those responsible, which was more than just Dubya. Trump is one man trying to be an island, and you're trying to see the lighter side. There isn't one. There just isn't one. Quit apologizing for him.

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
This is mainly that going on the deep end of an ideology will get you to hate with a passion groups that are considered by it to be "problematic", be it Fascists who consider Jews to be traitors against the country of Communists who consider Jews the icons of Capitalism.

That one is not accidental though.

Like, the first half of the 20th century saw massive gains made by socialist movements in Europe (and to a lesser extent in the US). This culminated at the situation at the end of the first world war when for a while people genuinely wondered if the world revolution had begun with two of the "great powers" having fallen to socialist revolutions and labour movements gaining momentum across the rest of the world.

Because of this, the far right realised that their political survival hinged on being able to counter socialist arguments, and they did this (incredibly effectively) by framing class struggles as racial struggles, appealing to a sense of nationalism or cultural exceptionalism. It wasn't always Jews who were the targets (in Italy, before the pact of iron at least, Jews were pretty safe). But in Germany, where extreme anti-Semitism was already deeply rooted in the culture the right wing reaction to socialism zeroed in on Jews, and as Germany (rather than Italy) became the centre of far-right thought in Europe this tendency spread across the whole continent and beyond.

So no, it's not an accident that the far right depictions of Jews mirrors the far left depiction of capitalists, because that was a deliberate strategy by the far right to blame the Jews (or other national or racial enemies) for the problems which socialists were arguing (with a great deal of success) were caused by capitalism. Ordinary people live in extreme poverty? Nope, capitalism isn't the problem guys, it's just that Jews are greedy parasites. Global markets have crashed leading to hyperinflation. Nothing to do with the general unreliability of the business cycle, it's just Jews who have sneakily engineered it as part of their plan for world domination. Jews are even depicted in "capitalist" clothes in some Nazi propaganda posters, just to make the association clear.

You are correct in one regard, though, in that a few people on the modern left have been "taken in" just as many on the right have been over the years and continue to be (except, of course, we are now told to blame all our economic and social woes on "immigrants" or the suspiciously Jewish-coded "urban elite" rather than literally all Jews).

But the idea of a straightforward comparison between the two as if they are equivallent is absurd and shows a degree of brainwashing I can't even begin to fathom. Look at the history of socialism in practically any given region of Europe and America and you will people of Jewish ancestry at the centre. Heck, this was one of the major Nazi accusations against Marxist socialism (Marx, of course, was of Jewish ancestry himself). There is, again, nothing accidental about this, Jews had plenty of reason to aspire for a better world free of the nationalism and racist extremism propagated by the right.

And again, most of these "anti-semitic controversies" in the Labour party occurred when the leader of the party was a secular Jewish atheist whose parents fled the holocaust and whose father was, at the same time, being hatcheted in the right-wing press for being a dirty foreign immigrant who hated Britain and had specifically raised his sons as some kind of infiltration units to bring down the British government. But you didn't read about that, did you..

I don't get your point, do you want to argue that Communists were never antisemitic? Because history says otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan

And trying to argue that Communism can't be anti semitic because Jews supported it is as logical as saying that Fascism is not anti semitic, because guess what, there were Jews that supported that idea as Fascism at its core is blind to ethnic/religeous affiliation and only cares if you are a "patriot", not unlike Communism.

Also good use of Whataboutisms, why need to address events in the last two years.

Edit: And in general you miss my point that both extremes are bigoted to make a bigot measuring contest. There are other groups that are getting hated besides Jews on both sides.

In short, pure incompetence, weakening ties to allies, dick measuring contests with a third-world dictator, a bunch of twitter posts and further dividing the country

Catnip1024:

Likewise, why is your implied stance that the left is anti-authoritarian? An idealised socialist world has more things run by the state, more people dependent on the state, more regulations telling you what you can or can't do (for your own good). It's not some sort of anarchic paradise with no rules.

Authoritarianism is based on the idea of hierarchy and submission to appropriate authority. This is not the same thing as the state overseeing economic production instead of private ownership. Not least because - in theory at least - the underlying rationale of state ownership is empowerment of the general populace: now everyone shares the power as equal controllers of the government, rather than power being in the hands of an aristocratic / plutocratic elite. In practice, of course, Communism ended up very different.

Secondly, the concept of state ownership has only over been one side of socialism. On the other you have the concept of direct worker ownership (e.g. co-operatives) or even a stateless society (anarchism). And indeed, the theoretical intended end point even of Communism was the withering away of the state after it had set up the means for a self-sustaining society.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here