A sizeable chunk of the violent rioters are probably hard left anarchists exploiting the situation, some local police have said this, you'd be hard pushed to describe them as democrats.

The peaceful protestors, which form the vast majority, are doing exactly what you're supposed to do in a democracy which is continue to make your points even though the election went against you. The whole purpose of democratic freedom is not to go quietly, and after such a divisive election with such extraordinarily unpopular candidates protests were inevitable whoever won.

Meanwhile the see-saw battle for control of the Trump twitter account between his advisers and himself continues. Last night they were professional protesters (Trump already good for jobs right?) and this morning they're passionate and he understands.

So what you're saying is that it's the news fabricating Trump's far right appeal that has produced an emboldened far right in the wake of his victory, not any real far right appeal he might objectively have, or possibly even deliberately have cultivated. Correct?

Millions of people are rioting and believe that? This seems like it might be a rather unrealistic distortion on your part don't you think? If there were millions of rioters there wouldn't be much of most US cities left to worry about.

I don't get it

It's an ambiguity I am exploiting for a joke

Is there a just-right amount of rioting they should be doing?

I have read some stupid shit in this thread, much of which probably deserves ire more than this post so sorry Koncept, but this one just flies in the face of any objective evidence. The US is by far the most powerful country in the world by almost any meaningful measure, militarily, culturally, financially. In comparison to preceding decades you have literally no major competitors.

Moscow has peacefully ceded control over 100s of millions of people in eastern Europe in the last 20+ years, it's a shadow of it's former self. Their recently rediscovered taste for military adventurism is nothing to do with receding US power.

China is America's workshop.

Wall Street dominates global finance, the US military is globally unquestionably supreme, US cultural exports are ubiquitous around the world. I find worries about the American position in the world to be bizarre. America calls the tune globally in a much more decisive way than it did during the cold war.

Well in this case you have a black person telling you that it is a problem for them. I'm not sure how much more information you need, maybe I'm missing something myself and I'm asking the wrong questions. I think there's more at work here than you think though.

Would you say that it credits Tagg with any individual quality beyond being black? Does it sound like he's just copying someone else (who is white) and brings nothing else to it other than being black? Can you think of any good reason why you wouldn't find out about Tagg's specific individual qualities instead of just overwriting them with those of a white person?

I wouldn't say it was the most hate filled sentiment I've ever heard, but obviously the speaker saw primarily the colour of the skin first and the person second. Sounds like a fairly straightforward definition of racism no?

e: I should add that when they say Black they are presumably also implying a load of black tropes and stereotypes. I don't know how well you know Tagg or watch his stream, but neither ster nor black stereotypes are things that spring immediately to my mind as appropriate to describe him.

So when you say that he's not "off the hook" for not reporting them, or muting them, or whatever immediately that doesn't suggest to you that he has done something wrong that he has responsibility for? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

I'll spell it out for you again as presumably while editing it out you missed the point and maybe you will understand. He is calling them out here and now, it may be delayed but it's done. He also stopped playing the game with them, that was done. He has done what you suggested, but still he is wrong. Your argument is internally inconsistent unless you are suggesting that he has to do these things in a specific time frame decided by you.

If that's the case then I suggest you need to show a bit more understanding of how complicated and difficult these things can be to deal with and respect that not everyone might want to deal with them in the same way, and that blaming the victim for not speaking up more quickly is exacerbating the problem, not offering a solution.

Not all of Tagg's examples are in those simplified situations but do you really think Twitch police this is any meaningful way? You think Esea cared? Who is the authority you go to when it's a scrim exactly? How do you stop associating with people when there's literally a tiny handful of players at the top of the game unless you stop playing? Oh look, he did. So Tagg had enough, did what you said, and has now reported them probably in the only meaningful place he can. I expect you to warmly congratulate him on his decisive action you thoroughly agree with in your next post.

It can be really, really hard to do this and it shouldn't be a prerequisite to being treated with basic respect. People whose personality predisposes them to internalise rather than confront prejudice are more damaged by it. It simply shouldn't happen.

Do you really need every single person from a particular minority to individually tell you that they don't like racist terms aimed at their minority for you to not use it? Are you incapable of showing the basic level of sensitivity of considering it might be a problem before saying it, and just avoid using a term? This is just blaming the victim.

Playoffs start tomorrow so I've added 10k to team budgets to allow for some of the cheaper players dropping out of the pool

She's not going to be prosecuted on Trump's orders
Trump's not going to entirely repeal Obamacare
The US won't be unilaterally undertaking huge air wars on his say so
And many other things that were tossed out casually and in absolute terms during his campaign will either be moderated or dropped entirely.

The President is not a dictator, Democrat minorities in various bodies are not without power and influence. He's already striking a conciliatory tone not because he's a great and benevolent man, but because politically he has to.

Welcome to the outsider storming the barricades and draining the swamp. Look familiar?