Your response actually makes me want to vote for Trump more. Isn't that weird?
Yeah, that's weird indeed. You would vote for him, but because of me, you vote for him more.
You just made a binary thing you already decided on weirdly about me.
assume I'm just racist, white supremacist, alt-right(whatever that is) deplorable?
You support Trump and therefore you support racist policies. You support concentration camps for example. You support children in cages.
Your motives don't matter anymore at this point.
I am German and i'm taking 'never forget' drop-dead serious.
Whatever you think about sides, you are on the wrong side of history.
I shouldn't be allowed to speak, just because I'm a Trump voter.
I get that you see it like that, but that's not it!
Just recently someone was banned because he supports BAU. You support BAU and even worse. Waaaaay worse! All the things the other dude was banned for, your post represent times 10.
In this context, i was asking Neven this question.
I'm giving you the opportunity to understand Trump voters, or at least a decent fraction of them. Isn't that much more worthwhile than the blanket condemnation you have engaged in? The right isn't going away, and if people on the left keep acting like you have, the right is going to get more traction.
I don't know how to multiquote. So...
BAU. Business as usual. I think I made a good case for business as usual as it pertains to actions to mitigate AGW. What did you think of my argument? Is it good or bad, if so why? I wouldn't say I "support" it, I'm just wary of extreme "solutions" and there should be serious discussions, not flippant, about what is to be done about it.
It's not because of you that I'd vote for him more. It's because of your behavior. You take such an extreme point of view your point of view needs a counterpoint. As the left goes further left, it needs to be balanced by a farther right. I'm not far right, but more center right can counter a few extreme left. Simplistically, let's say if there are 10 people who are a 10 on the scale of left, you can balance that with 100 people who are a 1 on the scale of right. I don't even think about it that way, that's just my explanation for what happens. I think it's more a reflexive digging in. If you don't think you're subject to digging in in response to pressure from an opposition, I don't think you know yourself or people in general that well. You did the exact thing, unbeknownst to yourself when you said my name made you "go full opposition", merely for a name, without knowing anything else about me and my views on various policies. And I'm not saying we need a balance because the middle ground is correct on every issue. One side can be 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, depending on the issue. The truth that being conservative or liberal is to a significant degree built into us due to genetics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/That actually means that condemning conservatives means you're condemning people due to their genes. And we should all be very wary of doing that.
I don't know what I said that was "binary" about you. I don't know what you mean by that.
Support for Trump doesn't mean support for racist policies. He doesn't have significantly racist policies. Everyone on the left says he's racist, but that's nonsense barely meriting a specific response. The magnetic strip on the race card is worn out. You can't make that accusation any more without basis. The center doesn't tolerate it any more. That's why Trump won. Normal Americans got tired of it and many other things, and thus the eff you to the "establishment" (ignoring the question of whether or not DT is part of the establishment).
The camps aren't concentration camps. The whole point of use of term concentration camp is to link it to the camps in Germany in the 1940's and generate similar feelings, to use emotional, not rational arguments. People will say, but they ARE concentration camps technically, and while that may be true, the use of that term is definitely not done in good faith, because of the intended linking to treating people very poorly for completely messed up reasons. That is nothing more than propaganda.
I mean, you use the term, but you use it as if that means there could NEVER be a justified use for concentration camps. What if we had an communicable disease that was incurable, had a long dormancy period in which it was poorly communicable, but people without warning start showing symptoms at the same point that it becomes communicable and highly contagious, and there is a very high mortality rate, similar to ebola (50%)? And say there was an easy test for antibodies. So we could tell who was nearly guaranteed to develop the full disease and die, but before they die infect a lot of other people. Would it be wrong to concentrate people who test positive for the disease so they can live as free as possible until we can find a cure without causing the human race to go extinct? Yeah, it's an extreme and contrived case, but the point is if you can justify any edge case, that means concentration camps (per your defined appropriate use of the term) intrinsically bad and your use of the term loses its intrinsically bad connotation, which was the literal only point of your use of it.
Children were put in cages during the Obama administration. No one cared then. And it's for purely partisan and TDS reasons. See link:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obamas-dhs-secretary-migrant-cages-werent-invented-on-jan-20-2017Give border enforcement more resources so they can better enforce immigration law. But those on the left (and many professional politicians on the right) want open borders. Open borders is unethical policy.
Build the wall, or better (I don't like the idea of a wall any more than you do), stop encouraging mass migration. Remove the incentives and you don't need a wall. Enforce immigration law on the interior and you don't need the wall. It's insane and economically childish to have open borders and a robust social safety net. It's econ 101 that that can't work. You can't have 150 million taxpayers paying in year after year, then let in millions of poor people every year that have immediate access to all the benefits those millions of taxpayers paid for, yet without spending any time here to pay for it. It's both unsustainable and unethical and will inevitably lead to chaos - which is probably part of the point of those that advocate for open borders. Let's stop encouraging the unsustainable mass migration and people will stop pouring in and we won't need to detain people.
My motives don't matter? We haven't even established that "my" policies are bad, and you've already condemned my motives, about which you've said nothing that demonstrates understanding them anyway.
You take "never forget" drop dead serious. So do I. But you don't take it nearly far enough and it doesn't look like you even understand what you say you take drop dead serious. The real lesson of the holocaust is to understand that you're a human, and so were the Nazis that put people in death camps and tortured them while there and exterminated them. Everyone likes to think that if they were alive in 1930's Germany they'd have fought fiercely against the Nazi's, but no one can know that. You may have gone along to get along. You may have even become one of the more sinister characters. If we were placed and grown in a different environment, we'd be different people, so we don't get to take credit for all of our current positive attributes, nor are we to be utterly condemned for all of your negative attributes. To quote Sam Harris in his talk on the absence of free will:
“You can't take credit for your talents, but it matters that you use them. You can't really be blamed for your weaknesses, but it matters that you correct them. So pride and shame don't make a lot of sense, in the final analysis, but they weren't much fun anyway.”
You say you're German so you take "never forget" seriously. That's a complete non sequiter. Plenty of Germans aren't stricken with irrational guilt for things they took no part in. The correct analysis is that Nazis were human and you're a human, so something like the holocaust is within the capacity of a being much like you (and me), since we're also human. The lesson is to understand how to avoid a repeat of that, and a repeat of Stalin's work/death camps which killed people on purpose and killed them for nothing more than political dissent, and killed more than the Nazis did in the holocaust. Interesting isn't it, how Stalin's killed more people in internal repression than Hitler, but people avoid talking about it and leftists often carry around the hammer an sickle flag, which is no less a symbol of mass murder than the Nazi swastika.
And we see the left acting now much as Stalin did, without the killing, yet. The left is dehumanizing the political opposition, without any serious discussion of policy differences. Dissent from your point of view has become a sin, equivalent in seriousness as one of the very bad sins to an evangelical Christian, and that's why people like ANTIFA (fascists themselves) get away with assaulting journalists and police do nothing to stop it. Republicans in the US get harassed and assaulted openly, and the media backs this behavior. Politicians call for public harassment of the political opposition. This a very dangerous position we're in, and the left it taking us there.
The western world is close to Stalin's USSR and will take us there if we're not careful, and it seems you're doing your part in the way you have condemned me, without any real attempt to understand differences of opinion.
And I'll restate that everything is a fit subject for humor. You can joke about horrible things, but that should be contingent on recognizing those things are horrible. David Chappele (a black comedian) can make a skit about a KKK member that is blind and doesn't know they are black, and it's hilarious. If racism weren't wrong, it wouldn't be funny. It's funny specifically because racism is wrong, and absurd.
You have made no case for how I'm on the wrong side of anything, all of your points were just assertions and blanket condemnation.
There could actually be fruitful political discussions of people were not essentially condemned as evil for thoughtful disagreements on policy. You might even see that things are not as dire as they seem, since all the people you hate are far less deplorable than you think, if you took the time and made a genuine attempt to understand and discuss actual policy positions they hold and why they hold them.
