!agree

Hey! I remember Sargon mentioned some pretty terrible stuff was found in Hillary's emails leak.

Either I misremember, he lied or the media is doing a top-notch job of covering those up, but I can't find those anywhere.

Does anyone remember anything important here?

Hey, had a question about something Sargon claimed surrounding Hillary's emails. Posted it in <#372513679964635138>. Is that the appropriate channel?

Yeah, exactly. I'm trying to find if there was anything *to* see

What was in the leak? Off the top of your head, @AlanPowell, what was the biggest thing?

My memory's pretty foggy, but I'm pretty certain he quoted an email in one of the main channel's video a year ago or so

In general, I'm trying to find the reasons why, as Sargon said, people just couldn't get themselves to have any trust in her

I know there was all the stuff with the Syria air-zone (what with Russia and whatnot)

And that she looks scary

Apart from that not much else

I do, I've been watching ever since the 2016 election burst my left-wing bubble
Edit: meant to add, I just have a bad memory

Now I don't advocate any side except some specific issues that I believe are non-partisan

I haven't made up my mind I guess

you know, environment, space all that

that's pretty non-partisan I think we can agree?

Also stuff like "racism bad", "equality of opportunity"

some anti-religious sentiments and pro-choice, but I try to be reasonable

not get too crazy

In any case, I just need to remember some of the main talking points about why Hillary sucked so much as a candidate

I'm terrible at taking the info from the video I watch

And remembering it

I'll look into Benghazi (wrote that down)

Could you list some stuff in a very non-subjective way?

Like events, decisions, words all that

Ah maybe

I'll see

And I've never met a person who ***publicly expresses*** a negative opinion of Hillary

but I'm in Canada so

I hear that but the thing is, I'm looking for real talking points that give reason to those sentiments. When I hear Sargon speak, usually I don't have to ask myself "Well, why is he saying this?", because he gives evidence, quotes the thing the person actually said, shows stats... etc.

big fat middle non-tribalistic

depending on the issue i go left or right

Yeah, I understand

I'm asking for a lot and (at least for me) it's been a pretty long day

I'll just try to find some Sargon video that discussed those issues, hopefully it has what I needed

Ah! writing this one down for research too

I do remember hearing a lot about that, but I had forgotten

such as "Pokemon go to the polls"

that one was an absolute banger

On the other side I was also looking for "bad stuff trump said/did", aka racism and sexism

I have a very seemingly close-minded liberal English teacher who will not shut up about feminism and #resist, but I got her to talk about media coverage of Trump

And I try to make the case that, while I cannot be certain, I haven't seen real instances where he does say something unequivocally racist or sexist

I googled tonight and all I could find were *personal* attacks, insults, etc.

Nothing that implies "X is better than Y", "X should be legislated different than Y"

(/message)

Ah?

Even if that's a good thing that's also something I'd throw in the irrelevancy pile tbh

If we're trying to establish him as racist or sexist or something, we need something *general*

Well that is true

But one could say "if he wasn't sexist, why would he talk about the pussy-grabbing like that?"

It's a pretty subjective argument

Well, being able to say "America has a racist president" "America has a sexist president" and being technically correct

I'd say is important

No, but it's a marker of history and social progress. And ultimately, that social progress is something that will have an impact on the way you interact with others. So, knowing the reality of our government is pretty important

Honestly, I don't know

I don't really care to convince her

She's not a great person

In what way do you mean that?

I'm not "deciding social progress"

Oh right

I mean it as in that, we need to know the society we live in is one where racism and sexism and, in general, discrimination, is "passable", "accepted", "fought", etc. And to assess that, you need to look at different levels: popular activism, the way of the market, the government, etc.

Looking at it this way, I'd say knowing whether or not the president believes in racial discrimination plays a huge role in knowing our own social climate.

Not for much longer.

Right, language is fluid, everything is transitory. I'll just establish as part of the terms of whichever debate I'm a part of, that racism is discrimination based upon race, ethnicity or skin color and sexism is discrimination based upon sex.

Is that alright to do?

And you're right in discriminating against people (I do watch Sargon and that revelation did hit me!)... It's just discrimination because uncontrollable assets of a person at birth such as race, etc. that is often immoral (depending how you define discrimination at this point)

Don't assume that

I haven't made that claim

We're kind of getting to the big problem when it comes to talking about... humans, in general. Things can be made very subjective, very easily

Also... why would ideology be uncrontrollable

youd need to have mental problems

I'm going to have to disagree

We should always shoot for progress as long as, firstly, there is progress to be had (for this first part, I have reasons to say there is progress to be made, will share if necessary), and secondly, it actually is progress. It's that second part that's the big, bad issue, and that's why we need to always entertain a discussion about it. But looking at it this way, it's unwise to say that progress shouldn't be made a goal.

Progress is not a very easy thing to accomplish, is often divisive, but is a lot better than its opposite.

That's very true

However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have a road at all

We should just watch where we're going

Also, quick response to @AlanPowell's message: we all agree on that, which is why I'm trying (as any self-respecting person should) to find the truth lying beneath all that steaming garbage pile of representations

@Fitzydog But there is no *actual* necessity to think within the bounds of those ideas.
I like to see this problem like we see juvanoia (fear of the next generation's development). We "just now notice" our youth is going bad, while really, every single generation since the dawn of time has made that same claim.
I think the problem we're having is that we see a need to root our own thinking and our own opinions in what we suppose are the ideas of today. Ergo, progressivism, liberalism, resist, and on the other side, blind conservatism and the *spooky* alt-right

I think it's possible to forget all of those modern ways of thinking and to just set goals and debate upon them

Let us think about abortion. Let us think about employment. etc.

Thanks, I'll look into it!

huh

In any case, all I was saying is, you are allowed to just break away from currents of thought and see problems, see goals, and work towards them assuming there exists a "best solution"

Which gives the word "progress" a lot more meaning

Without all this modernism fog

That was an example

You assume the reason why some in the political realm do what they do. And I mean, you have to, because you cannot rely on people for being fully honest about what they think. So, quoting your previous messages, "the ends justify the means style thinking", abusing the ideal of progress, all of those mechanisms that you see people push -- they shouldn't be reason for you, in your own thinking, to abolish progress as a goal

Faster: the way others think around you shouldn't have an impact on the way you think, no matter how disillusioning it might be

That's not what I suggest, I think, as you do, that that is inherently detrimental to that very progress. The pursuit of progress comes with a **discussion**. There should never be an oligarchy, especially when decisisions that impact human history are concerned (thankfully, there aren't many organisms that are able to have direct effects on that scale).

With a discussion comes finding three things: 1. whether the goal to accomplish makes sense as a goal (which is presupposed in such a discussion); 2. whether there exists a "best solution" to reach that goal; 3. whether we're capable of enacting that best solution

And yes, I'm aware that's not how society works

But I suppose that's how progress should

Wait a minute

I just want to respond to your second line in particular

While true as a guideline, that's not necessarily the method to find how we can progress. Look at it this way: you can't know that you have to improve the way you're doing something if you aren't even aware you are doing something. Isn't that true?

Until science chimed in to tell us we were harming the environment, we had no way to know that we had to improve our practices. They were just that, practices, they didn't fit into any cause-to-effect relation

I'll try to find an example that's more relevant to social progress (as a vague term) though