Clint Eastwood on Presidential Candidates, and being in a P**** generation

Not all of them, but most of them defend Trump because he's their most visible voice at the moment. They think that Trump is actually making good points and people are just trying to make him look bad because they're "PC."

@GreySeal9: Fascinating! Thank you for helping me with this very curious subject.

Damn!! Sick burn MagicalClick! And trust me sSubZerOo, he would know.

Most of them are not older then 20. They live in a bubble where racism and sexism does not exist, becuase they never travel far out of their cushy lives.I think it's funny the people who are the most anti-pc and anti sjw and think everyone should say/do whatever and minorities are sensitive, are all sheltered kids.

That sketch you made of them is opening my mind. I actually pictured them to be people in states such as Mississippi with some teeth missing living on welfare and holding some really suspect ideas about gays and black people. You are telling me they are upper middle class suburbanites living in their parents basement and don't work for a living? Now that I think of it that is probably more realistic.

Not necessarily. Someone may just be polite.

I can say from experience that at least some of them are old people who, "want to take their country back."

Ah, the good old days when the colored knew their place. Nostalgia.

That's how I've always pictured them, as old geezers like Donald and Clint. That's the age group which grew up in the pre-civil-rights era, and much of their childhood nostalgia is linked to the pre-civil-rights era.

Clint is a bad ass

The man is 86 years old. He was 33 when MLK Jr marched on Washington. He grew up in a time when literal racism was not only accepted, it was entirely a part of American culture.

He's also a man who clearly has no filter and I commend him for that. Too many people have a filter these days and that's a bad thing, because it often prevents people from expressing their true thoughts. That said, he's either a racist, or doesn't give a fvck. Both of which, in regard to this topic, is a bad thing. Racism is a negative force. Xenophobia is a negative force. Any sort of divisive attitude is a negative force... and in today's world we need more positive forces for the unification of community and peoples.

A filter which prevents people from expressing their true thoughts isn't necessarily a bad thing, in many cases it's one of the only things allowing us to function as a society. Just last week one of my coworkers showed me pictures of her new baby. If I had expressed my true thoughts and said, "get those pictures away from me, I don't give a flying **** about your baby", everyone at work would immediately start treating me like shit and my time there would become a living hell.

You're right: unfiltered speech is often going to be divisive as ****. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with saying something divisive, but part of being an adult is having enough sense to pick one's battles. If filtering one's speech in order to avoid expressing one's true thoughts is gonna get someone hurt, then by all means I'll say what I think. But I'm sure as hell not gonna make other people feel like shit and then make life harder on me by making everyone think that I'm an asshole, just on some general principle of "filtering my speech is a bad thing." Part of society is that we have to deal with each other, even when we don't want to. And having to deal with someone who hates your guts is usually a lot harder and sucks a lot more than just exercising a little bit of tact when you talk to them.

And granted, if I was someone who adamantly refused to filter my speech in order to make things easier on myself, I sure as shit wouldn't be crying like a little ***** every time someone treated me like an asshole. I know the deal: sometimes it really DOES come down to "saying what I feel" and looking like an asshole, or just filtering what I say in order to make things easier on myself. If I deliberately decide that I'd rather have people hate me than to filter what I say, then at least I'm not gonna be a ****ing p**** and then start crying about how everyone's mean to me now. I was the one who made the assessment that saying what I feel and having people hate me is better than NOT having everyone hate me, so I'd have to be a real p**** to start crying about how people hate me now. If I didn't want that outcome then that's my fault: I was entirely free to just use more tact when I was talking to people.

I've seen other interviews where he comes across as a rather decent guy. For example he's spoken in support of gay marriage although his position was based more on that he doesn't "give a **** what people do". I think he may have taken the live and let live ideology a bit far. He seems cut off from the rest of the world.

Maybe you should take your head out of your arse and try to understand what is it they mean with "free speech" (hint: it's not just what's stated in the first amendment). And besides, you made the anti-PC side about elevating offensiveness to a moral highground, now you're saying I'm the one being dishonest?

Goes to show how much you understood of what he wrote. lol

Thats exactly what he wrote. He clearly stated that Milo's rights were being infringed. We both agree what happened to him was bad, but just because something is bad that doesn't mean your rights are under attack.

Don't pretend that the guy was making a point simply because he sits on the same side of the political spectrum as you. You clearly agree with what I was saying because you said it yourself "This is a culture war, not a rights war. This isn't about what you can or cannot do, this is about what you should or shouldn't do." Read what he was saying again. He was arguing literally the exact opposite of what you're arguing. We actually a agree with eachother when it comes to that (I wouldn't call it a war though, only SJWs would call it that).

There is an element of truth to what Clint says that is worth reflecting on and it relates to our over examination of every word any public figure utters, which 99% of the time do not have proper context.

If I spent the day recording every word that every person in this topic uttered during a typical day, including myself, I could make every one of us out to be a _______(insert word: racist, narcissist, pervert, troll, freak, etc).

My first house had this douche nozzle millenial neighbour. He once criticized me for watering my lawn and plants talking about people in Africa noy having fresh water. I was like oh yeah.... fucking hippy. Anyways I eventually told him to shut the **** up. Literally.

His comeback. "Do you know how much money I make? How much do you make!?"

He got all excited and debatey. That's when I hosed him down head to foot. Anyone my age would've threw punches. This pussy said he'd sue me for assault.... and was calling the police for hosing him.

I dropped the hose and walked towards him saying "well I may as well really assault you then."

He ran into his house. No cops came. They moved.

Ever since American Sniper came out, it was kind of obvious that Clint is a neo-con. And that's the kind of crowd that would find Trump appealing.

I like Clint's movies but his politics are idiotic. I wonder if Ben Affleck is going to be talking to chairs at a convention when he gets to be that old.

It's not physical intimidation but peer pressure, hostility against dissenting views from the mass. Surely you understand how that works. Internet isn't a realistic depiction of real life. You post things in forums you wouldn't said or write once you real identity is associated with it. There are pressure on you to abide by societal rules when you are without the protection of online anonymity.

And more importantly the term is used as a broad label used to reject any opposing arguments wholesale regardless of validity or facts. It's a rather simplistic approach to complex social issues and individuals. Ironically it isn't really that much different from where racist view comes from, it's a generalization of a group of people because it's easier than having to see them as individuals whose outlooks are shaped by their unique experiences. And a lot of times, those labels aren't even accurate as illustrated by the racist tree story. What explicitly racist things have Trump said since the start of his campaign? Neither Muslim nor Mexicans are race. What Trump is doing is more indicative of segment of populations (yes, mostly undereducated white males) that is rebelling against the current PC censorship than Trump's own private view on race. What he said in public is so fluid and sometimes contradictory, it's difficult to really nail down what his own opinions are.

It IS censorship, which isn't limited to what law regarding free speech the government put in place but also what's deemed acceptable by your peers. Pressure to conform to social norms is stronger than you seems to give it credit for. Think about your own opinion next time you put on a suit and tie for a job interview or you see an ugly baby.

No, you are mistaken. Libertarians believes that economy is amoral system, therefore one should not try to interject subject of morality into the system. If a business owner wants to limit their potential clients by interjecting their moral opinion based on their personal prejudice in how they run their company then it's detrimental to the welfare of their own company. It has nothing to do with what society considers to be "right" or SJWs would do. In reality, when most customers buy things, they couldn't care less what the political view of the business owners are, they care that it's a quality service/product and cost is reasonable. Do you honestly think Trump's business would be where it is now if he is honestly a racist person and refusing to hire hispanics based on the belief that they are rapists and murders? Or most people care that most modern electronics are effectively made by Chinese and Indian child slave labor? Do you care?

I think you are taking a lot of things for granted here.

There ****ing SHOULD be peer pressure when it comes to social interaction. If someone's being an asshole, then there should be peer pressure for him to stop being an asshole.

And you're shifting the goalposts. It's somehow wrong to call people out for being racists/sexists/whatever, but what about the KKK? Is it okay to call the KKK racists?

Most people will say, "yes, because they are racists".

So it's not even about me accusing someone of being racist, the question is if they were indeed being racists. If someone is in the wrong for throwing around those claims, they're only in the wrong because those claims are false. So, feel free to start a discussion about if those claims are false, but don't act as if the accusation of racism is somehow wrong because it subjects people to peer pressure. If they were indeed being racists, then we damn well should be using peer pressure against them.

Except there's a very broad interpretation of what's racist and what's not with the left. Is Trump saying Muslims should be banned racist? Technically no. Nor was what he said about Mexican racist. Last I checked neither Muslim or Mexican are races. Is the confederate flag racist? Not explicitly, for a lot of white people down south, it's not so much as a unifying symbol of white racism as it is independence of southern states.

There's also an issue of generalizing any opinion from an particular person for what he/she said either in or out of context at a particular moment. If we apply same kind of second to second scrutiny to many political leaders of the past, then all of them are unfit to lead. MLK was a sexist and Lincoln was a racist etc.

Also public schools are not private properties per se.

The complaint isn't "provision of a platform to spread my racist ideology", but using a stigma of racism to excuse yourself from rational examination of the dissenting views. You know from someone who is very much against the censoring attempt from likes of Sarkeesian, I would think you would understand.

No one is preaching tolerance of the intolerant. But simply shouting down opposing views with "you're racist" without the slightest consideration as to the content and reasoning behind those perspective is just as bad as putting a label on an entire group of people whether it's based on race, sex, sexual orientation or political views. And I think it's especially insincere, when the person doing the shouting isn't a member of the offended group but simply getting offended on someone else's behalf but have no idea whether it was actually offensive because that's what a "progressive" society has taught them to do.

lol perfect case and point right there. "He has a different opinion than me; therefore he's more likely Hitler than not."

fucked

You can't win with leftists. It's sad that you're even trying to communicate with them.

The best method of combating these fuckers is to simply not give a ****. Half of the time when they're calling you a racist or insinuating some shit, they don't even believe it themselves. If you want your ideas about freedom of speech to hit home, do NOT engage them on your own level. They have no respect for you, so don't try to pander to them.

And that's not censorship? What constitute as being an asshole? Simply expressing opinion that's different from societal norm?

How is KKK relevant? It's an organization established for the explicit intent of maintaining/reviving racist institution where white dominate over other ethnicities. Is that Trump? I honestly don't believe so. I think Trump believe he and himself alone (maybe his daughter too) is superior to anyone, regardless of their race.

Who judges whether they are "indeed being racists"? That's hardly universal. And you never address what Trump said that was explicitly racist. I don't agree with any of Trump statement but by attaching the "racist" label to what he said, people don't have to face the uncomfortable reality that there IS a large criminal element within immigration (both legal and illegal) from south america and that Islam has an unique problem of young Muslims being potential targets for radicalization. Now that's not to say that we should stop all immigrants from south america or ban all Muslims, but glossing over the source of those problems in the name of social progress for equality for all isn't the solution.

Trouble is "good" is relative. Would you consider the one person in a crowd of thousands refusing to bend to social pressure to nazi salute to be "bad"? Or how bout the few individuals in North Korea who don't believe Kim Jung Un to be an omnipotent supreme leader? I never made the claim that peer pressure can't change anyone's thinking, but the point here is some people won't (the tree didn't, it's alluded that it was still racist in the end) and that as long as those with dissenting views keep up the front of conforming to the societal norm, then all is well.

Seems like you think there's one set of moral value that's universal and everyone should follow and that sacrificing of individualism is acceptable for a noble purpose and eventual utopia where everyone is equal. I find that super disturbing.

No, racism isn't "basically the same" as Nazism. No person with the most basic understanding of Nazism would claim that. Nazism is a political ideology that promote superiority of aryan race via extermination of all "sub-humans", a broad category of people which includes Arabs, Jews, Gyphies, homosexuals, communists etc etc. In the context of the story, racism is the tree's personal prejudice against blacks but it does not "subscribe to Hitler's fascist ideology", which extends beyond simple prejudice against blacks, by calling for killing of many other groups of people. Therefore, while a racist is an appropriate name for it, Nazi is not.

Unless you are trying to make the argument that refusing to provide a service to someone due to their race is akin to advocating genocide.

7-reasons-millennials-are-the-worst-generation

millennials-worst-generation-ever-live

im-a-millennial-and-my-generation-sucks

five-really-good-reasons-to-hate-millennials

But hey, you guys volunteered more because you can't find jobs, so you know, that's cool...

But... but liberals are the more rational side lol. I'm trying to engage them on the level they claim they are on.

@comp_atkins: "fucked"

Go on.

@bmanva: lmao nope, depends entirely on the position but I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand nuance.

My bestfriend is a monarchist for goodness sakes. That view is the opposite of mine but it isn't hateful like the majority of the views American Conservatives possess.

No. I didn't say that one set of moral values are universal. But what I am saying is that some moral values are superior to others. Moral relatitvsm is bullshit just as moral absolutism is.

When did I say that refusing to bend to peer pressure in North Korea or in Nazi Germany is bad? If you're going to respond to me, please attempt to get my posts right. I was simply saying that it's unrealistic to argue that peer pressure should not alter thinking/behavior. It does and in many cases it should. To deny that is to basically deny the way that civilized society works.

Society should embrace individualism within reason and collectivism within reason.

Your bits on Nazism are distinctions without a real difference in regards to this conversation. I didn't say that racism against blacks and Nazism is exactly the same. I said that they were the same ideologically, meaning they both come from the same ideological root, which is the superiority of the white race. This is not a complicated point and I feel like you're deliberately ignoring what is being said.

If the tree said, "I'm a racist but not a Nazi," I would simply respond, "Is your ideology really so different?"

Accuse someone of failing to understand nuance then paints those with opposing political ideologies as "hateful". Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

Those sources are really bad (Breitbart and the New York Post?) and are beyond biased. Why not be more balanced about this?

@bmanva: lmao only CERTAIN ideologies. I see you are being purposely obtuse yet again. No use discussing anything with you further.

Specifically, the set of moral values you adhere to? That's convenient...

I would suggest you follow your own plead and get mine right. The bit about dissentants in DPRK and Nazi crowd was a question, not an accusation. I was trying to highlight the fact that you automatically assumed that society would pressure the individual to do good when the reality is more ambiguous. Thus the discussion of whether society SHOULD impose the will of the masses or "morally superior" is not one of what realistic or unrealistic but simply a philosophical exchange between two people with different opinions. Not sure how you think "civilized society" works, but to me, it's not the morals of the collective that built and maintains it.

And you think the tree believes in the superiority of white because no race other than white can hold racial prejudice against black people?

How about you look past those and read the sources, most of which are cited in the article instead dismissing the content entirely because the websites are "beyond biased"? Or maybe you should just call those website racists and be done with this argument.

So enlighten me, what opposing side of your stance on political hot topics issues are not associated with American conservative views?

I skimmed the sources. Their argument was overly biased. I want a reasoned argument about millennials, not "herp derp they're lazy."

Who said anything about the set of moral values I adhere to? I simply said that some moral values are superior to others.

You say "it's not the morals of the collective that builds and maintains it." How can you possibly make this case? Civilization would not exist if not for collective morality. That's not to say that individual morality doesn't play a part as well, but on what basis can you dismiss the "morals of the collective"?

I assumed that the tree believes in the superiority of white people because historically it has been white people that have inflicted the most racial violence on blacks. In any case, racial superiority is central to Nazism, so it would not be an unfair statement to say that Nazism and racism are similar.

The articles you linked were really bad though.

The first one heavily rooted in bias as to argue for why they suck. Preassuming that certain popular positions held means that they are wrong and ignorant. Becuase it doesnt fall into their narrative.

The second one was a bunch of stereotypes with again, no actual data to back anything up.

The third one was shockful of anecdotes. No data, but plenty of fallacious arguments.

The fourth one was probably the least bad that you linked. But point 1 and 2 were stupid. That means 40% of the article.

Posting those made you just look like the TexasGoldRush of the OT boards.

I question that you've really look at the sources, because they actually cite some pretty liberal sites.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/millennials-economics-voting-clueless-kids-these-days/374427/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/04/americans-overwhelmingly-support-muhammad-cartoonists-right-to-offend/

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/21/disconnected-millennials-talk-big-do-little-about-money.html#.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/31/7954725/vaccines-autism-young-adults

http://www.csnews.com/product-categories/tobacco/survey-finds-higher-smoking-rate-among-millennials

http://www.mediaite.com/online/american-college-students-self-confidence-at-record-highs-only-skeptical-about-their-writing-ability/

I don't see why the political slant matters (New York Post and Brietbart are bad because they suck, not because they're conservative). The articles you originally cited were hell bent on coming to simplistic conclusions on a complicated issue. The only thing these links point at is that millenials have their own issues. You could easily find unflattering stats about other generations as well (people have done this with Baby Boombers ad naseum). Nowhere is there a cogent argument that millenials are just so bad. I'll admit that there are certain things about the millenial generation that are off putting, but you can also find stats that are more favorable. mattpl did that, and was trying to bring balance to the conversation, but you weren't having it and instead responding by posting these ridiculous articles.

Also, the cartoonist link doesn't really work for your argument. It doesn't, by itself, say anything about the worthiness of millenials.

Obviously if the media isn't from Hillary donors (like Politi"fact"), GreySeal doesn't believe it, because that's indoctrination for you.