President Donald Trump: The Thread

[Kyyle23]

Guys, it might be time for all sides(many sides?) to step back and reassess this rapidly devolving argument, and move on

[StrangeSox]

LOL. This ssubforum sucks. Given that I am a mod and I get all these DMs from posters bagging on the filibuster and telling me to keep fighting the good fight I would like to keep some balance around here but it's just not possible. I do wonder why these posters are afraid to post around here (hit me up and let me know, you guys know who you are, just cleared my inbox). It's certainly not that anybody would expect regulars in this subforum to be intolerant. But you guys got me. Just like the rest of them who have more discipline than me. It isn't worth explaining basic human interactions to grown men who ignore human nature so they can project their political platform of being self-righteous and holier-than-thou. Resume with the echo chamber.

 

But you guys are right, Anna Nicole Smith really loved that oil tycoon prune and the duck dynasty guy will have a child that will go on to split the atom because we are all inherently equal and his father being a simpleton has no affect on his future. If you'd excuse me, I am going to go join the NBA to dethrone the Golden State Warriors because my mother's 5'1" height has no bearing on my future because we are all created equally and my lack of bone density that my genetics gave me isn't going to affect my future as an athlete. LeBron has no genetic advantage over me and implying such is racist or sexist depending on which filibuster regular you talk to.

 

In parting, and in all seriousness, please don't let your masturbatory personal political beliefs invade your everyday life. There's a whole world out there that some seemingly haven't experience and perhaps experiencing some diversity and different types of people would do you well. We'd all love to live in a utopia world where everyone is exactly the same and dealt the same cards but that's not life. People aren't inherently flawless. People are inherently limited. People are self-driven. People are plagued by image. People are variable. I could go on all day. I just don't know where you guys spend your lives that you think stating otherwise is offensive.

 

To be clear, none of this is personal to me - I would love to talk baseball with you guys where disagreements are settled with reason and this board is absolutely marvelous in its congregating.

 

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard on the way out the door, but I guess it isn't worth explaining to a grown man that "common sense" doesn't give you insight into how genetics actually work. Go crack a biology book.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think I've ever commented much on gender.

 

But yeah seriously, if you honestly think "how much money a person has (or is born into)" says anything about their "genetic stock," go crack a high school level biology book and work your way up from there. s*** just doesn't work like that, and "common sense" is just an appeal to preformed assumptions without basis. People make all sorts of social decisions on who to marry for various reasons, but that doesn't say anything about underlying genetics.

 

edit: lol try harder dude, that is just sad. not even worth it.

Edited August 15, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Dick Allen]

Post #1161 for you in this thread. I am not sure you've ever seen something that wasn't "worth it" given your posting activity. But hey, you know it all, why bother listening to others when you can lecture and condescend everyone else on how horrible of people they are because their political beliefs don't align with your socially engineered pseudoscience beliefs and bluepilling tendencies.

Lecture? Check. Condescend? Check. People are horrible because their political beliefs don't align with yours? Check.

 

You have done everything you are complaining about.

 

 

[caulfield12]

White nationalists are planning 9 rallies nationwide this weekend alone

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/us/white-nat...trnd/index.html

 

4th CEO/exec quits Trump council/s, pressure mounts on others remaining

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/investing/...ntel/index.html

 

 

[illinilaw08]

LOL. This ssubforum sucks. Given that I am a mod and I get all these DMs from posters bagging on the filibuster and telling me to keep fighting the good fight I would like to keep some balance around here but it's just not possible. I do wonder why these posters are afraid to post around here (hit me up and let me know, you guys know who you are, just cleared my inbox). It's certainly not that anybody would expect regulars in this subforum to be intolerant. But you guys got me. Just like the rest of them who have more discipline than me. It isn't worth explaining basic human interactions to grown men who ignore human nature so they can project their political platform of being self-righteous and holier-than-thou. Resume with the echo chamber.

 

But you guys are right, Anna Nicole Smith really loved that oil tycoon prune and the duck dynasty guy will have a child that will go on to split the atom because we are all inherently equal and his father being a simpleton has no affect on his future. If you'd excuse me, I am going to go join the NBA to dethrone the Golden State Warriors because my mother's 5'1" height has no bearing on my future because we are all created equally and my lack of bone density that my genetics gave me isn't going to affect my future as an athlete. LeBron has no genetic advantage over me and implying such is racist or sexist depending on which filibuster regular you talk to.

 

In parting, and in all seriousness, please don't let your masturbatory personal political beliefs invade your everyday life. There's a whole world out there that some seemingly haven't experience and perhaps experiencing some diversity and different types of people would do you well. We'd all love to live in a utopia world where everyone is exactly the same and dealt the same cards but that's not life. People aren't inherently flawless. People are inherently limited. People are self-driven. People are plagued by image. People are variable. I could go on all day. I just don't know where you guys spend your lives that you think stating otherwise is offensive.

 

To be clear, none of this is personal to me - I would love to talk baseball with you guys where disagreements are settled with reason and this board is absolutely marvelous in its congregating.

 

Rabbit, can I drill down on your argument here? If you are arguing that wealth and good looks make someone attractive to somebody else, that's probably not a particularly controversial statement. And on a person-to-person basis, genetics certainly play a role into whether, for example, I will ever be a professional athlete (given that I'm in my mid-30s and not particularly athletic, I would say I will not ever make that jump). If that's all your argument is - that genetics makes a person more attractive or more athletic, then I retract my earlier snark. Based on the response above, I think that's where you were going...

 

If your argument is that Ivanka Trump has better genetics than a person in Appalachia because she's Ivanka Trump and they live in Appalachia, then you are arguing that the successful are genetically superior to the the non-successful. That's a pretty dangerous slope to get onto. I mean, not to Godwin this whole thing up, but the obvious example of why this is bad is that Hitler's platform was based on the idea that the pure blooded Aryan race was superior to that of the Jews or the Poles, etc. The holocaust was based, at least in part, on that idea of genetic superiority. Slavery and Jim Crow were based on the idea that the black man was an inferior race.

 

To take your NBA example, there are thousands of athletes in this country with the athletic make-up to make the NBA. A finite number of them have the inner drive to refine their game, and the injury luck to get to that point. To take the Ivanka Trump vs. Appalachia example, Ivanka Trump was born with every advantage in the world - inherited wealth, a famous father. To argue that she is genetically superior to the person in Appalachia who was not born with those advantages implies that Ivanka's life has more value than the inferior person in Appalachia. That's why the statement drew a reaction.

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

I am defending myself. I can't just sit there while SS sits at his desk all day, everyday treating everyone like s***. You have interacted with me plenty in PHT over the years and we never had an issue other than when you wouldn't stop following people around thread to thread about Cooper or Beckham or both. Can't even remember. Now in here all of a sudden you have an issue with my posting when I don't sit there and take the group stoning? Okay. Seems to be a bias but thanks for your take. I would have totally guessed you would have backed me.

 

 

The first paragraph is all fair and true.

 

Second paragraph - spare me the holocaust/Hitler stuff. I was following you until then. It's absolutely ridiculous to make that leap and it's really embarrassing you guys think that is a proper forum of discourse. Not everybody you disagree with is racist or sexist or nazi. This is how the liberal base split because every normal person is tired of the everything is racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigot, etc. You personally are way too smart to argue on these type of cheap, intellectual-lightweight, low-hanging fruit talking points. I've seen enough of you to know that you can construct a proper argument on your own merit and intelligence - not that you need that clarification for me.

 

"Slavery and Jim Crow were based on the idea that the black man was an inferior race." - Really? Not only is this irrelevant to the topic but doesn't everyone know this? That's like third grade history. Is it worth stating or do you need to state the obvious to virtue signal so everyone knows you're an awesome person.

 

I made a convenient example. I said that the daughter of a model and billionaire real estate mogul has more potential in life and a better genetic pool than some young girl from the poorest, most neglected part of our country that is so removed from society that is riddled with incest, meth and crime. The fact that you guys have all aligned and grouped up together to dispute that is borderline lunacy. Could a young person from the Ozarks or Appalachia leave and get raised by another family and turn into something? Yes of course. Is it likely? Probably not. They would be complete outliers. These are the most removed and neglected people in our country. Yes, Ivanka Trump has more potential for a fruitful and productive life than all of them. Yes, she would be a better mother than all of them. That's common sense. If that makes me a dick, then I am a dick. I am not going to lie to show anonymous people on the internet that I am some moral beacon.

 

Now if you said you wanted to change that and help those people change their lifestyle I would say great let's do it. I often wonder why there is no political movement to help those people. I guess they don't vote/fit into the identity politics game plan?

I disagree with your views, you disagree with mine. I would call that even. You seem to play victim.

[illinilaw08]

The first paragraph is all fair and true.

 

Second paragraph - spare me the holocaust/Hitler stuff. I was following you until then. It's absolutely ridiculous to make that leap and it's really embarrassing you guys think that is a proper forum of discourse. Not everybody you disagree with is racist or sexist or nazi. This is how the liberal base split because every normal person is tired of the everything is racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigot, etc. You personally are way too smart to argue on these type of cheap, intellectual-lightweight, low-hanging fruit talking points. I've seen enough of you to know that you can construct a proper argument on your own merit and intelligence - not that you need that clarification for me.

 

"Slavery and Jim Crow were based on the idea that the black man was an inferior race." - Really? Not only is this irrelevant to the topic but doesn't everyone know this? That's like third grade history. Is it worth stating or do you need to state the obvious to virtue signal so everyone knows you're an awesome person.

 

I made a convenient example. I said that the daughter of a model and billionaire real estate mogul has more potential in life and a better genetic pool than some young girl from the poorest, most neglected part of our country that is so removed from society that is riddled with incest, meth and crime. The fact that you guys have all aligned and grouped up together to dispute that is borderline lunacy. Could a young person from the Ozarks or Appalachia leave and get raised by another family and turn into something? Yes of course. Is it likely? Probably not. They would be complete outliers. These are the most removed and neglected people in our country. Yes, Ivanka Trump has more potential for a fruitful and productive life than all of them. Yes, she would be a better mother than all of them. That's common sense. If that makes me a dick, then I am a dick. I am not going to lie to show anonymous people on the internet that I am some moral beacon.

 

Now if you said you wanted to change that and help those people change their lifestyle I would say great let's do it. I often wonder why there is no political movement to help those people. I guess they don't vote/fit into the identity politics game plan?

 

Dude, I was trying to drill down on what your argument was. You clarified that it was the first part. The second paragraph pointed out that people have been using genetic superiority arguments for really, really bad means for centuries.

 

The bolded is again just problematic language. Ivanka Trump doesn't have better genes than everybody in Appalachia. She was born into wealth and a world of connections. None of those are genetic. This might be semantics, and I understand (I think) what you are arguing, but the fact remains that the language of the argument has some bad connotations.

 

There have been a lot of interesting policies in the West Virginia and other areas of Appalachia to try to engineer positive change. There is plenty of political movement in Appalachia.

Like with a lot of poverty stricken areas of the country, the solutions to the problems aren't easy.

 

Some examples can be found at the link below:

 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/...et-coal-country

 

ETA: I just re-read your post. You are still making genetic superiority arguments. Why is Ivanka Trump likely to be a better mother than literally anyone from Appalachia? Why is it unlikely that someone born in Appalachia and moved to a world of wealth not likely to make something of themselves? There is literally no basis in science for those arguments. And those statements are where you completely lose me.

Edited August 15, 2017 by illinilaw08

[Balta1701]

ETA: I just re-read your post. You are still making genetic superiority arguments. Why is Ivanka Trump likely to be a better mother than literally anyone from Appalachia? Why is it unlikely that someone born in Appalachia and moved to a world of wealth not likely to make something of themselves? There is literally no basis in science for those arguments. And those statements are where you completely lose me.

And strong evidence against it, FWIW.

[Balta1701]

You were coming at me in caulfield's white privilege thread saying minorities don't have the same opportunities as whites. Now you're telling me the people in Appalachia, who are in a far worse situation than urban poor people, have just as much opportunity as Ivanka Trump. That kind of flies in the face of other opinons you've espoused.

Literally no one has said that.

 

Everyone here other than you would agree that a person growing up in, as you say, a meth (it's opiates today by the way) hammered location will not have the same opportunities as a rich person in New York.

 

Only you have insisted that is because that group is genetically inferior.

[illinilaw08]

Why don't you move your family there then? Where do you live? I am sure it's not a community where incest is normal and meth is passed around like beers on the south side.

 

Socioeconomic issues breed issues that are perpetuated generation to generation. I may be blurring the lines between products of environment and genetics in parts of the diatribe but the point stands. I never said anyone was "better." Just more likely to have a productive and fruitful life or be a good mother or both. Of course, that's all subjective.

 

 

Most posters I'd ask to defend their point but...yeah.

 

Where does where I live have anything to do with this argument? I haven't for a second argued that Appalachia isn't a depressed area economically. You, however, stated that Ivanka Trump is genetically more likely to be a good mother than someone in Appalachia. You also stated that if you moved someone from Appalachia to better financial circumstances, if they succeeded they would be an outlier.

 

I don't disagree with you that socioeconomic issues are perpetuated from generation to generation, and coming up with policy to break that cycle is difficult. And if you have, all along, been making an environment argument, I also don't disagree with you. There's a huge difference from someone being born into advantageous circumstances having a greater chance of achieving financial success, and them being genetically better than somebody else. My issue is with the continued argument that they are genetically superior. Again, that might sound like it's semantics, but that's been an argument that has historically been pretty dangerous.

[knightni]

How can you justify a nature inferiority by arguing nurture?

[Dick Allen]

This is turning Al Campanis-like.

[illinilaw08]

You were coming at me in caulfield's white privilege thread saying minorities don't have the same opportunities as whites. Now you're telling me the people in Appalachia, who are in a far worse situation than urban poor people, have just as much opportunity as Ivanka Trump. That kind of flies in the face of other opinons you've espoused.

 

Nope. It doesn't. And a lot of people provided examples to you in that thread as to why it's an incorrect analogy. That's also not a road that we need to go down again.

 

As to Ivanka Trump, I didn't say anything about opportunity. In fact, I have specifically stated that Ivanka Trump has greater opportunity than a poor person. It's just not because of genetics that she has greater opportunity.

[knightni]

?

Aren't you arguing that because someone grows up in a poor situation that genetically, they are inferior to someone that grows up in a more secure situation?

 

Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Are we also now arguing that geographical location within the US is genetically meaningful?

[Soxbadger]

Im on the fence with this one. I cant decide if Rabbit's post is just worded horribly or if he really believes that "influence and success" is genetic. At first I thought worded horribly, but his implication that Ivanka has a better genetic profile is somewhat disturbing as scientifically there is no way to know whether Ivanka has good or bad genetics.

 

I think a good example of this is Paris Hilton. Does she have better genes than Ivanka? Better than someone random in Appalachia? I dont know the answer.

 

Will Bezos have super children?

 

I guess my biggest problem with this whole argument is that it seems Rabbit is going down the path of science denial. I mean its just common sense that the Earth is flat, common sense that the Earth is the center of the universe...

 

The problem is science has repeatedly shown that what people "commonly" believed was wrong.

[Dick Allen]

Amazing that a conversation about a white person and an imaginary white person and I am still insinuated as a racist. Unbelievable. G'day.

Your genetic inferiority argument is right in line. That was what Campanis was speaking about. Blacks didn't have genetics to float or manage or generally manage baseball teams.

 

And everyone in Appalachia is an inbred meth head. I did not know that.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Dick Allen

[illinilaw08]

I didn't say anything about financial circumstances. If you moved a grown up from appalachia to Chicago they would have trouble assimilating. Children are different.

 

A lot of a factual arguments are "dangerous." We just have to think about who decides the parameters of what is dangerous for the people.

 

This is what you said "Could a young person from the Ozarks or Appalachia leave and get raised by another family and turn into something? Yes of course. Is it likely? Probably not. They would be complete outliers."

 

 

[RockRaines]

This is the longest farewell tour ever.

[knightni]

Ivanka's mother wasn't in a good situation and Trump's ancestors were in bad situations as immigrants.

 

The white genomic blueprint is strewn with recessive genetic markers.

 

You want the strongest genetic situation, look to the people of color (Asian, Black, Native, Middle Eastern).

Their genes dominate any white genes when it comes to most genetic descriptors. If anything, the weakest genes are overcompensating to stay in power over the stronger.

 

But, human biology will soon even everything out over the next 500-1,000 years.

[Balta1701]

Im on the fence with this one. I cant decide if Rabbit's post is just worded horribly or if he really believes that "influence and success" is genetic. At first I thought worded horribly, but his implication that Ivanka has a better genetic profile is somewhat disturbing as scientifically there is no way to know whether Ivanka has good or bad genetics.

 

I think a good example of this is Paris Hilton. Does she have better genes than Ivanka? Better than someone random in Appalachia? I dont know the answer.

 

Will Bezos have super children?

 

I guess my biggest problem with this whole argument is that it seems Rabbit is going down the path of science denial. I mean its just common sense that the Earth is flat, common sense that the Earth is the center of the universe...

 

The problem is science has repeatedly shown that what people "commonly" believed was wrong.

Basically the last 20+ years of behavioral science has shown that there is no real evidence for one group being genetically "superior" to others in any way that is relevant to behavior. There are certain traits that are found in certain populations - sickle cell anemia for example, more substantial risk of certain illnesses being triggered by environmental exposures, but in terms of behavior or ability or who you turn out to be in life, things are so complicated by how people are raised, by the interaction between the environment and genetics, that it is impossible to tease out one factor from another. By the time you reach the point of discussing "things that make you successful" you've piled on such a huge degree of complications that teasing out genetic differences is statistically impossible.

 

Most of those studies have been done using twins - identical genetic material but different environments, and that's the basic result. Aside from specific, genetically at risk diseases, the science argues against these statements. Furthermore, just as he said that "incest" is more common in rural areas (which btw I can't find any evidence to actually support that, it turns out that incest is most common between siblings and there aren't statistics drawing which of those are urban/rural), you have environmental issues that could easily push a different way. Comparing a person from Appalachia with New York for example, someone from New York could very well have higher exposures to lead as a youth in a way that would do greater cognitive damage.

[Chicago White Sox]

I find it interesting that multiple posters continue to harp on raBBit for his genetics comment when we all know the point he was trying to make, while StrangeSox accused everyone who voted for Trump to be racist or racist enablers and implied they were bad people and yet not one of the hardcore liberals on this board called him out for it. In fact, most of them came in and defended his ridiculous statement. As a liberal I don't always agree with raBBit's point of view, but I think he deserves better treatment than he gets around here. There is definitely a bully culture on this subforum with the hardcore liberals leading the charge. It really sucks because I come here to learn about issues and opposing perspectives, including raBBit's, but it quickly turns into a groupthink exercise where the same four or five posters aggressively force their opinion down everyone's throats (as if it were fact) without really giving the other side a chance to explain their views & opinions.

[BigSqwert]

....without really giving the other side a chance to explain their views & opinions.

 

That's definitely the case here. It's not like rabbit hasn't continually put his foot in his mouth regarding this topic.

Edited August 15, 2017 by BigSqwert

[StrangeSox]

Why are we assuming that some random woman from Appalachia is horribly inbred to the point that she's genetically inferior? When did incest even enter into the argument (aside from my hapsburg joke)? The original back and forth was over economic status/ability to provide.