• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Pharaoh RutinTutin

NP Tuesday November 02, 2021

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I call it as I see it.

I am trans, too.

And internalized transphobia is a thing. I call that out, too.

I am not even following how you can see "I don't see your argument for female facial hair due to cold weather as compelling" to transphobic anything, but I have no desire to offend you and will drop it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I am not even following how you can see "I don't see your argument for female facial hair due to cold weather as compelling" to transphobic anything, but I have no desire to offend you and will drop it now.

It was an answer to Ijuin, not you. *scratches head* I apologize for any confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the current talk about Edward has to do with transphobia, but I don’t see where anyone was intending anything trans-related in the hair/beard thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Yeah, the current talk about Edward has to do with transphobia, but I don’t see where anyone was intending anything trans-related in the hair/beard thing.

Yeah, that one is on me. I got angry at what seemed to me was a case of Reductio ad Absurdum and since I have been doing a lot of wrestling with TERFs of late, that was the first example that sprang to mind. The equivalent was not supposed to be with TERFs but with the case of a similarly invalid argument. My apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I get that you have been having bad personal experiences with transphobia, and I was starting to wonder if it was making you see transphobia in places where the speakers never intended in a “commies are everywhere” sort of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Yeah I get that you have been having bad personal experiences with transphobia, and I was starting to wonder if it was making you see transphobia in places where the speakers never intended in a “commies are everywhere” sort of way.

*dryly* And we're back to Reductio ad Absurdum. The McCarthy campaign was pure fearmongering. TERFs and transphobes are real and if it seems like they are everywhere it is because they try to spread their poison as far and wide as possible. This includes quite a few trans people struggling with internalized transphobia and defending it without realizing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but putting every conversation through the “everything is about X even when I’m the only one thinking about X” lens tends to derail most attempts at interaction in any non-X domains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Maybe, but putting every conversation through the “everything is about X even when I’m the only one thinking about X” lens tends to derail most attempts at interaction in any non-X domains.

That's a much better argument and I agree with it, save that I did it accidentally and not intentionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The McCarthy campaign was pure fearmongering.

Kind of tangential to your point, but I'm not entirely certain this is true. Sure, there is that element, as there is today, but paranoia about 'Reds' runs long and deep in the US, back into the 1800s and violent strike busting. I think it stems from the pro-slavery mindset; pro and anti union sentiments are still split along geographic lines today. And, yes, if you are rational, those are all different things, but they have often been tied together by the paranoid. Well before McCarthy's time. I have a few of my parent's Steinbeck novels, written well before WWII, and they tie union organizing with communist protagonists who generally loose out.

Honestly, in some sense, the true believers are scarier than the opportunistic pandering cynics. They will trod forward with blinders on. Nixon cut his own political throat with this sort of paranoia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2021 at 7:26 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

Kind of tangential to your point, but I'm not entirely certain this is true. Sure, there is that element, as there is today, but paranoia about 'Reds' runs long and deep in the US, back into the 1800s and violent strike busting. I think it stems from the pro-slavery mindset; pro and anti union sentiments are still split along geographic lines today. And, yes, if you are rational, those are all different things, but they have often been tied together by the paranoid. Well before McCarthy's time. I have a few of my parent's Steinbeck novels, written well before WWII, and they tie union organizing with communist protagonists who generally loose out.

Is there a difference? No matter which date the fear originates from, it was still fear and McCarthy skillfully fanned the embers into a roaring fire. He did not have a shred of evidence behind his claims but he started a witch hunt that made the New England trials pale in comparison. All he had was fearmongering and eventually that came back to bite him in the arse.

On 11/10/2021 at 7:26 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

Honestly, in some sense, the true believers are scarier than the opportunistic pandering cynics. They will trod forward with blinders on. Nixon cut his own political throat with this sort of paranoia.

Speaking of the fourteen points, I consider the opportunists worse because they know what they are doing and still forge ahead. They will happily destroy their country as long as they end up on top of the pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Is there a difference? No matter which date the fear originates from, it was still fear and McCarthy skillfully fanned the embers into a roaring fire. He did not have a shred of evidence behind his claims but he started a witch hunt that made the New England trials pale in comparison. All he had was fearmongering and eventually that came back to bite him in the arse.

Speaking of the fourteen points, I consider the opportunists worse because they know what they are doing and still forge ahead. They will happily destroy their country as long as they end up on top of the pile.

Re: Is there a difference? - Yes, there are millions of union member in the US, historically seeking some level of parity in negotiation ability with management, much needed parity to counter abusive practices, who are staunchly loyal patriots who are lumped as 'lefties' by the wing nuts.

McCarthy is somewhat of a special case, I agree with you that he is more opportunistic than his erstwhile peers. In his dubious favor, I expect if you were able to scratch deep enough, he would have had some leanings toward his public views without the opportunity, but yes, it appears in hindsight he willingly threw many public figures under his bus for political gain.

Consider, though, J. Edgar Hoover was fully his equal in anti-communist paranoia, went after people for 'being against Fascism too early', and he's enshrined at the FBI. Zero acknowledgement that he was basically a manipulative jackass who played loose and free with the laws he was allegedly enforcing. This zeal is apparently all on him.

Consider, in WWII, the US supported China against Japan. Which involved supporting two factions, the Republic of China, and the Communist rebels. Observers reported that the Communist troops were far more disciplined fighters. They were told to shut up.

Consider our response to Cuba. Batista was enough of a monster that the mob thought he lacked morals. Castro came along and cleaned up the island nation. He was no saint. But in contrast, he was many steps up. The CIA attempted several assassinations, and we back one invasion, which Cuba repelled. Cuban missile crisis: We placed nuclear missiles close to Russia, Russia responded by placing similar missiles in Cuba. Castro let them, 'Hey, if Russia has a presence here, and destabilizing could lead to nuclear war, maybe they'll leave us alone'. For this, they earned an embargo that's lasted over half a century. Clinton returns a child to his legitimate Cuban parent, and the wingnuts have a fit. This is a largely unpopular embargo, yet the right would not have it any other way. (They do have a demographic of Cuban exiles they score points with, so there is that.)

We are not alone in this; largely due to Russian imperialistic attitudes and aggressive stance, Europe goes in the same direction, but not nearly as irrationally (and even with the fall of communism, that threat is still real.)

Re: I consider the opportunists worse because they know what they are doing and still forge ahead. They will happily destroy their country as long as they end up on top of the pile.

I can see that; Trump is the epitome of what you are saying, but I have the notion that these people are in a minority, and would have no power without the true believers. In Trump's case, this is literally true, a good segment of his support is misguided religious right believers who are 'straining our gnats and swallowing camels'. Hmm, maybe nothing ever does change.

I suppose in the long run, the distinction is moot; there will always be a mix of both, and they are both toxic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

McCarthy is somewhat of a special case, I agree with you that he is more opportunistic than his erstwhile peers.

I agree, which is why I singled him out. I agree without reservation with you about the rest of your examples.

16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I have the notion that these people are in a minority, and would have no power without the true believers.

They would find some other scam to ride without it, but yes. I do wonder about whether you can call the victims of a massive fraud for 'true believers', but maybe that is mere semantics. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the current situation in the USA, as I see it, is that both the Opportunist and the Extremist factions have grown to a size such that it is impossible for their party to win elections without the support of both Extremists and Opportunists who enable them. Thus, even though the Extremists hold a position that the majority even within their own party disagree with, their agenda still must be satisfied. There is no longer a path to victory for the moderate factions without submitting to the Extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

They would find some other scam to ride without it, but yes. I do wonder about whether you can call the victims of a massive fraud for 'true believers', but maybe that is mere semantics. *sigh*

Sorry to overuse an example, but you're right, Trump has been scamming for decades; only more recently moving into the political arena directly. I am still astounded that he was able to pull off a win; it is said he has charisma, I don't see it. I can't stand to hear him talk, I cringe on the inside. It was bad enough when it was just 'The Apprentice', I watched five minute and switched channels, never to return. To me, he's just an egotistical know nothing blowhard. I do see the all too obvious affect he has on his base, though, so he must indeed have charisma. And the show was popular, which is why I even tried it.

I mean 'true believers' in a broad sense, not just religious. Nixon was a true believer. He was a nominal Quaker, his belief was that Communism was the ultimate threat. This is a very popular belief system in the US, especially with the crowd that conflates all 'lefties'. The idiots who thing AOC is a threat.

That said, she is a true believer as well, her belief is something like 'The welfare of everyone matters'. I would not call her crazy nor toxic for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are now using the T-word, I will rephrase my previous opinion. A major issue with the current state of American politics is that both the Trumpists and the Opportunists are big enough blocks that the Republican Party can not win elections without pandering to both, which effectively puts the Trumpists in control of the party’s agenda, even though they do not comprise the majority of Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:

Since we are now using the T-word, I will rephrase my previous opinion. A major issue with the current state of American politics is that both the Trumpists and the Opportunists are big enough blocks that the Republican Party can not win elections without pandering to both, which effectively puts the Trumpists in control of the party’s agenda, even though they do not comprise the majority of Republicans.

There are certainly some who still hold to their values, and though I disagree with them, I have respect for those who have not caved to the siren call.

Truth be told, we live in the prototype modern democracy, and almost any other is better structured. I like the idea of all factions having a proportionate voice, and needing to find alliances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I mean 'true believers' in a broad sense, not just religious. Nixon was a true believer. He was a nominal Quaker, his belief was that Communism was the ultimate threat. This is a very popular belief system in the US, especially with the crowd that conflates all 'lefties'. The idiots who thing AOC is a threat.

That said, she is a true believer as well, her belief is something like 'The welfare of everyone matters'. I would not call her crazy nor toxic for that.

Good examples, and thank you for clarifying.

I don't mind AOC, but she is kinda right wing for my tastes. :danshiftyeyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

If we have to discuss this further, it should probably be in the politics thread. I will consider reopening it.

-- The Moderator

That might not be a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Good examples, and thank you for clarifying.

I don't mind AOC, but she is kinda right wing for my tastes. :danshiftyeyes:

And the saddest thing about that is that the current American political landscape regards her as almost too far to the LEFT to contemplate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this