[Delete] @Baden

It's fine. I was joking.

So let's see. You dismiss as fake and propaganda a talk by a professor of History that you haven't heard, on the basis that it it is about white supremacy and mentions Trump. Now that is definitely making shit up to suit your prejudices, and frankly wilful ignorance that really ought to be beneath even your dignity. And as for trying to make it my fault, well just fuck off, bigot. — unenlightened

Just so you know, I reported your post which, in my honest opinion, ought to be deleted.

First of all, I never swore at you or was disrespectful, and yet, you start foaming at the mouth and calling me a bigot, you say "fuck off", your post is littered with all sorts of comments lacking any style ("beneath even your dignity", "making shit up", "wilful ignorance", and the like). So, shame on you.

You dismiss as fake and propaganda a talk by a professor of History that you haven't heard, on the basis that it it is about white supremacy and mentions Trump. — unenlightened

Nope, that's not what I did. That's just more propaganda.

I said:

A program claiming to explain the place of Trump titled "The Roots of White Supremacy" is propaganda, and ought not to be taken seriously. — Agustino

That's how you portrayed the program:

Explaining the place of Trump — unenlightened

I simply said that a program aiming to explain the place of Trump by appealing to White Supremacy is ridiculous and ought not to be taken seriously (why? well, as I said, Trump's supporters are not, in their vast majority, white supremacists).

Then I explained to you that I didn't listen to the program, and was basing what I said about it based on your description of it - the way you presented it. In fact, I clarified that what was clearly propagandistic wasn't the program as it was, but the way you presented it:

The way you presented it is certainly propagandistic. — Agustino

And that is true, because it turns out, by your own comments, that the program barely mentions Trump.

I recommend you read this fantastic piece, Agustino. — Maw

Thanks, I will look into it!

Okay, I read sections I and II of the article. Seems to me to be entirely delusional - it is like I am reading actual fantasy. I had not been acquainted with this type of leftist propaganda lately, but when I read it, I am reminded of the paranoid anti-Western & masochistic delusion in the Academia and the Media who persistently attack the same old imaginary enemies: white males, patriarchy, heterosexuals, religious people, etc. It really is a delusion - there is no such enemy out there, at least not even close to the level that leftists think there is. Sure, there are some white supremacists out there, but they are a FRINGE group. To give so much undue importance to them, as if everything rotated around them, is ridiculous. They literarily have almost 0 political influence!

But, at least, I am glad to have gotten an inside peek into how these people on the left think. I certainly would not want to live in a society filled by such resentful paranoiacs who insist on framing everything to be about race, gender, sexual orientation and religion. So glad Crooked Hillary didn't win - can you imagine how intense the discourse of these self-righteous leftists would have been had she won? They are already making such a big fuss now when their candidate lost.

We already live in a society where all races, both genders, all sexual orientations and religions are equal. That's how it should be. That's what eradicating racism, sexism, etc. means. It means that our discourse and our society no longer revolves around what skin color you have, because that no longer matters. It doesn't matter if you're black or white, etc.

Damn Agustino, when did you transform into a stereotype of contemporary Right-Wing agitprop? If there was a bingo game formed out of such nonsensical talking points, your comment would be enough to win the game twice over.

The way you presented it is certainly propagandistic.
— Agustino

And that is true, because it turns out, by your own comments, that the program barely mentions Trump. — Agustino

I presented it as history. It presents a historical analysis that explains the roots of - amongst other current affairs the election of Trump. Being an historical analysis, it talks mainly about history. You have constructed all this nonsensical complaint yourself out of one sentence of mine, that you have used to justify what cannot be justified; a damning condemnation of something you have no knowledge of. And now you go whining to the moderators because I have called you out and exposed your baseless criticisms asblind prejudice.

Damn Agustino, when did you transform into a stereotype of contemporary Right-Wing agitprop? If there was a bingo game formed out of such nonsensical talking points, your comment would be enough to win the game twice over. — Maw

Well, I really think that the left should abandon this form of identity politics. On the one hand, for ethical reasons: it simply is unethical because it is untrue. On the other hand, because it simply doesn't work anymore, people can see through it. It won't get the left anywhere.

And now you go whining to the moderators because I have called you out and exposed your baseless criticisms asblind prejudice. — unenlightened

I didn't whine to anyone, I just clicked flag on your post. And I didn't flag you because you disagree with me (or you "exposed" my baseless criticism and prejudice), I flagged you for your language which was violent and inappropriate.

On the other side of the fence Maw, there was this video I listened to awhile ago:


It explains how the left is now literarily left behind - they no longer understand their environment, and keep trying to play by the old rules. They keep using the same old tactics - scream white supremacy, etc. - but those tactics no longer work because people see through it.

As I've told you before, the notion that the contemporary American "Left" is reducible to identity politics is false. It is as inane as reducing the contemporary American "Right" to white supremacy. If the goal of the Russian operatives was to foment discord and confusion, and further divide America politically, then they've certainly succeeded with you.

As I've told you before, the notion that the contemporary American "Left" is reducible to identity politics is false. It is as inane as reducing the contemporary American "Right" to white supremacy. — Maw

Sure, all I'm saying is that there is a heavy tendency to lean the way of identity politics on the left, which is not healthy (for the left).

If the goal of the Russian operatives was to foment discord and confusion, and further divide America politically, then they've certainly succeeded with you. — Maw

With me? :s

divide America politically — Maw

The real truth though is that America was already super divided politically. Just that this was not known, since the Media and the Academia have been entirely left-leaning for many years already. So all that we had in public discourse was the leftist narrative - even politicians on the right (Bush, McCain, Romney, etc.) were playing based on this narrative.

By the way man, I'm not American if that's what you were thinking with "divide America".

I am saying you are an exemplar of manipulation via hyper-partisan tactics, including the objective of the NRA (albeit, non-American). The rise of hyper-partisan, far-right ignoramuses, from Ben Shapiro and Daily Wire, and Jordan Peterson and his 'Lobsters', to Breitbart, InfoWars, etc. have painted an dangerously ahistorical, conspiratorial, and profoundly false narrative, and it is extremely detrimental to the health of America's body politic.

How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?

Spoiler: He's the worst.

Of the 170 experts who voted, Democrats placed him last, Independents second to last (above Buchanan), and Republicans 5th from last (above Buchanan, Harrison, Pierce, and Johnson).

Although obviously he's only served 1 year so far. Plenty of time to fuck up some more and earn the bottom spot across the board.

On the one hand, for ethical reasons: it simply is unethical because it is untrue. On the other hand, because it simply doesn't work anymore, people can see through it. It won't get the left anywhere. — Agustino

It's also ironically creating and abetting the very thing they most loathe: white identity politics.

far-right ignoramuses — Maw

It is utterly ridiculous that you call:

Ben Shapiro — Maw

Jordan Peterson — Maw

Ignoramouses and put them in the same category with InfoWars. When you do something like that, you can't be taken seriously anymore, because you're obviously intellectually dishonest. InfoWars is a lunatic conspiracy "news" outlet, and the former two are credible intellectuals with a long track record.

have painted an dangerously ahistorical, conspiratorial, and profoundly false narrative, and it is extremely detrimental to the health of America's body politic. — Maw

I don't think the former two did. Their view is largely true. You can cover your ears and pretend you're not hearing, but it won't make it false.

During the Presidential elections, from the beginning, when I was saying exactly what Peterson is saying today, people were laughing at me. And I told everyone, you can think what you want, but this is the truth. This politically correct culture, with its obsession with identity politics, race, encouraging discrimination against white heterosexual males, etc. is a modern leftist propaganda and has nothing to do with the truth. At the time people laughed, now they can't laugh anymore, because events proved that I was right. You can ignore those things, but it doesn't mean that they aren't happening or that they are ahistorical.

far-right — Maw

And the funny thing is that I'm not far-right at all:

This politically correct culture, with its obsession with identity politics, race, encouraging discrimination against white heterosexual males, etc. is a modern leftist propaganda and has nothing to do with the truth. — Agustino

"Encouraging discrimination against white heterosexual males" is propaganda and false?

Can you give an example of this discrimination?

Ignoramouses and put them in the same category with InfoWars. When you do something like that, you can't be taken seriously anymore, because you're obviously intellectually dishonest. InfoWars is a lunatic conspiracy "news" outlet, and the former two are credible intellectuals with a long track record. — Agustino

Except I didn't put them in the same category. I put them on a spectrum, ranging from Peterson and Shapiro on one end, to InfoWars on the other. You can protest endlessly, but they both pedal right-wing conspiracies, cherry-pick science, and rant about "The Left", albeit in differing degrees. Unsurprisingly your continued uncharitable readings (or lack of reading comprehension) and monomania make it impossible to have any meaningful intellectual conversation. In three years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if you joined the Flat-Earther Society.

Objectively white supremacy is morally less appalling than malicious socialist dictatorship. — Johnblegen96

How so?

I think he means that relative to Stalin & Mao, Hitler was a pussycat.

This is a shrine of deplorability. :lol:

Other than being brash and obnoxious, what has he really done that screwed things up so bad? No wars, no economic collapse, no crime surge, no fuel lines...

When Obama was President and Democrat views prevailed, no one talked about divided America. Only when the Democrats lose has the country been divided. I truly believe Democrats believe their suffering through Trump is more difficult for them than when Republicans suffered through Obama. It's unfathomable to them.

Only when the Democrats lose has the country been divided. — Hanover

You seriously don’t think Trump is divisive?

He was able to unify the Republican vote into a victory. It's not like Obama got any meaningful Republican support during his terms. Why is Trump's brand of other party exclusion worse than Obama's? Just because he's the personification of obnoxiousness?

He was able to unify the Republican vote into a victory. — Hanover

Maybe more realistically, the party passed legislation that they’ve wanted for years, despite Trump’s obnoxiousness. Perhaps they could have accomplished more of their agenda with a competent leader, having both house and senate majority.

Why is Trump's brand of other party exclusion worse than Obama's? — Hanover

Obama wasn’t a populist who intentionally divided the nation in order to gain power. He was an inspirational leader, though of course he didn’t lead in a direction everyone could follow.

Does this include wars?

Other than being brash and obnoxious, what has he really done that screwed things up so bad? No wars, no economic collapse, no crime surge, no fuel lines... — Hanover

It didn't say in the article; only reported the results. I'm guessing the experts weren't asked to explain each ranking.

When Obama was President and Democrat views prevailed, no one talked about divided America. Only when the Democrats lose has the country been divided. I truly believe Democrats believe their suffering through Trump is more difficult for them than when Republicans suffered through Obama. It's unfathomable to them. — Hanover

I was a bit too young to pay attention to politics (especially when not UK politics) during George W. Bush (although I was aware of him, just not the wider political climate), but were the Democrats that divided after his win? I know that there was some drama with the Florida votes, but aside from that?

His early approval ratings among Democrats mirror Obama's early approval ratings among Republicans. Whereas compare to Trump's. It seems that it's definitely something about him, and not just the fact that he's a Republican. Even the Republican experts in the poll I linked to had him fifth from bottom.