Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump...?

Cottage cheese is basically curds and whey I believe

hmmm, curious (in obiwan voice)

JamesSand wrote: In broad sweeps, I fully support your above quoted Jedi Believe bit - but in practical application, I draw a line around my land (convenient for me, as my country is girt by sea, we even wrote a song about it) and make that the limit of my influence or concern, and leave those on the other side of that line to fend for themselves (discrimination by circumstances of birth - you were born in the wrong place)
furthermore, should those on the outside of the shape attempt to improve their position via means of taking from those inside the shape, I suppose I have made the decision to prefer one "side's" needs over the other, and will act accordingly.

Can't be all things to all people I suppose.

Yes, I was hoping you'd take it in that direction. The statement of beliefs is vague enough to allow for all these situational differences. So I think this whole "can't be a Jedi fi you support Trump" is a non-sense statement because it is extremely vague. What is meant by support? Is voting Republican enough to count as supporting him? How directly does this support have to be? Is the person voting for him because he thinks he was a preferable candidate to Clinton as liable of supporting him as the person financing him and lobbying him to power? Does approving of him enforcing immigration legislation but decrying the way in which it has been executed as supportive as those who twist his words to justify discriminating against Muslims or African Americans?

Now, if someone were to say out loud "those pesky immigrants should all die for trying to invade us!", then, sure, I would classify that as un-Jedi. But if the general intent is good, but the execution is not, is that evil?

Someone calling a person who does not instantly punch Nazi's a Nazi, is like me calling anyone who doesn't take in to his house a homeless person an oppressor (of homeless people).

It's like calling for "eating the rich". It is an extremely violent and disgusting statement. Just because I don't try to censor the people uttering it doesn't mean I support them.

No, you cannot be a Jedi if you’re still supporting Trump.

And don’t give me this crap about Jedi supposed to be neutral on politics. There are MULTIPLE instances where the Jedi in the films took sides politically. They’re violent anti-fascist foot soldiers with magical powers. The Jedi are, by their very nature, political.

So no, you cannot support Trump and be a Jedi. And I you think actually neonazis and kkk members should be allowed space to speak then same goes. Fascists are the antithesis to the Jedi.

Lykeios wrote: No, you cannot be a Jedi if you’re still supporting Trump.

And don’t give me this crap about Jedi supposed to be neutral on politics. There are MULTIPLE instances where the Jedi in the films took sides politically. They’re violent anti-fascist foot soldiers with magical powers. The Jedi are, by their very nature, political.

So no, you cannot support Trump and be a Jedi. And I you think actually neonazis and kkk members should be allowed space to speak then same goes. Fascists are the antithesis to the Jedi.

Here we go again, calling people Nazis for either supporting their President or simply NOT hating everything he stands for.

Seriously! What is wrong with you people... and what’s wrong with the leadership here that this is allowed, yet other free speech isn’t? You allow open attacks for some, yet not others? Weird.

Lykeios wrote: And if you think actually neonazis and kkk members should be allowed space to speak then same goes.

What is the alternative, though?

I am sure there are still too many people caught up in the completely unfounded idea that for some reason one race is superior to another. Some might even be in it not because it adds up logically, but because they grew up with deep racism and never grew out it. But the reason these movements are seeing a resurgence in our times is because otherwise good white folk who are just trying to get by are being actively told they are the problem by well-meaning but near-sighted leftists who would rather cry “privilege!” than actually work with others to bring about positive change for everyone.

Whenever I watch any American show or movie that shows prisons, it is clear how the dude who just wants to be left alone has no choice but to join one of the gangs, based on which most closely resembles his race. It is the same outside, though the violence is social rather than physical.

Just as poor African Americans who have grown up learning to hate violent white men because that is all they have been exposed to, the reverse is true. I am hispanic and not white, but I can imagine the frustration of growing up poor, with little possibilities, surrounded by crime, alcoholism, and people hating your guts just because your skin color is white, and then having a bunch of people accusing you of oppression, of being in some sort of vantage position.

The more leftists continue to push back and try to quiet people based on group identity (rather than actual individual actions, which should absolutely come with the liability that follows), the more the alt-right will continue to recruit these young lost elements into the ranks.

IMO, the best course of action is to just dare to go against the current and stop looking for oppressors to shout down, and instead listen and try to understand.

The alt-right and the far-left are at war, and in all wars plenty is lost. We should let diplomacy resume.

That is an expression of opinion not directed at others in a direct level. The only time free-speech has been curtailed has been under that premise, that includes when you were scolded and politely asked to change your wording not you message to fit a basic set of guidelines. At that point you "stormed off" Saying you would not return yet here you are complaining that your free speech was infringed, which since I am not the government, I cannot possibly do in a legal sense, I believe it was you who could not abide by this simple set of rules.

"To put it more bluntly:
Do not antagonize another member based on history or another sensitive subject.
Do not personally attack others in public or in PM
Do not discuss other members/guests of this site in the public forums
Practice empathy and perspective taking.
Dialogue about ideas and do not attack people
Take breaks when needed
And use this space appropriately.
Failure to abide by the above will result in suspension or permanent ban at the discretion of Council.

Lykieos I want you to note the posts earlier in the thread. I realize you just joined in but please abide by those as well. Everyone will be held to the same standard.

Thank you,
Kobos

Lykieos: I think part of the confusion surrounding the premise is how one defines support. I personally agree with Manu and Zealot. I did not vote, because I forgot to register with my new address, but if I did it may have been Trump because I personally don't trust/like the Clintons. I don't support this methodology or his moral views on immigrants, for example, but I can at least see why people would have voted for him. On another note, I'm sure if he stated his intention for his other actions from the start, such as trans being banned from military, the family separation, even though I heard he at least attempted to stop that but I may be wrong, the recent rule of citizen's children born out of country not being citizens by birth, then Clinton may have won. I personally don't like her because, if you go by her views on gay people, she seems to flop to whatever will get her the most votes. That and she stated in 2008 that if she won she would, and I quote from rasmussenreports, "I want the Iranians to know, if I am the president, we will attack Iran", "if Iran were to attack Israel -- even if there were no Congressional authorization or a clear and present danger to the U.S." I don't like that idea as a person, and as a Jedi.

I personally separate the person from the ideas. For example, border control/kids in cages. I support the IDEA of strong borders, but not, necessarily, the person executing said idea. Hence, I don't judge a person for simply liking an idea brought forward. But like Manu said, if someone said putting kids in cages was a perfectly acceptable action, then yes I would think they have a horrible skewed mindset.

Manu wrote:
The alt-right and the far-left are at war, and in all wars plenty is lost. We should let diplomacy resume.

I'm sorry, I tried, really I did. When sides become this polarized war is the only option. One must violently dominate the other in order to achieve any peace. We have tried here, many times to settle the waters, smoke the peace pipe, give concessions and still those that oppose us bring war to our doorstep by calling us the aggressors, the nazis. And they call for our complete and total suppression. But I ask you, how is their form of oppression in denying nazis to speak any less fascist than the nazis themselves?? I ask you, no i implore you, to consider your positions here and try to see reason or war will be the result. And I will be on that front line, win or lose like my ancestors, I will fight to the death for nazis to speak their mind no matter the cost