@mdk

I'm hesitant to lay it all at the feet of the Campaign/Presidency of Trump. People didn't just wake up one day, see a speech and start thinking this way and its not like these sort of comments didn't occur during Obama's tenure. I does seem like there has been a sharp uptick since the last election cycle. It is always possible that the two are related, lifted on the same sort of rising tide we are seeing in Europe and other places.

From a personal point of view it certainly feels worse now. It was easier to laugh it off before the Trump campaign because you could tell yourself it was just an isolated few.

The reason I asked the (unfair, dirty-trick, leading) question is, I mean, he's married to Melania -- a legal immigrant woman is literally in the white house. I mean not literally, not right now, they're in Rome, but... I mean not to devalue your perspective, I've seen an uptick in weird people lately (well mostly just the one guy selling confederate flags to precisely nobody, making precisely zero dollars, but sticking to the effort). I'm just saying, the conclusion you're reaching is CERTAINLY the conclusion people are talking about all over, and I just wonder if that's fair. Not attributing unfairness to you -- talking about the broader premise.

From where I stand, my perception is that the right wing talks (CONNNNNNSTANTLY) about illegal immigration, and the left appears to skip the first part of that phrase when they respond in order to shape the conversation to ALL immigration. Speaking purely from personal experience, I have never heard anybody argue to get rid of all the immigrants. Then again I don't spend much time at the confederate flag tent, so..... Anyway. Food for thought. We're swapping anecdotes, so the odds of reaching a productive dialogue are pretty low -- just thought maybe that could be... idunno, something.

Changing gears -- what would you say we ought to DO about the problem, from your perspective?

<Snipped quote by Penny>

The reason I asked the (unfair, dirty-trick, leading) question is, I mean, he's married to Melania -- a legal immigrant woman is literally in the white house.

Do you really think Trump's movement is pro immigrant?

I don't think that Donald Trump, personally, cares about immigration in any organized fashion. I don't think that he, personally, is a racist. He is just pandering to his base, railing against Mexicans, questioning other immigrants status with his travel ban and restricting the number of skilled worker visas available. All of which says to his base, I'm a guy who wants America for Americans and not for all these others coming in. Make America Great Again is a clear statement that things went wrong when we got all multicultural and inclusive and we need to go back to a simpler vision. All of that inflames the passions of his base in a way that both gets him votes and encourages them to act in a way which makes life scarier for people like me.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Changing gears -- what would you say we ought to DO about the problem, from your perspective?

Well if I had a cure for racism or a way to jump start economic growth so no one felt desperate and alienated id be receiving my Nobel Prize right now.

Voting for candidates who don't base their campaigns on groundless fear tactics would be a good start but I've given up on trying to understand voting patterns.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

You would be right that is not how people think, which I believe to be detrimental, and while it is on that level of inconvenience that everyone would rather to just avoid, the sort where it is just another irritation in life perceived as irrelevant, there's few cheaper, more expedient options to implement as examples that are not only practical, but effective. The reduction in the rate of traffic is to be expected with it, but I find that a small price to pay. Areas of extremely high population density, such as New York and California would need to use their traffic data, as would they all, to help alleviate issues of that nature while meeting the objective.

The thing is that all these prices we would be paying, the invasiveness and severe inconvienence, wouldn't be buying much. We just don't have a major terrorist problem in the United States right now. There is a point where safety ventures into paranoia.

I am of the thought that the advancement of socialism, as with the New Deal, as a platform in the United States is inherently negative to the system as a whole. Sanders arguments by comparison to the general qualities of the Democratic party are much further left, throwback or not. I would say the same and more about anyone openly advocating communism in the United States, to add at that point they have become largely un-American. I can see the appeal of socialism, even to citizens of the United States, but it is still much further left leaning in the same vein that hysteria was made about how "Alt-Right" Donald Trump was and that the Nazi party and its ilk are running for presidency. The difference being, Sanders and others with socialist values are actually strongly left leaning compared to the rest of their party and embraced for it while we have even seen here in this discussion that Trump and his administration is its own animal which is mainly Republican in label, with some overt leanings.

Well, first and foremost "Unamerican" isn't an argument for or against anything. If it were, I'd point out that your police state idea is thouroughly unamerican. But this is neither here nor there because America is what we make it to be.

This would I assume betray and Austrian vein in your economic thinking, so we'd hit a more fundamental disagreement here. I think government intervention in the economy saved us, and the retraction of government intervention has destabilized the economy.

To me, anything that varies too far from center enters the realm of potential for extremes. To use an example of my stance, communists and libertarians are far to the sides of their associations in my eyes. As I will maintain no less, I never accused anyone of being evil, just that I cannot sympathize with the right - which I belong to - on those grounds and others related. And yes, while you would be correct the "taxation is theft" crowd has existed for quite a long time, I am fairly confident that they are still a minority and not even a vocal one at that in comparison to some of their neighbors or those on the other end.

[/quote]

I feel there is a semantic issue here regarding the different ways we can interpret the word extreme. To say that "The farther from the center you go, the the more extremely far from the center you are" is a tautology and isn't really worth the time saying. But if you are saying that leaving the center implies violence, with extreme meaning violence, then I disagree. I think you can believe that severe changes are good and necessary without saying that violence has to happen. The Sanders movement, or the Ron Paul movement, never in themselves requested violence, so leaving a charge of violent extremism on their doorstep seems incorrect.

A minority of people should not be explicitly catered to at the cost of the rest of the norm. I will repeat my opinion as preface, but I do not believe transgendered - or other - persons should be allowed to use the male or female restroom that does not match their biological sex unless they've transitioned completely to that gender. I do believe it should be requirement that there is a neutral bathroom, using the model some locations had of the "family restroom", which could be used by anyone. It is not the duty of those regularly gendered people to compromise themselves or morals for others; they can if they want to.

Personally I think gendered bathrooms is kinda silly, but I pretty much keep quiet about it because I figure as a guy I am getting me some juicy privilege by keeping bathrooms gendered, since, like, have you ever seen the line for a womans bathroom at a major event?

I don't really give too many shits about this issue to be honest, though I don't really agree that there is any cost at all to the norm in this case. Though I do find the bathroom policing implication kinda creepy.

You do not see me arguing that Autistic people are treated unfairly in the public eye, even being the butt of a joke here, and demanding they receive special accommodations such as non-fluorescent lighting or making the outrageous argument that wanting to treat it as an illness and cure it is a "Final Solution" type ordeal. These people in question are significantly more common, roughly 1 in 68, albeit still considered statistically abnormal. If you revert this back to my prior example and overlay the parallels, I believe my point to become clear - that the far left made a far larger deal about transgender, among other issues, than legitimately exists; they're all still people in the end.

You could if you wanted too though. If there are serious issues that make autistic people less functional, and we as a society could accommodate those issues without being too put out, then it is wise to make those accommodations. People worry too much about being too nice for some bizarre-ass reason. The point of accommodations is to make society function more fluidly, and get the most out of everyone as possible, while in turn making sure everyone gets as much out of life as possible. Personally, I don't think most accommodations of this sort put out the average person, and I say this as an average person.

To change topics entirely, the fact that this behavior has been permitted at all is proof enough to me that it is not taken seriously. I would say the same for the "Alt-Right" if people began flying Nazi flags, fighting with the police, setting fire to things and other improper behavior I described. Regardless of who is doing it or why, it is uncalled for and allows a dangerous standard to set in. It does not matter how much is occurring either; it needs to be controlled and put to an end all the same. Either you protest peacefully and obey the rules, or your protest has become unlawful and needs to be disbanded. If you riot, you are to be treated as criminals.

Well, first and formost there are Alt-Right protesters flying Nazi flags. That is a thing.

Second, I am fine with you arresting people who commit crimes, that's how the law works. I have a problem with generalizing the behavior of criminals as being the responsibility of the larger section of society they belong too. I don't think you have anything in common with Dylan Roof just because you are right of center, and for the same reason I'd rather people say all people left of center are the bike-lock guy.

albeit I still advocate the deployment of National Guard units to restore order and as a show of force regardless.

yeeeeh, let's not do that. We are not nearly at a level that requires marshal law. I know a bar that spills more blood than Berkley every Friday night, but nobody would dream of military occupation as a response.

@SleepingSilence

Once again, if no one is taking the conversation seriously, I'm more than okay with it but I'd like for people to stop whining about me being mildly aggressive. If shitposting gets nobody to complain. <.<

Eh, I think we can only be so serious. We are all peasants after all, none of us belong to the elite, so none of our opinions really matter in the end.

All of what? But, libertarian is sometimes considered a right or left wing opinion. When it actually isn't. It's just the counter to authoritarian.

Well, yeh, technically Libertarian is anything south of the authority spectrum, this is true. I'm more talking about the way the term is used in the United States, where we usually use it to apply to the right wing of the libertarian spectrum. Like, I'd definitely consider myself a left-libertarian, but I wouldn't go around calling myself a Libertarian because everyone would assume I'm a Rand Paul type of guy.

Anyway, in the United States we use Libertarian to mean anything from an anti-war Republican all the way down to a foaming-at-the-mouth An-Cap.

It's usually the same as private though which is my point...So both words tend to mean the same thing. There isn't a difference from what I can tell.

They are lumped together in the current system, but I do think there is a recognizable difference. Like I said, one you use the object, the other you use the income and don't interact with the object. If somebody has to take the object from you in a physical sense, it probably it's personal property. Again, this is my practical definition, not the current legal definition where personal property is non-real-estate property.

Stuff like this...except if there's any snowball chance in hell for that person to win. Is not a world we should live in...but it has. Which is my point. Clearer now?

Oh that. Yeh, I'm against frivolous lawsuits. Not sure how to stop them though, short of fining people for them, which makes another messy situation.

Not always true, some small businesses suck too. Big doesn't always equal a problem. But you seem to be ignoring how social media smear campaigns can outright destroy people's lives. I think forcing people to "morally" shop is a slippery slope anyway. Granted boycotts don't work usually. But "buycotts" (stealing the word) do. So there is some level of outside forces that can effect the outcome of somebody's sales. Some people lose, but they still can try again. As bad as it seems, that's a GOOD thing for the consumers and people. If businesses weren't allowed to fail. They'd need government bailouts. Sometimes products become less needed or bought, when newer and better and cheaper stuff comes out.

Yup, it is true that small businesses aren't automatically good, but I think it is generally accepted that Wal-Mart won because it was cheap and not because people admire Wal-Mart's business practices. "Wal-Mart destroyed Main-Street" has been a topic of conversation for quite some time, and a warranted one.

The issue of social media smear campaigns is true, but it's not really a free-market issue. If anything, social media smear campaigns is an example of how the free market is oftentimes irrational.

Also, boycotts and buycotts can work in principle, but because people's purchasing decisions are based mostly on convenience, and because social movements have a short attention span, I don't think they can be relied upon to make a system moral. Which is to say that the free market might be trusted to make a lot of cheap commodities, but it can't necessarily be trusted with all of the rest of the complications of a free society. Hence why modern economics largely leans toward a market left to handle commodities but supplemented by government intervention to handle everything the Free Market leaves behind.

What does diddling the help supposed to mean there?

Err, without going up and checking, I think you had said something about bailouts in relation to a conversation we were having about what happens if a businessman sexually harasses his employees. Diddling the help would be a colloquial way of saying sexually harassing employees.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01…

Hasn't stopped people from trying. ;D

Welp, shit, a diddling bailout. That's funny as fuck.

Extremes exist on both sides, but which seems to be a bigger problem right now? It seems the worst the Alt right can do, is be horrendously unfunny. I simply point it out because SJW's were started from GamerGate and that was taken quite seriously by every big media site, when it started/fueled from nothing but a farce.

Right wing is right now in political power in the US, SJW's are just bitching and throwing fists. Honestly, I think SJW's are more a threat to the left than they are to the right. No greater force of internal division has ever been devised by God or Man. I don't think they are scary though, just messy. The Alt Right scares me a little, in that I'm not sure where they came from, and their proposals are more violent than just throwing fists. I admit, the sudden appearance of ethno-states into the political discussion has spooked me.

Not a citation really. And one person isn't a whole movement. So that's all I got for that.

Richard Spencer has followers. He got that creepy torchlight thing going, for instance.

I didn't mean to get on your case too hard, unlike the other people nitpicking me to death here. You've tended to be respectful in the past. So if you felt in anyway I was being aggressive to you, I apologize. I have an actual reason for my slightly scattered thoughts. However, I will argue that it seemed like one to you because you replied to things, that weren't statements toward you. It was one post replying to three people and separating them would just be spam. Discussions of this nature NEED more context and as much evidence as possible. Also again, I'm not typing any more/less than the other person you've been discussing with.

No worries, I'm not easy to offend.

It would be nice if I could dedicate serious energy to internet debates, but it's just too much of a pain for me. I like the casual face to face style of debating, where it's mostly trading and sharpening ideas we already have stored in our heads, with certain points taken on honor. I'm not keen on the more involved types of debate though, since it takes sooo much time and energy. And though sure, citations are more empirical, I just don't have time to unpack all of that, or to pack my own for that matter.

I don't try to generalize, usually. But again, my point is kids don't even know what right or left wings even stand for. So saying their opinions are popular, doesn't make much sense.

I agree. If I recall right, and this was a while ago, the response had something to do with what teenagers were saying implying the next generation was going to be right wing?

@Penny

Martial law is reserved and designed for scenarios wherein the entire system has collapsed. A reasonable execution of armed action to stand up the fallen government would be in an extreme such as in the event of terror employing a weapon of mass destruction. Why? Because the local, tribal and or state government, have mostly if not completely have failed and there is anarchy among the populace. The police are unable to effectively respond, emergency medical treatment is at levels almost exclusive to triage if at all, fire control is dedicated to critical infrastructure, engineering projects - like nuclear reactors which are national assets - are under threat because of becoming derelict. The execution of such an order would be to recapture and recover the affected areas and restore order.

Mobilizing the National Guard to step in, in place of the police who are forced to stand down, is how you maintain discipline and enforce the law. If the police are being forced, as they are in some of these cases, to disobey their code and being prevented from carrying out their role in society, no less their occupation for which they are paid, by someone who is morally and politically compromised and allowing the public to skirmish amongst itself, there is a pretty distinct failure to uphold the law.

The American public is not aware that the largest intrusions that happen to them still occur daily out of sight and out of mind, at times in areas of actual and legitimate questionability in law. This is one of the reasons the populace was so reactive to the National Security Agency and Homeland Security Agency electronic monitoring, among others, because while it was and is critical to countering threats, it has in some cases - as we have seen - proven to be unlawful in of itself.

The argument of police checkpoints appearing every few weeks at random, or in specific static locations, is a "police state" is hollow in comparison and contrast to other, historically well known police states. For the moment I will refer you to Venezuela as an excellent example of an actual police state, where the government arranged a specific policing force to seize command and control of privately owned resources, then redistributed them as it saw fit under the new law. No less, the police then turned on its own populace and behaves as a means of oppression rather than protection. It has no other greater purpose at the moment than to control the population; law enforcement is a distant secondary objective, if that.

@Vilageidiotx

You would be correct we do not have a "major" problem of terrorism in the United States, but it is essential that efforts be made to become proactive over reactive. Coming from an element of counter terror, it was much easier to defeat terror its low level, lone wolf lanings when it focused so heavily on improvised explosives yet incidents like the Boston Marathon Bombing prove that it is still possible. Today, knife attacks and vehicle ramming attacks have become, and will continue to rise as, the new standard, owing to the reality that they are cheaper and easier to execute, significantly more difficult to detect and hard to prevent; although the former is more readily defeated by a populace that is allowed to better exercise their right of arms. The latter is unfortunately, almost impossible to efficiently protect against.

I specifically prefaced my statement by saying "I would say." because I do, just as I disagree that "America is what we make it."; I contrarily believe that America has some fundamentals that cannot be compromised, especially not in the name of socialism and its foundations in social justice.

You can however, entirely rationally argue that my advocating for elevated security across the board might lead down a slippery slope to a police state. That I would agree with for if it was not implemented properly and in conjunction with other critical concepts such as dual electronic authorization when making a purchase (both a driver's license or similar identification and a credit card, or at minimum being carded if you are buying with cash), it is ripe for potential abuse. That is an argument I can believe and empathize with. Despite this note, I will never concede communism as anything less than an actual, not hypothetical, enemy of the free world, namely the United States.

To the next topic, I do not believe there is any issue in semantics. A natural bell curve exists in that the further you get from what is considered "centrist" the more you become an extreme by that virtue. If the center right is "Republican" and the center left is "Democrat" that reasonably moves the Right Wing, "Alt-Right" and Alt-Right to the fringes in that order, just as it does in mirror with the left. Political motives become deeper and stronger the further you go to either side and the reasonability of violence to achieve those wants becomes more likely. The extremes of the left are made up of everything from communists to anarchists who have and do advocate violence; they are the more recent propagators. The real Alt-Right is notorious for this too because they so strongly cling to the ability to maintain arms - it is a cliché of their faction that they are all supposedly skin headed and surrounded by "assault rifles".

Again I will repeat that they are not automatically rendered all violent by association, but that they have the ability to sympathize with or accidentally allow a dangerous extremist into their movement. Because of their more consolidated, condensed and heightened motives, it makes it more likely they will provide assistance to them in that regard. It is the same reason that sympathetic moderates of any movement can become knowing bystanders to a violent movement; they have the power to avert harm, yet instead do not act on it because they are compromised and unwilling to betray those they view as their friends or at least their allies.

Personally I think gendered bathrooms is kinda silly, but I pretty much keep quiet about it because I figure as a guy I am getting me some juicy privilege by keeping bathrooms gendered, since, like, have you ever seen the line for a womans bathroom at a major event?

I do not believe in the notion of privilege, be it the now cringe worthy "CIS White Male" stereotype to the Alt-Right's counter stereotype that minorities receive privilege just because they are always somehow made out to be the downtrodden.

The cost in this circumstance is the comfort of the remaining 99.7% of the regular populace, a noteworthy portion being roughly half of which disagrees with the concept, or that a law needs to enforce it. It is not the duty of the populace to bow to or cater to a minority, especially an extremely small minority. It is the duty of that minority to integrate and become part of the rest of the population and explain to those who are misinformed on it. Here there is no misinformation, as this is a largely out of proportion issue, just as the "Women's Rights" argument that somehow women in America are not equal to their male counterparts; they're both Americans.

Again, while I find the notion of "helping make people more functional" to be a nice one and what I would want to see in any circumstance, I do not believe they are obligated to, especially not by law. Hypothetically, if I owned a company and found that to be an issue - let us say the fluorescent lighting - I would purchase and maintain an alternative to it. I as the owner made that choice to accommodate people; I was not forced by the government to do so. No less, as a tax payer, even one who falls into these categories that are considered other than normal, I do not agree with paying taxes to front or enforce these changes or policies, even if they would specifically benefit me; it isn't my job or my business to do so and certainly not the average American's. It is my job as a representative of my minorities to adapt and overcome my personal difficulties.

To the other topic, there are those who are flying Nazi flags, but then there are those across the line - who you actually consistently see - flying the Hammer and Sickle unironically; both massacred and murdered their populace and those that they held dominion over and both are the symbols of the worst of humanity. No less, the former is extremely uncommon to the point that from everything I have seen in these riots, there has not been one flown.

I disagree that Bike-Lock Guy is somehow not a representative of the Black Bloc, of which promotes violence and allowed him to execute it; no less against a person who was trying to prevent violence as a whole between the two groups. It was not as though he attacked an antagonizer. No less, hitting one person with a bike-lock, while it is assault with a deadly weapon, is not the same as actually murdering a group of people as Dylan Roof did; the two are beyond comparison. My point being that there are more notable cases of the Far Left promoting and acting on the opportunity to commit violence.

Do you really think Trump's movement is pro immigrant?

Well I hate the whole "pro/anti" newspeak conversation -- but yeah. CNN plays, you know, "We wanna build a big, beautiful wall," but they clip out the part right after where he adds "with a BIG BEAUTIFUL DOOR IN IT." We want borders, and we want legal immigration. We want folks like you here, basically. We can talk about all the ways illegal immigration hurts legal immigrants, if you like, that's probably a conversation worth having -- it'll have to wait until after work though (I'm also gonna get a bit brief here, I'm in a rush)

Make America Great Again is a clear statement that things went wrong when we got all multicultural and inclusive and we need to go back to a simpler vision.

whoa whoa whoa whoa. You don't...... you don't think maybe you're reading into that a bit?

All of that inflames the passions of his base in a way that both gets him votes and encourages them to act in a way which makes life scarier for people like me.

The people who won him the election are the same people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. We're not closet-racist sleeper cells. You don't need to be afraid of us and I am furious at whoever has poisoned you to be afraid of us.

Well if I had a cure for racism or a way to jump start economic growth so no one felt desperate and alienated id be receiving my Nobel Prize right now.

Voting for candidates who don't base their campaigns on groundless fear tactics would be a good start but I've given up on trying to understand voting patterns.

Speaking of who's running fear tactics, which of the two of us is afraid?

<Snipped quote by Penny>

whoa whoa whoa whoa. You don't...... you don't think maybe you're reading into that a bit?

Of course I am, the nature of language is that you read into it.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

The people who won him the election are the same people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. We're not closet-racist sleeper cells. You don't need to be afraid of us and I am furious at whoever has poisoned you to be afraid of us.

Issues of moral liscencing aside, swing voters are not the base. I'm not on the everyone who voted for Trump is ipso facto evil band wagon. There is a large section of the republican base which reliably responds to build walls/deport millions of people rhetoric.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Speaking of who's running fear tactics, which of the two of us is afraid?

Me but unfortunately I'm not running a presidential campaign currently, I can't even vote. When my assignment is up here I'm planning on moving to a much bluer area. Maybe the west coast if I can find one that dosent have a college burning down ;)

@Vilageidiotx Just saw this what you were talking about
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas…

This is getting pretty klanish now, The Alt-Right may be a fringe but they are absolutely a fringe gaining a lot more traction. We can only bury our heads in the sand for so long and try and pretend this is all a meme, white nationilism is real, you can be against anti-fa and thier property destroying ways and still condemn shit like this.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity you did a good job of laying out your beliefs clearly, but I challenge the other 'right leaning' guys in this thread to really acknowledge richard spencer, jared taylor, Baked Alaska, Emily Youcis, Red Ice Radio, Andrew Anglin without just brushing them off as 'irrelevant' this is the Alt Right. Not Ben Shapiro, Not Info Wars and not Mike Cernovitch.

I'm thinking about making a thread explaining this in detail, what do you think?

Again, while I find the notion of "helping make people more functional" to be a nice one and what I would want to see in any circumstance, I do not believe they are obligated to, especially not by law. Hypothetically, if I owned a company and found that to be an issue - let us say the fluorescent lighting - I would purchase and maintain an alternative to it. I as the owner made that choice to accommodate people; I was not forced by the government to do so. No less, as a tax payer, even one who falls into these categories that are considered other than normal, I do not agree with paying taxes to front or enforce these changes or policies, even if they would specifically benefit me; it isn't my job or my business to do so and certainly not the average American's. It is my job as a representative of my minorities to adapt and overcome my personal difficulties.

But is it not actually the case that the populace should and does cater to minorities in order to improve society as a whole? Take the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, for instance, which prohibits the discrimination of people based on disability, which is a protected class. These types of protections do make people obligated to help facilitate people who are maybe 'less than functional', and in turn there is a benefit to society. Do you think that helping facilitate minorities who are systematically (or otherwise) disadvantaged is the job of society, not government, or?

No, I do not believe they should cater to anyone, no matter how seemingly intentionally loaded that question is, @Iuniper.

If you are the caliber of person who does not sympathize or assist those with legitimate disabilities that is your own prerogative as far as I am concerned. I believe I know the caliber of person who would behave that way. To me, they are the same type of people who do not hold a door for anyone; the same type of people too preoccupied with themselves and their life not to get off their phones will driving; the same type of people who won't give up their seat on an airplane; the same type of people who kneel during the American anthem or refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In my eyes, that is morally wrong, but too in my eyes, it is their right to make that decision no matter how much I disdain it. If anything it motivates me to never be like them and to this day, it still does.

The tail end of your question is also potentially baiting, but because I have nothing to be ashamed of in stating my opinion, I will say it plainly. No, I do not believe it is the job of society or the government to "help facilitate minorities who are systematically disadvantaged".

I added this in post, but that question alone begs from me these thoughts, "Who determines what is or is not 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Who decides what benefits they need in particular?", "When does someone cease being 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Does someone who falls under multiple spectrums of 'systematic disadvantage' gain more benefits than those with fewer? Doesn't that put those people at their own disadvantage?", "What about those who are not 'systematically disadvantaged', what is their role? Do they need to take on the burden of other people? Is it by option or force?"

You needn't answer those, as they were added for the sake of understanding my character and thus my statement, but it goes to show that is such a vast amount of people could have it applied to them that it could be just about anyone and anything. People do not need special grants of anything to "cheat the odds" or gain "social justice". You are already a person, no less an American citizen.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity
I asked because I don't fully understand your position, and I am trying to clarify. Since I'm not a moral realist I really do not ask questions to 'bait' people. It's just that people who tend to take the position that both individuals and government (respectively) should not cater to minorities make a caveat for those with more 'physical' disadvantages, like people with disabilities. Which I find interesting, because there is something to be said about how society and individuals look at and categorize - so to say - those things.

Anyways, I get your position now. Thanks.

E: Oops, doublepost! Argh.

Added:

I added this in post, but that question alone begs from me these thoughts, "Who determines what is or is not 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Who decides what benefits they need in particular?", "When does someone cease being 'systematically disadvantaged'?", "Does someone who falls under multiple spectrums of 'systematic disadvantage' gain more benefits than those with fewer? Doesn't that put those people at their own disadvantage?", "What about those who are not 'systematically disadvantaged', what is their role? Do they need to take on the burden of other people? Is it by option or force?"

I think these are all interesting questions, and I'd be happy to hear what people think of them. There is definitely an easy distinction between minority groups who are disadvantaged because they have a physical disability or handicap in the literal sense. There are other cases which are more contentious. People who have a disadvantage because of things they cannot control, like their skin color or sexual orientation, for instance.

the sake of understanding my character and thus my statement

Personal character is irrelevant, I think.

I do think grants that help people who are disadvantaged (because of economic status for instance) are a great boon to society because they allow people who are gifted to better contribute. There is definitely a pragmatic basis for 'social justice' beyond morality.

I first have to remark that the issue I take with this is, nothing against you personally as this is only referring to the text itself, but the notion people who have "different skin color" or a "different sexual orientation" or "economic status" are somehow disadvantaged. Again, as I have stated before, I do not conscribe to the theory of privilege. I do not equate someone's lack of legs, either born or incurred later, to be something that cannot be overcome or even used to their advantage.

To share a brief story, for the sake of more insight, I came from a background of "haves" and fell hard into the "have nots". There was a point in my life where I had nothing to my name; all the wealth I had been given I gave back to my family so they could buy food and pay rent. It cost me my future education at one of the most critical times of a young person's life and in the depths of an economic recession all while it saddled me with debt I could not reasonably pay. No less, I had been obese for the entirety of my existence and am affected by a few unrelated non-preventable chronic conditions. I spent an entire year and a half turning it all around, then another six (to this day), and doing all the things people told me I would never be capable of. None of the above statements are true to me or my family anymore, barring those non-preventable conditions which I still live with.

You are whoever you make yourself to be with whatever hand you are dealt.

I never once asked for or received a handout from anyone or from the government. It is not their job to do it and I believe that because I lived it.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

I'm guessing that people you're talking with have a different understanding of what the term "social disadvantage" means, relative to you. They probably are not saying that people with "disadvantages" can not do certain things, but relaying that it might be hard for certain groups to do certain things. If I have no legs, this doesn't mean I can't move myself, but it would be much more difficult for me relative to someone who did have legs, probably.

It's great that you could help yourself without any help, but not everyone has the same experiences. It's fine to say that the government / society shouldn't help people who "have it hard" for whatever reason, but there is a basis for it beyond personal morality. That is really my point.

@Iuniper, it still does not change my opinion that people should not receive special compensation or consideration to somehow "make it even" and I do believe it can be argued. The notion otherwise invents an environment similar to the one we see today where people want to be marginalized in some cases so they receive more benefits or even worse because it is "trendy". No less, in a number of situations some of the fixes and solutions are counterproductive to the intended and desired end state. Lastly, it develops an air of "competition of oppression" or a "comparison of lacking" by which I mean these various "socially disadvantaged" people try to measure their various areas of weakness in life against each other, in addition to the normal populace, and go, "Why do they get that? I want that too." or even more foolishly, attempt to argue they are the most "burdened" by whatever status they claim.

My stance is that I do not feel obligated to encourage it.

You could argue, "What about wheelchair access to a government building?" Fair point, but depending on the building and its function, it may or may not have a need. Some of those laws may have already been in the books as well. I have seen plenty of buildings that have no need for it, as with the above example these facilities do not allow people with that kind of disability in them by virtue of their function, having them only at all because regulation mandates they do; the same can be said for a handicapped parking space. For me, that is a waste of time and resources.

If no such law existed, it should have been up to that state to make that determination for themselves through their population. Why? Because if someone does not like it, they can simply move somewhere else and should.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Yeah, I really do get what you're describing - the notion that there are people who would like to fein some sort of disadvantage they really do not have, and take pleasure in doing so. Particularly when people would like to - for instance - demand censorship of opinions they do not agree with because it makes them feel marginalized, and that sort of thing. I would definitely not want to encourage such a worldview as you describe.

But I don't think the current laws in my own country (the US) actively encourage this type of behavior. Society's ideas about what constitutes disadvantage or privilege are different, though (which is more what you seem to be upset with, I think). I don't think the reactionary solution to people who act irresponsibly (like you describe) is to take away protections that disadvantaged classes - like those with disabilities - have.

Of course I am, the nature of language is that you read into it.

My point there being, "Make America Great Again" is (most assuredly) not "a clear statement that things went wrong when we got all multicultural and inclusive and we need to go back to a simpler vision." Whoever is telling you it means that, is running fear tactics.

Issues of moral liscencing aside, swing voters are not the base. I'm not on the everyone who voted for Trump is ipso facto evil band wagon. There is a large section of the republican base which reliably responds to build walls/deport millions of people rhetoric.

Sure. I would love to have a wall built, and I dunno about "millions" but there are plenty of people here who shouldn't be. This has nothing to do with racism. You don't lock your doors because you hate everybody outside, you lock your door because you love everybody inside.

Me ...

Yeah that's my point. They're trying to frighten you so they can use you, and 'they' aren't the GOP. Spoiler alert: they've been doing it since Jim Crow. They're not your friends.

@Iuniper

For myself I view "disadvantages" and compensation for them too close to actual privileges, as you likely noted in my musings above. I do not believe the myth that white men are some how privileged and that other races are marginalized into "disadvantage". Are there those who do in fact hold racial biases? Yes, that's no secret. I find that more rare than the reality presented, adding on that I do not believe people need to have added "equality"; the reason why I find modern "feminism" lacking in basis, for example. There is nothing to indicate to me that women are unfairly treated compared to men.

From my own experiences, the opposite is often true because of the concept of affirmative action or that people are at all "socially disadvantaged". In fact, I myself have been affected by that, where I have been passed over despite my qualifications, work ethics, history and reputation simply because someone else was at a "disadvantage", of which was their gender and skin color. I do not believe in artificially "balancing" the system as socialism so highly vaunts out time and time again. If anything that example is actual reverse racism and sexism, because they superseded qualifications to fit the desire of "diversity" based on race and sex, rather than allow the diversity to foster naturally.

In regard to the other comment, I assume you are speaking about Thomas' Hobbes and his theories, some of which I do agree with and then those I do not.

For myself, I do indeed conscribe to the notion that humans are inherently selfish, as with any other animal. In spite of this belief, I too hold the understanding that people have the ability to overcome this area of weakness, with examples being charity, compassion, and honor among, many, many others which we frequently view as moral high ground. It takes control, effort and dedication to minimize the weaknesses of simply being, but the truth is, is that those admirable traits only come through one's own volition, and should be nothing less than through that means alone. To further elaborate on what I mean I will use a well known sample; charity ceases to be meaningful when it becomes mandatory as either a person gives of their own desire to do good or they do not at all.

I do concede that life is "... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” in nature, both that wild and that of which Hobbes meant in the state of man. What I differ on, as with my earlier philosophy, that this too can be changed, as some see view them in "contracts"; you trade something for the other and this happens naturally at all levels. Even earlier I confirmed I believe one at times must trade "liberty" with "safety", but such a process must be carefully supervised and a balance established, let one trade too much. However, I add that there are some conditions that are inherent to all things, such as the right of self defense. In that I mean I do not pity a hunter killed by a rampant boar just as I do not show pity on the criminal killed by the police. To me they are facts of life and essential elements of what makes a living thing just that.

To conclude in brief, as I know little more beyond this about Hobbes, is that I do not believe mankind should be ever managed by any single person or construct and follow it unquestioningly. I believe a system of representatives with varying purposes and objectives and no less duties, is essential. While the United States' system from the base to the top does have some flaws, I too think it a remarkable example of what can be achieved and that it functions so well even in an imperfect and dynamic environment.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Whoever is telling you it means that, is running fear tactics.

<Snipped quote>

This is my own conclusion based on observation of the campaign and its adherents. No one is 'telling me that' other than by actions.

<Snipped quote>

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Yeah that's my point. They're trying to frighten you so they can use you, and 'they' aren't the GOP. Spoiler alert: they've been doing it since Jim Crow. They're not your friends.

I am nervous because I hear this crap almost everyday. In person. I'm not adsorbing it from media in some passive way, it is my LIVED experience.

I'm not a political historian but it is clear that the modern GOP are the heirs to the Jim Crow legacy. Southern Strategy blah blah. It is pretty easy to see which party is pushing for voter ID legislation which suppresses minority turn out.

@Iuniper

There is nothing to indicate to me that women are unfairly treated compared to men.

Ha good one!

I almost am loathe to mention it, but if you cannot acquire government identification, you probably should not be voting in the first place. Identification is not that hard to gain or utilize and is more or less mandatory to function regularly in life. If one cannot be bothered to ensure they have one, then I would be surprised they have the will at all to see themselves to the voting booth. As a whole that argument is very unreliable and is, beyond a doubt, more a threat than a benefit to the populace; I would rather have a potentially smaller voter turn out with less fraud than I would with a larger voter turn out with potentially more fraud, @Penny.

On another note, it is not clear that the modern Republicans are responsible for the Jim Crow legacy, but I will leave @mdk to that and the rest of their conversation.