Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 13:08

Skism wrote:
RegisterMe wrote:
Skism wrote:"2. To conceal or gloss over (wrongdoing, for example)."
Which is precisely what Trump is doing by being even handed in his criticism.

Im sorry but thats plain ridiculous there where several factions being violent and wrong here .
It's not ridiculous at all. Essentially we have two factions here. Faction A is openly racist (and who's stance on pretty much everything is condemned by almost everybody bar Trump and David Duke), and one of who's members drives a car into a crowd of Faction B, killing one and injuring nineteen.

Faction B is anti-racist, some of who's members got involved in some fisticuffs. The tearing down of the statue (which I don't condone or support) occurred after the previous violence, and after the death and injuries caused by the deliberate driving of a car into a crowd.

Trump criticised both equally. They are not equivalent, morally or otherwise.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Post by Bishop149 » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 14:44

pjknibbs wrote:Depends, were they removed by angry mobs or removed by the official German government? That's where I draw the line, not who the statue is of or what they did.
I think that most frequently they were removed by an occupying foreign force. . . . . the Allies.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 15:11

muppetts wrote:
pjknibbs wrote:I don't see any substantive difference in the removal of that statue and, say, the Taliban blowing up ancient monuments in Afghanistan, apart from the political views being espoused by doing so. Vandalism is not the appropriate response to this sort of thing, IMHO.
I'm sure you saw the removal of Hitler statues in the same light, funny thing all his statues are gone but everyone still remembers him, weird huh, maybe the US will get over it after all...
Except Lee isn't Hitler, not anywhere close. But I guess it's bar for the course these days: if people disagree with me on a figure, let just make a comparison to Hitler to make a point and case close. :roll:

Rnett
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri, 9. Jul 04, 05:52
x2

Post by Rnett » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 15:27

RegisterMe wrote:
It's not ridiculous at all. Essentially we have two factions here. Faction A is openly racist (and who's stance on pretty much everything is condemned by almost everybody bar Trump and David Duke), and one of who's members drives a car into a crowd of Faction B, killing one and injuring nineteen.

Faction B is anti-racist, some of who's members got involved in some fisticuffs. The tearing down of the statue (which I don't condone or support) occurred after the previous violence, and after the death and injuries caused by the deliberate driving of a car into a crowd.

Trump criticised both equally. They are not equivalent, morally or otherwise.
One group did have a permit to protest there, the other did not. Both came with bats, clubs, helmets and pepper spray so neither side came with peaceful intentions. Even the ACLU tweeted about violence from both sides.

Pretty ugly and shameful from whatever angle you look at it.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Post by Masterbagger » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 15:41

Bishop149 wrote:
As for Trump.
He just crossed the line to completely and utterly indefensible. Charlottesville was not subtle, it was not confusing, there were no grey areas. What it was and what it stood for could not have been clearer. It was neonazi white supremists complete with torches, swastikas and a paramilitary wing marching chanting their support for a white ethnostate.

There is no moral equivalence between those that fight to spread racist hatred and those that fight to oppose it.
There is no moral defense for using violence to shut down free speech. Not even against nazis.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)
Posts: 4046
Joined: Tue, 13. Feb 07, 21:06
x4

Post by Santi » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 15:57

It is down to who is breaking the law, that at the end everybody was doing it, it is expected that the press will try and force Trump to take sides in the conflict because in terms of reporting, it is a win win situation for them, and it is expected that Trump will just blame both sides and rightly so.

Robert E Lee was no criminal in his time, and fought valiantly for the USA army in the USA-Mexican War and later for the Confederates. It is part of the USA history, you cannot just rewrite history because it hurts some people sensibilities. Confederates were defeated, slavery will get abolish, and everybody could get on with the pesky problem of the Indian Tribes.

It is decisions like this that create strife, politicians should try to create a level field for all citizens and benefit as much people as possible with their policies.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 16:24

Masterbagger wrote:There is no moral defense for using violence to shut down free speech. Not even against nazis.
So, it's all right to lynch or enslave someone because of the color of their skin, but let's be nice and proper and let everyone say whatever vile things they want; even if they are advocating in favor of lynching and enslavement?

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 16:27

Rnett wrote:One group did have a permit to protest there, the other did not. Both came with bats, clubs, helmets and pepper spray so neither side came with peaceful intentions. Even the ACLU tweeted about violence from both sides.

Pretty ugly and shameful from whatever angle you look at it.
I agree with that, and I neither condone nor excuse violence by either side. However only one side drove a car into a crowd with the intent to kill and maim (and, as we've unfortunately seen too often recently in Europe, that is an all too effective way of committing a terrorist act). And only one side's position was morally reprehensible.
Masterbagger wrote:There is no moral defense for using violence to shut down free speech. Not even against nazis.
But there is a moral obligation to confront and challenge those who espouse a fascist, neo-Nazi, racist, sheet wearing, church burning agenda.

Of the two sides, which we can (probably lazily) label "white supremacist" on the one hand and "anti-fascist" on the other, I am avowedly on the side of the "anti-fascists".

This adoption of terms such as "alt-right" and "alt-left" is for no other reason than to muddy the waters. "Alt-right" as a label is a fig-leaf for the abhorrent.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 16:39

Freedom of speech is overrated. Sure, people ought to be able to say whatever they want - until they cross the line by speaking words of hatred aimed at another race, sex, etc., for the purpose of inciting violence. Then, the speaker needs to be silenced.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Post by Bishop149 » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 16:55

Masterbagger wrote:There is no moral defense for using violence to shut down free speech. Not even against nazis.
I disagree.
But I didn't always so and its a very thorny subject so I understand your view point.
But that is not really what this is about.

It is VERY clear that those marching in Charlottesville went equipped for violence and based on past such rallies it's a pretty good bet they also went with the intention of being violent. It also seems to be the case those opposing them were violent too.

We can argue about who "started it" or who was "more violent" but that's irrelevant. The point is that a violent conflict occurred. You can criticise both sides of such a conflict equally from a position of complete pacifism.
From ANY other platform however it becomes a question of what the two sides are fighting FOR and which is more worthy of your support.
RegisterMe wrote:This adoption of terms such as "alt-right" and "alt-left" is for no other reason than to muddy the waters. "Alt-right" as a label is a fig-leaf for the abhorrent.
"Alt-Left" is a fake term.
There are plenty of people online who would openly identify themselves as part of the "Alt-right". Not at all hard to find them, it's a real movement openly championed by real people.
You will not find one person identifying themselves as "Alt-Left" (well perhaps NOW you will, but not before last week :roll:). It is a term invented and used SOLELY to attack others.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 17:16

I agree re alt-left (I hadn't heard it used before Trump used it the other day). However I'm not so sure that I agree with you re alt-right. I accept that it's in common parlance but tt doesn't mean Republican, it doesn't mean Tea Party, it doesn't mean "free market" or "socially conservative".

What it seems to mean is "racist by some term that isn't commonly understood to mean that yet".

Indeed, the first lines in the wikipedia entry read "The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe".
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)
Posts: 4046
Joined: Tue, 13. Feb 07, 21:06
x4

Post by Santi » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 17:50

Not sure there is an Alt Left involved, in my opinion it is more of a mix bag of opportunistic populist movements with no clear ideology but an specific agenda of their own.

Same applies for the Alt Right, forgive me for being suspicious of "people movements" when both sides come ready to beat each other.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 18:00

I don't think the alt-right, white supremacists, neo-Nazis etc are necessarily synonyms for each other, but I do think that there is a significant overlap between and amongst them.

I don't know Trump to be racist, but all of the above did vote for him, and he has proven to be reluctant to criticise them. It is this last point that so upsets the mainstream (including the mainstream Republican leadership).
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 18:47

He came into the office completely unqualified
- so far, it has been downhill all the way.. :oops:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Len5
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu, 30. Jul 09, 12:54

Post by Len5 » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 20:03

But it was about time someone in power also criticized the violent fascists of antifa. These anarchists always come to riot.
Many of them are even racists, although they don't recognize it themselves. You know, it's anti-white racism, so to them not racism.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 20:49

Most of these statues were erected in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, by pro-slavery white supremacist activists wanting to recast those involved in defending slavery as heroes. They were not heroes of humanity by any stretch of the imagination.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 22:41

Reddit is being remarkably cool-headed about all of this. Here's the text of a post that I thought was particularly interesting:-

His own writings.
Sender: Robert E. Lee
Recipient: Thoms L. Rosser
Lexington VA 13 Dec - r 1866

My dear Genl
I have considered the questions in your letter of the 8th Inst: & am unable to advise as to the efficacy of the scheme proposed for the accomplishment of the object in view. That can be better determined by those more conversant with similar plans than I am. As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times. I am very glad to hear of your comfortable establishment in Baltimore & that Mrs. Rosser is with you. Please present to her my warm regards. It would give me great pleasure to meet you both anywhere, & especially at times of leisure in the mountains of Virginia; but such times look too distant for me to contemplate, much less for me now to make arrangements for - Very truly yours R E Lee

http://leefamilyarchive.org/papers/lett ... /v076.html
and

Summary: The paper prints Robert E. Lee's note declining an invitation to join officers on the battlefield of Gettysburg to mark troop positions for posterity. Lee and a number of Democratic newspapers believe that the battle of Gettysburg and the strife accompanying the Civil War are best left forgotten.
Full Text of Article: The widely heralded meeting of the officers, (U.S and Confederate,) who took part in the battle of Gettysburg, to mark the operations of both armies on the field, by enduring memorials of granite, has proven, as many expected a great farce. But few of the prominent Northern officers were present and only two Confederate officers of minor grades. The Hotel man did not make as much as he expected, when he got up the idea.
Gen. Lee was invited and forwarded the following reply:

Lexington, VA., August 5, 1869.

Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
R. E. Lee.

http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/ser ... .09.03.xml
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 22:58

I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 16. Aug 17, 23:43

Just a note:

TLDR at the bottom:

As far as I am aware, there are no activist groups espousing a return to "slavery." AFAIK, most of these extremist groups would, at their farthest reach, want anyone not of their race or belief system to leave "their" country or simply "be gone." That's about as extreme as many of them publicly go. Some may, indeed, wish to do violence to further this, but I don't think any of them believe or espouse that the United States take up slavery as an institution. If there are some, they're a handful of wingnuts...

IMO, most of the people in the South who defend Confederate monuments do so in order to protect what they consider their "cultural heritage." That heritage, as viewed by most (Again, as far as I am aware as a "Southerner") is not one that recognizes any legitimacy for the institution of slavery, for anyone, but one that emphasizes honor, a duty to stand up for one's "Rights" (Basically, as a collective acting on behalf of their State), sacrifice and the hardships endured during that period.

Racism does exist. It will always exist. Some people attempt to promote it, because it fits their world-view. Most decry it. Some that speak out against it still have their own racist behaviors and beliefs, but they may even recognize those to be "wrong" while still holding onto them... Go figure.

However, there are those who are looking to take advantage of this event. They're taking advantage of it by turning it on its head as some sort of "Righteous Cause." They're using it, not for what it was, two widely disparate groups, with widely spread beliefs in each, that knew what they were evoking and that planned violence as a response to opposition, presumably violent opposition.

And, now, the media is having a field day. "Heroes abound! Workers of the world, unite! Look at these heroes! Oh, the humanity!" blah, blah, blah...


This was an event where stupid people did stupid things and where one person, most stupidest of all, carrying so much rage, decided to attempt to randomly murder someone with his car and, unfortunately, succeeded.


Why does stuff like this happen? Well, in my opinion, it's partly due to the fact that people yearn to be part of something, anything, that acts to affirm their own world-view and their own opinions on heartfelt subject, no matter how stupid those opinions are and no matter how blinded they are by personal experience. And, they flock to the news, that laps up their advertising dollars like honey, and wait for a "sign" that, finally, someone, somewhere, is standing up for them, personally, and "doing something about it." So, either they'll attend these functions, on one side or another, lead them or cheer them on.

And, because either they're so biased they won't bother to think their own opinion through or that opinion has been confirmed to them enough, legitimately or not, they feel that wasting energy in attempting to reason some measure of truth or falsehood form it is just not worth it...

It feels much better to think of oneself as acting upon something than being acted upon.

So, the most irate or moronic pick up sticks and look for someone to hit with them.

TLDR: Move along. This is not the righteous and holy fight for justice that some are trying to make it appear to be.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Thu, 17. Aug 17, 02:06

RegisterMe wrote: Of the two sides, which we can (probably lazily) label "white supremacist" on the one hand and "anti-fascist" on the other, I am avowedly on the side of the "anti-fascists".
And this, my friend, is when you decide you will become a part of the problem instead of trying to find a true solution to it. Understandable, decide that you will join the side of the "smaller" problem is a much easier solution, and finding the true solution maybe too hard for most people.

My moral compass is: I refuse to pick the lesser of two evils. If there is no angel in all of the current choice, then I will set out and find one.

Locked

Return to “Off Topic English”