Yet the vast majority of people thinking that borders shouldn't be totally open aren't white nationalists. — ssu

ok

Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings on Trump

It's also very important to point out that public support for Nixon's removal in office during Watergate was at only 19% when the Watergate hearing started, and ended at 57% by the time he resigned over a year later, and I would imagine that decades after the fact, well over 57% of Americans now would agree it was best he exited the office.

Maw is referring to the manufactured non-existent crisis that only Trump supporters and the anti-semite alt-right believe in. And that they have found their favorite rich Jew manipulator of all time...again. (Like th other side has the Koch Brothers...but that's obviously different) — ssu

Trump has claimed he "wouldn't be surprised" if George Soros was funding the "invading" immigrant caravan which was the manufactured story leading up to the mid-term election, and has been leveraged by right wing pundits such as Fox News, to argue that these immigrants will be replacing white Americans. As a result, we have white nationalists shooting up synagogues in Pittsburgh and, most recently, San Diego. The idea of a white demographic replacement was also the inspiration behind the Christchurch mosque shootings, which left 50 Muslims dead.

The idea that non-whites are "replacing" whites is a key component of white nationalism ideology.

Once again, don't see why anyone should care if well-known philosopher Roger Scruton lost a Government job over recent comments that are clearly inappropriate for someone in a public position to have. If one is simply vexed over the issue of free speech then this story regarding a children's speech pathologist in Texas who was fired because she refused to sign a pledge stating that she would not engage in any economic boycott of Israel should be more alarming.

Let's hear it then.

Conservative intellectualism is funded by and is in service to capital

Certainly not because he personally experienced it and made him sad.

That's what I'm referring to

If you think about it, how one approaches sex might say a bit on how ones views morality.

This deserves its own thread and a wider conversation, but once again Jews have been targeted by a White Supremacist who believes that they are actively bringing immigrants into the United States in order to replace white people. Not only has Trump made immigration a central political focus, but in the lead-up to the midterm he focused on the "migrant caravan" to drum up fear and white anxiety. This is intertwined with claims that George Soros is a financing this conspiracy, which Trump has entertained as a possibility.

I don't think the passage is particularly sexist, unless you interpret any disgust in response to female masturbation as sexist. Scruton believes that all masturbation is obscene, whether male or female. Treating one's own body in that way, as a mere object, is obscene in his view, hence "the obscene display of her body". He thinks male masturbation is disgusting too, but it's not possible for a man to masturbate "during the act of coition" so the clearer case of the obscenity of masturbation intruding into the sacred act, as he sees it, of sex between a man and woman is female masturbation. — jamalrob

No, the passage demonstrates a profound ignorance of female sexuality, given the importance of clitoral stimulation for most women during sex. Not sure how familiar people generally were with this in 1986, but it also substitutes communication between partners (e.g. "how do I make sex great for you") with unilateral disgust.

No it's just an exceptionally stupid sexist statement he made.

He's talking about masturbation

Just learned that this is an actual quote from Roger Scruton in his 1986 book, Sexual Desire

Consider the woman who plays with her clitoris during the act of coition. Such a person affronts her lover with the obscene display of her body, and, in perceiving her thus, the lover perceives his own irrelevance. She becomes disgusting to him, and his desire may be extinguished. The woman’s desire is satisfied at the expense of her lover’s, and no real union can be achieved between them

damn this guy's a loser

Just a reminder that fishfry nearly a year ago wrote that Trump "made peace with North Korea", and so we shouldn't take him seriously.

Yeah I'm typically condescending when people don't read and don't know jackshit about what they are talking about and are overall just not intelligent.

I swear most people on this earth are simply missing half their brains.

Yeah when Marx wrote about how Capitalists, having bought the labor power from a wage-laborer, will aim to maximize the time used for that labor, that has absolutely no relevancy for the 21st Century.

Marx spoke to and corresponded with factory inspectors and traveled to factories when writing Capital. He was originally a journalist. He wrote in detail how the production process worked in specific factories, the raw material used etc. To be fair, he dealt more or less exclusively with England factories, although mid-19th century England has arguably been the purest expression of Capitalism in its history. You literally just haven't read Marx.

Ok so you haven't read Marx got it, this is great discourse

Then it's just a waste of time. It's just some random ancient dude spouting nonsense about why he hates capitalism. But if he has no alternative, why bother with his nonsense? — YuZhonglu

Have you read Marx outside of the Manifesto (assuming you've read that)?

I think Warren will do better in the polls as the debates occur

Marxism doesn't have much, if really anything, in the ways of a "governing ideology". That's why it's helpful to actually read Marx.

Is Peterson actually thinking about Marxism, or is he thinking about a shallow idea of Marxism formulated by reading, per his own admission, only one de-contextualized agitprop piece written by a young Marx?

Capital In the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty

House of Reps should move forward with impeachment. The report clearly demonstrated that Trump's behavior was unacceptable, and he doesn't belong in the White House. The Senate will very unlikely vote for impeachment, but the process itself has to be carried through, as we cannot sit by and accept that this is OK behavior for a sitting President.

Again, not denying that there was rigging involved, but you can't hand-wave the fact that there was strong (and a majority) support for Clinton.

And this faith in your two party system upholds the corrupt two party system.

Philosophically it's interesting, this utter lack of trust in the democratic process. Basically it feels like God has given you two parties, and there is no other way. You cannot do anything about it. So pin your hopes on the "primary" elections and that you can change this corrupt parties to your liking.

It's really something that people think before they notice just how easily voters can change the political environment and they don't have to vote for the old parties. — ssu

Not denying that a movement towards a third party isn't possible or isn't desirable. It's just not viable at this current time and you're naive to think otherwise. The 2018 midterm election alone has enabled national conversation around progressive ideas thanks to notable progressives winning primaries against establishment Democrats. If progressive want to enact immediate political change, and shift the overton window leftward, the most practical way of doing so is through the established organon of the Democratic Party. There is also the danger of fragmenting the liberal/Left voting bloc, and enabling a united Right voting bloc to win elections.

I'm no Republican by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know how anyone could support the democratic party after it sabotaged its popular candidate in the last presidential race. Can anyone explain that too me? — Merkwurdichliebe

I strongly supported Bernie over Hillary, and while the Democratic establishment clearly favored Clinton it shouldn't be discounted that Hillary received over 3 million more votes (+28% more votes) than Bernie. There is plenty to be pissed about regarding the Democratic Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change.

have no argument, only the opinion that the state has a deeper agenda that is not available to the populace, and that agenda seems to be unimpeded regardless of who occupies the office — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know what these means when you abstract "the state" outside of the representatives who are elected who form part of it, but I also don't know what that has to do with your original comment below:

The opposition to Bush was hardcore. The opposition to Trump is quite lame (toothless and whiney). — Merkwurdichliebe

Sure, and Obama was a disappointment to the Left as I pointed out in the previous page, but regardless you're original comment only mentioned the left during the Bush years and during Trump's presidency, so I'm not really sure what your argument is any more.

Yeah that requires political power transformed into political action, and it's only been two years since Trump was elected. What were the Dems doing that was "hardcore" to stop the surveillance state and war machine during the Bush years? Clearly nothing. It should also be pointed out that Sanders recently lead an effort to stop the war in Yemen, along with Mike Lee (a Republican no less), which managed to pass through a GOP controlled Senate (Trump of course vetoed it).

Well the Dems didn't gain seats in the 2004 House elections, and gained 31 seats in 2006. They gained 41 seats in the house in 2018, which was the highest Dem gain since 1974, so that doesn't seem to indicate that they "want things done for them". As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Bernie Sanders is far and away the leading contender for the democratic nomination, and is doing an excellent job articulating solutions to major problems that the Left is focused on, such as Medicare for All, Green New Deal in fighting climate change, and the growing inequality of wealth. Elizabeth Warren has also been second to none in detailing policy solutions to curb Capitalism's excesses. They have both been able to do largely while treating Trump himself as a peripheral issue, while not considering Mueller as some sort of savior as other liberal types have done.

I guess you missed the PEW article I posted earlier.

The opposition to Bush was hardcore. The opposition to Trump is quite lame (toothless and whiney). — Merkwurdichliebe

How did opposition to Bush manifest itself, and why was it "hardcore", and what is the opposition to Trump and why is it "lame"?

And who's to say that reproductive rights is a uniquely female issue? What about men forced to pay child support for children conceived without their knowledge, because a woman lied about being on birth control? — Not Steve

lol this is extremely rare, might as well make lightening strikes an "issue". That you manage to attempt to twist reproductive rights into a men's issue too demonstrates a profound thoughtlessness.

Several of the issues I listed are exclusive to men, and all affect men disproportionately. Being coerced into military service only happens to men; women may join, but there has never been pressure for them to do so. Women are never discouraged from seeking emotional support; they're expected to seek it, and that support is almost always available to them. This should not be a competition for which sex has it worse. — Not Steve

Literally none of those issues listed are exclusive to men. Conscription ended in the US in 1973 and I can't think of a single developed country that requires compulsory conscription outside of Israel, which requires both men and women to serve anyway.

Interesting to end the conversation and then continue. — ssu

Yeah super interesting

Except none of those examples listed are unique issues for men, as I explained, in the same way as, for example, reproductive rights are a unique issue for women.

poor fella, can't read past three paragraphs

Sounds about right for you

Global trends are distinct from local trends.

She may know that men are the majority of suicides, the majority of work related deaths, the majority of combat deaths, the majority of alcoholics, et cetera et cetera — Not Steve

None of these are outside of the realm of Feminist issues. Feminists are typically anti-gun in part because guns are commonly used for suicide, as well as domestic violence and homicide. Feminists are also pro-access to healthcare and therapeutic care, and other avenues that can greatly curb suicide. Women are also pro-workplace regulation, which would curb work related deaths, and anti-war which would obviously limit combat deaths. Issues that feminists fight for would benefit men, unless you think that men should have some sort of social-political superiority over women, which of course is nonsense.