Double dipping corn chips into dips. I've got no problem with it. But others, oh boy! You double dip and all of a sudden it's like you've sexually harassed a female in the office! I'll dip my chip however many times it takes me to eat the chip!

Im not going to quote it cause its pretty big, but Captain Haddock's rant has basically saved my sanity

A year and a half back, I hired this kid for an entry level factory job. Just had to drive forklift, pick parts and use a computer.
He was living at home with mum, and loved working and earning his own money. About 6 months in he decied to move out with his mates as he had the cash.
by the end of that year he had become an almost useless employee, which I couldnt figure out because he had learnt it all quickly enough and had successfully done the job well.
In the end after a string of "sick days" I fired him which he was really really ok with. Like way too accepting.

Then I hear from the factory floor he had been telling people he was hoping to get fired so he can go on the dole like his room mates and play games all day.

Fuck me. Could not believe the attitude....

(But I will say this I have other young fella's here that have been pretty good).

Just wait until everyone has VR. It will get worse as there will be a huge addiction problem with it.

No problems! I watch Sargon of Akkad vids or Peter Hitchens debating liberal bigots when I fear for my sanity, but that rant I've been sitting on for a few months now until I could put my feelings about all the issues mentioned into a coherent argument that didn't just sound like a crazy cat lady throwing shit...

It comes down to how you argue your points. The new age left are lazy. They don't want to argue your points because they've already established they are good and you are evil. Carl the Cuck is a perfect example of someone who thinks he's just the greatest person in the world.
Have some questions about climate change? You're an idiot!
Disagree with some tenants of feminism? Misogyny!
Have an opinion that differs from the police are a racist organisation? Racist!
Support Trump? Well you're like Hitler!

The finer details don't matter. And these aren't exclusive to the left.
Don't want to go to war? Well you don't support our troops!
Want some gun control? You hate freedom!
You want to take in muslim immigrants? Islam is going to take over our country!

These people are the loudest and therefore seem to control the debate polarising and toxic. I find myself defending Trump against these lazy leftists going to their buzzwords to stifle debate. Most common being "he wants to build a wall with Mexico and deport all the illegal immigrants, thats stupid". "Well, why is it stupid?" I may respond, and they proceed to just get louder and repeat what they said as if its just obvious that its stupid.

Debate just isn't valued anymore. Political correct positions have been established and those are the ones you see on websites where people use their actual names. And anonymous people are the only ones left willing to debate because theres no social backlash to having a politically incorrect opinion when your name is tbitm on a football forum.

The rabid left has always been around, just like the rabid right. It's not something new.

The real problem is that the moderate left and moderate right use extremism to strawman their political opponents.

For example people see someone like Clem Ford and immediately disavow feminism, rather than recognising that feminism (like every movement) has its extremists. Or you have idiots declaring that 'Islam is the problem' because of how some Muslims act.

At what point do we give up on explaining why something so obviously unnecessary, so clearly infeasible and blatantly populist is a bad idea?

Because most people who believe in that kind of shit aren't going to have their minds changed by an actual discussion of the problem, and they certainly won't go looking for in-depth analyses of such policies in the (apparently leftist, agenda-driven) media.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. No doubt there are plenty of people who'd rather blame their problems on external factors (whatever they may be), that shouldn't mean that concerns about corporate capture and government's failures are delegitimised.

Furthermore, all your posts dismissing 'social justice' ignore the importance of being aware of structural oppression in society on the basis that sometimes people talking about these issues sound a bit like Clem Ford/Socialist Alternative/Antifa (insert whichever other fringe element of the left annoys you).

Shh TheDecider, they've been unchallenged in this thread and I've enjoyed seeing people get braver with their opinions. :lol:

You've pretty well summed up what makes series like South Park and movies like Team America so brilliant.

Because why have debate at all? You have to be wiling to weigh up all the pros as well as the cons of any issue, especially when a serious contender is proposing it.

Understanding where you're opponent is coming from also humanises them instead of polarising them as the other in your life. This kind of debate is also where compromise comes from

Because it's an issue that has moved beyond reasonable debate. Regardless of its pros and cons, it is never a policy that's going to be implemented even if Trump wins the presidency - the only purpose it serves is as a dog whistle to America's white working class.

I admit this is a pretty pessimistic view of democracy (you'd gather that from my sig anyway) but is having that discussion really going to change anyone's mind? The fact that people so readily dismiss Trump is not a signal that there's no substance behind that dismissal - it's a reflection of frustration that such an absurd candidate with such irrational policies has successfully reframed the debate at all.

If you want America to have a discussion let's have a real one - let's talk about the minimum wage, or environmental policy, or genuine tax reform (and not Ted Cruz's primary school view of taxation).

It's like arguing with creationists, or climate change deniers. What's the point?

UO: People supporting Trump is not exclusively because they are white working class. Anybody who says this is an idiot.
Many people feel betrayed by Obama and his party and don't trust Clinton.

I really do believe Trump would build a wall. They've wanted to do it for a long time and the people who support Trump are sick with the wall being touted for political gain they want to get someone who will actually do it.

Who gets to decide what is worth debating or not? Does TheDecider decide, or the people? 38% of americans support a wall. Do we just ignore them, call them stupid for supporting that policy and dismiss everything else they say because they support that policy?

I guess the point to debating it would be not to isolate 38% of your country to the point Donald fucking Trump becomes a legitimate contender.

Edited by tbitm: 21/4/2016 05:20:25 PM

It's a demographic trend, not a reason for his support.

So not sure what's unpopular about your opinion?

Do you know how demographics work?
72% of Anericans are white.
The middle class is the working class.

I'm sure Hilary's biggest support group is white working class people too.

The Decider decides. Nah, to be clear, if a large portion of a population thinks something stupid then it obviously needs to be discussed - if only to ensure they understand why they're wrong. My point is that when I personally hear/read someone talking about how great an idea it is to build a wall, I really can't be fucked to get into a directionless argument that will benefit no-one. There are plenty of people around calling out Trump for his stupidity, they're doing a fine job, I'd rather leave it to them and avoid being dragged into the shitshow.

As to your first point, there are plenty of reasons to think that a wall won't be built.
- It's unnecessary and would not prevent illegal immigration, and on day one all of President Trump's advisers will tell him that.
- I doubt even Trump believes most of what he says on the campaign trail. The wall is a great electoral ploy (as is his empty rhetoric on protectionism) but I honestly don't think he believes it's a good idea.
- If Trump did move forward with the proposal with it Congress would block it.
- If it somehow gains the support of Congress there is literally zero chance of Mexico paying for the wall.
- Above and beyond all of that: a Trump presidency would be hugely dysfunctional and massive infrastructure projects such as this would probably never move beyond the planning stage.

...and Trump's supporters tend to be even whiter and even more working class. I'm not sure what your point is, but at the moment it looks like you're the one who doesn't know how demographics work.

America is much bigger than white hippies on the west coast.

:-k

Now you're just saying whatever pops into your head.

Would consider that unpopular?

Daylight savings should be all year round.

I fell if you're against something, you should be able to explain why and have a discussion about it and at least hear out reasons why.

I'm about 50/50 on the wall and 100% against mass deportation.

About 40% of illegal immigrants come through by land. I assume a similar, or at least decent percentage of illegal drugs come in this way too. It isn't going to stop them altogether but what position has ever fixed 100% of the problem. Personally I'm pro legalisation or decriminalisation which would stop much of this but deal with the world the way it is not the way you wish it to be.

It'll cost about $20b. $20b that could go somewhere else sure but so could any $20b found in the budget. At least this will go towards a lot of short term jobs and some long term jobs instead of to some tax loophole or big business subsidy. Overall its only about 0.3% of the budget for 1 year so i'm not too concerned about cost.

Finally, with the rise of Islamic terrorism protecting borders is important. Isis has announced they want to bring in a nuke through the southern border. While that is unlikely since they would need to buy one off Pakistan. But lets say they then just bring a few people through and commit a different heinous act. Discounting the lives lost, how much does the U.S. then spend in a full ground invasion of which I wouldn't put past any presidential contender.

I dont agree with any of these points 100%, but I don't think any are completely invalid and worth tossing away out of hand.

>implying Mexico will pay for it

They aren't building a wall. They are building a border. Something America already has

Glad we can agree! Going by your rant, I believe Trey Parker and Matt Stone sum up our beliefs when they said in an interview when they were asked....




It sums up how I've felt for the last 2 years or so. I understand why they don't want to label themselves, I don't necessarily always see it as a bad thing.I only use labels that represent my beliefs as long as they don't have some sort of identity politics such as once that can be attached to them being gender, race or religion. It's hard to truly judge yourself but I'd label myself a Secularist, Social Libertarian.

Unpopular opinion
The internet is good for a yarn, but thats all

Diving is nowhere near as big of an issue as people make it out to be.

There's the gender pay gap which is a disgrace. A mate who is a business analyst gets paid 16k less than her male colleague for the same job. It's a real problem which seems to be continually brushed aside. Women legitimately are marginalised in society, while I find Clementine Ford to be a despicable human a lot of the time she isn't wrong about gender inequality.

As for socialism, I find it rich that people seem to think others should continually pay for their ideology. On this forum we've discussed tax rates over and over and the rich could always pay more.

I do have to laugh though at the extremist socialists who seem to think that companies are evil and avoiding tax simply because they're big, multinationals :lol:

Edited by bethfc: 22/4/2016 06:53:00 AM