It sounds like Sarkozy got a richly deserved humiliation, but if we assume that Hollande is toast, a Le Pen vs. Fillon runoff doesn’t sound great. I haven’t read anything about Fillon that makes him sound in any way good, just not Le Pen (I’m assuming that Fillon will get past Juppé).
Fillon has been described as having the economic programme of Margaret Thatcher, the social conservatism of Canada’s Stephen Harper and the diplomacy of Vladimir Putin
they’re the ones obsessed with narratives. You too.
Lighten up, Francis.
Wow there is so much fail in your understanding of what I wrote:
I know the Trump voters are scared because I listen.
Space Monkey was not communicating in good faith because advocating people arm themselves along political and sectarian lines in anticipation of conflict in a country where tensions are running very high on all sides cannot credibly be differentiated from advocating for movement towards civil war.
I never mentioned terrorism, and I do not think Space Monkey is promoting such.
One example of mythologizing violence is “I’ll get a gun and protect my home.” (See my very first point guns v. drones: home gun ownership is not a deterrent to state violence. Also: inter-home violence. Also: accidental gun death.)
I said nothing about taking things lying down. Try fertilizing your social imagination a bit so that the knee-jerk response to “things aren’t going well” is not an automatic “get a gun.”
Hail Hydra!
Does this make me secure in my job or fill me with dread?
Come on.
From your very link
“One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem,” he said, referring to a Jewish fable about the golem, a clay giant that a rabbi brings to life to protect the Jews.
These are people who immediately know what Lügenpresse means. They get the reference.
CNN has jumped the shark so many times that the shark has quit his day job and now gets jumped for a living.
EDIT: MaggieNYT has a lot worth seeing today.
(the tiniest ray of sunlight?)
I think you are way too quick to accuse people in this forum of racism.
I haven’t seen anyone say it was not bigoted. I haven’t seen anyone defend Spencer.
People have pointed out that he actually made a different racist statement from the one he is being accused of by CNN.
And people have pointed out that CNN is not taking the question seriously, but merely discussing whether Trump should to formally denounce it (“should” in the sense of “is it in his own interest”, not in the sense of “is it the moral thing to do”).
Now there are several valid reasons for pointing that out, none of which are racist.
Any of these, is by itself, a reason for someone to point out some details without being a racist.
In a forum like this one, where all the important things have been said, and are mostly a matter of implicit agreement anyway, you can’t really accuse people of coming here with the wrong priorities. After all, if priority #1 has been taken care of by 20 different people, what’s wrong with addressing priority #2?
I see what you’re saying.
But we’re quite deep on a meta-level now. We’re definitely not discussing what statements (about Jews) are appropriate. We’re not discussing whether a president-elect should formally denounce that racist statement. We’re discussing whether a person on a discussion panel on TV should formally distance herself from the president-elect not denouncing the racist statement.
The more meta-levels we add, the harder those things become to decide and agree upon. Fortunately, they also become less and less important, the deeper we lose ourselves in meta-discussions.
I have a nasty feeling that this clip will end up being part of some documentary fifty years from now, to which children will ask “If it was that obvious what was coming, why didn’t people just leave?”
I’m also reminded that during the GWB years, I used to joke that I would offer my spare room to any fleeing American refugees. In 2016, that seems less funny, because it may actually be required, and also because this post-brexit island may no longer be a place that anyone wants to flee towards.
Yes - taking a political position and having morals and values and shit is, indeed, bias. I am proud of mine, less enamoured of some of the media leaders’, and utterly and implacably opposed to the bias of an illiterate, sociopathic, narcissistic, self-serving git without a milligram of public service instinct in him.
(Yes, I know you meant to say /s but the ‘bias’ wars have now started in earnest. Next up, another American war on abstract nouns. First drugs, then terror, and soon the President Trump official War on Bias - any and every thing or person who does not agree that Trump is a heroic god-like leader. War on sanity, more like.)
Kindness and decency can be argued in a rational way. For instance, humans are inherently collaborative. Without cooperation and coordination, we’re pretty lame as organisms go. All of the pinnacles of human achievement have been the result of the coordinated effort of many. And it is only with a diversity of thought and experience that we achieve optimal results. There are a slew of scientific studies to reference in this area - take your pick - from anthropology and psychology to economics and management science.
These arguments make bigots squirm, especially ones who like to deny they are actually bigots.
“You are defending Spencer and defending bigotry in general” was a statement about the effect of actions, not about intentions or values. Sorry if there was any confusion.
I’m not understanding you. How are arguments for decency more used by racists? Help me out.
It is very typical to hear the concerns of black people dismissed because they are expressing them in the wrong way. They are too loud or too aggressive. It’s like this:
Black person, to white person sitting on their shoulders: “Get the fuck off of me!”
White person: “That’s not a very polite way to ask.”
Oh, gotcha. Not decency as in treating other people with respect, empathy, and courtesy, but (pseudo-)decency as in not saying bad words or behaving in a way that makes prudes uncomfortable. Now I get it.
In context, I think @bobtato was using decency, not (pseudo-)decency, but I understand the confusion.
The vast majority of harmful racists and their enablers in the world don’t wear armbands, nor do they use profane language.
As mentioned elsewhere, they eliminate resistance by appealing to “civility” and cluck their tongues while offering “helpful” advice that seeks to silence the opposition.
Evil is far more insidious than what you believe.
One and the same with subjective terms based on cultural norms.
Paul II was the Trump of Popes. From Wikipedia:
…trained as a merchant…Upon taking office, Paul II was to convene an ecumenical council within three years. But these terms of subscription were modified by Paul II at his own discretion… …Almost from his coronation, Paul withdrew and became inaccessible: audiences were only granted at night and even good friends waited a fortnight to see him. His suspiciousness was widely attested…He wore rouge in public. …he meant to take the name Formosus II (“handsome”), but was persuaded not to…He had a papal tiara made for his own use studded with “diamonds, sapphires, emeralds, topaz, large pearls, and every kind of precious gem”. He built the Palazzo San Marco (now the Palazzo Venezia) and lived there even as pope, amassing a great collection of art and antiquities.
