Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(11-10-2016, 02:30 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]There is another test.  I'm not sure what the test is for, exactly.  One states a political opinion.  If the individual hearing the opinion launches insults and other social attacks, there is something wrong with the individual launching the personal attack.  I'm not sure I can properly describe what the test tests without failing the test.

I don't know.  Perhaps we should get Playdude to actually express a political opinion of his own creation.  Assuming he could do so without referencing DNC propaganda.  I don't have high hopes of ever conducting such a test.

The liberal elite are worthless to me. All they do is spend their time spewing DNC propaganda while making small fortunes for themselves in the stock market. I'm sure we could reach an agreement which allows you to financially eliminate them without eliminating us. The liberal elite have been voting to tax themselves to death for years. Could we make a deal? You hate them and want to remove their financial power. I have no respect for them and could live without them.

(11-10-2016, 02:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]There are fighting words. Praise Hitler in the presence of a Jew and you can expect extreme hostility. In fact, praise Hitler in front of any decent person and you can expect extreme hostility.

Okay let us test this theory. Hitler loved his mother. Let the hostility commence.

Quote:It is more ambiguous with someone well known but controversial, like Jimmy Carter or Margaret Thatcher.  Good people might disagree on both of them.

Right thinking people would find Jimmy Carter to be weak and mostly ineffectual whereas the Iron Lady was truly great.

Quote:The DNC? It's now in hibernation, and it is clueless of what may be the beginning of the end of itself and the Party itself. I have a fear that the Republican Party will morph into an authoritarian, monopoly party like the old Spanish Phalanx of Francisco Franco and shut out or control any opposition indefinitely. We shall see soon enough.

Falangismo? That might be the course of the Republican Party.

I highly doubt that. But then again it is the typical "educated white liberal" tactic to say that anyone who disagrees with them ever is literally Hitler.

The GOP is going to morph into a Civic Nationalist party, which is its very origins. Should the Democratic Party collapse I would see no big loss there.

(11-10-2016, 02:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:00 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]If I believed you to be self-aware, which I don't, I'd make a claim that it is because I was right.  It was babble designed to make yourself look more intelligent then you really are.  Stephan Molyneux would call such a person a sophist.  Fortunately for me you are not self-aware, a trait you share with most bleeding hearts, sjws and other sundry scum, so you don't realize that everyone with more than two functioning brain cells sees right through you.  Which means that of the posters on this board, you're fooling nobody--not even Eric.  And Eric is a fool.

I've heard one test for self awareness used by scientists, mostly on animals.  One dabs a little paint on the face of the individual being tested, then holds up a mirror so the individual can see the face with its paint.  A self aware individual will generally try to wipe off the paint.  A less developed individual will interpret the mirror as being another individual, and might attack or initiate some sort of social interactions with the perceived other individual.

Maybe we should ask Playwrite to perform the test on himself?

There is another test.  I'm not sure what the test is for, exactly.  One states a political opinion.  If the individual hearing the opinion launches insults and other social attacks, there is something wrong with the individual launching the personal attack.  I'm not sure I can properly describe what the test tests without failing the test.

Playdude would refuse to take the test. If playdude was standing on a cliff penny less, he 'd jump because playdude doesn't have what it takes to succeed or survive in my world. You would be wise to remove deplorable people like playdude before your party is completely destroyed by them. The blue cloak was removed during this election.

I think you just failed the second test.  I'd rather do issues than exchange personal attacks.  That's one of the many reasons I dislike Trump and the atmosphere he is encouraging.  We have enough problems keeping these forums civil and focused without a leader who profits from discord, and this forum reflects the country as a whole.

I believe Hillary's use of 'deplorable' referred to the bigots, the racist and sexist element of the Republican base who think political correctness has been taken too far, who want to be free to express and act on their debased opinions of women and minorities.  It only took a few hours for the 'not my president' movement to materialize, and this is in reaction to how Trump alienated minorities and women...  in a similar enough way to how Playwright alienates red leaners.  The resurfacing of the bigoted deplorables Hillary referred to is as problematic to the acceptance of Republicans as you say the existence of Playwrite and is ilk is problematic to the acceptance of Democrats.

I've been using 'partisan' rather than 'deplorable'.  There are folks on more than two sides who are locked into badly skewed ideas of how reality works and ought to work.  The difference in perspectives is big enough to make communication nearly impossible, let alone cooperation.  I could agree with you that the extreme partisans should be dumped if the country is going to cease being stagnant and dysfunctional.  Unfortunately, you would be one of the extreme partisans that needs to be dumped.  I half expect that if Dan adopted the policy of banning the extreme partisans that make rational conversation impossible there would be no one left.  Thus, rational conversation remains impossible.

Anyway, I half expect Dan to break in soon and firmly suggest we talk about politics rather than each other's faults.  I suspect he'll have to be doing this a lot for a while.

Bob, the problem is that it is the SJW cult and their version of political correctness that has gone too far.  Given the choice between some moron calling me a racial epithet that begins with the letter n and someone assuming that I require affirmative action to get a job or a place at a university because of my race, which is the more detrimental racism?

I could try to explain it but I've tried with Boomers thousands of times and the problem is that they are stuck in the 20th century and don't see the reality of the 21st.

As for using the term Deplorable...many of us on the Trump Train take to being called that as a compliment.

(11-10-2016, 12:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 01:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2016, 09:38 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2016, 08:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2016, 08:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Not quite. It will accelerate.

I expect the Republican Party and the economic elites behind it to do everything possible to maintain power and leave any ideological alternative, including a humanistic liberalism, blocked out of relevance indefinitely.

In the end the pathology makes a socialist insurrection possible in the event of a crop failure  (like global warming that isn't happening), an economic meltdown, or a war for profits going badly

One Yuge problem with that theory bro.  The GOP elites hate Trump and Trump's base.  They will be absorbed by the Democrats most likely because the party's have switched coats again.  I would have thought you'd have noticed that she sounded like the Goldwater girl she always was and he sounds like a Jack Kennedy Democrat.

-- b4 the Donald ran 4 prez he was a Dem

More specifically -- the Republican Party needs the votes, It will never get  them from humanistic liberals unless the Democrats nominate someone as cranky as Trump.

Donald Trump will quickly go to the orthodox part of the Republican party upon inauguration. He will not be seeking votes until 2020... so he can betray his erstwhile supporters at will as he does everything that the Corporate wing wants, transforming America into a pure plutocracy that entrenches power  forever and ensures that liberals will be forever irrelevant in American political life.

Expect this horrible man to include hypocrisy and betrayal among his repertory of evil. He no more cares about the common man than he cares about a sea anemone.  He might as well say "Suffer for my greed, peons!" after he is inaugurated.

2018 should be a slam-dunk tor Republicans with the likeli9hood of picking up a couple of Senate seats and maybe some House seats due to low turnout by people who have largely lost faith in the American political process.

I have no faith in 2020. Democracy in America that depends upon a contest of ideas could be dead that year and afterward. From then on we might as well be a single-party dictatorship until the dissolution of the USA, most likely in World War III.

He will be spending the next 4 years earning the votes (the trust) of the voters that he will need to be re-elected in 2020. That's right, he will actually be EARNING the votes vs expecting to receive them like the Democrats. Democrats have moved so far a way from the concept of working and earning that they no longer relate to those who have worked and earned everything that they have. There's your gap, a gap that racist, fascist and whatever deplorable term that you use isn't going to slice into or influence. The party of the wealthy blue uppity (playdude) and the welfare recipient (Odin & Eric) with government workers (Wonk) and an ever shrinking pool of private sector workers (minority white/blue collar) in between is positioned to be in big trouble as far as the upcoming 4t is concerned

The Republican leadership cares only about (1) power, and (2) survival.  Principle? Hardly. It keeps stringing along the Religious Right with promises to ban abortion and same-sex marriage that it can never do. It gives lip service to forcing creationism and school prayer into public schools and can never achieve such. Whether one believes in such attempts to make American laws identical with "God's Law", whatever that is, Republicans who promise unconstitutional reforms of personal morality by law upon people not in the Religious Right swindle such people. Such is grossly immoral.

If it can maintain its power in free elections it will of course do so. But if it is scared of losing power through a free election we might expect some electoral shenannigans -- especially if its leadership has done criminal acts (corruption, war crimes). I expect efforts to privatize public assets -- like the Interstate Highway System -- perhaps to political cronies.

The Republican Party is undeniably a reactionary entity whose economic ideology is stuck in the Gilded Age. That;s when workers toiled for 70 hours a week and lived for about 40 years. Such is great for profits, but horrible for those who must do such work. Don't fool yourself: these fellows want the federal Income Tax abolished; they want Big Business to have the right to refuse to deal with unions; they want occupational safety and environmental regulation gutted. They want people in hock to predatory lenders who might even turn defaulting borrowers into serfs.

That is all profitable, even if it is all destructive to the working class. But the Economic Right, which generally has no more compassion for working people than it has for a piece of used toilet paper, would be delighted to achieve such and rely upon a brutal police to enforce such. All that can now stop any of that is a Democratic filibuster.

Or a Socialist insurrection if such nasty conditions endure. Make the local capitalism objectionable and I might become a Marxist.

I have no problem with calling racists, sexists, homophobes, religious bigots, and economic sadists 'deplorable'.

And I join to that all the trickle-downers and economic libertarians too, because it's all part of the same package.

(11-10-2016, 03:11 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:58 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]There are fighting words. Praise Hitler in the presence of a Jew and you can expect extreme hostility. In fact, praise Hitler in front of any decent person and you can expect extreme hostility.

Okay let us test this theory.  Hitler loved his mother.  Let the hostility commence.

Quote:It is more ambiguous with someone well known but controversial, like Jimmy Carter or Margaret Thatcher.  Good people might disagree on both of them.

Right thinking people would find Jimmy Carter to be weak and mostly ineffectual whereas the Iron Lady was truly great.

Quote:The DNC? It's now in hibernation, and it is clueless of what may be the beginning of the end of itself and the Party itself. I have a fear that the Republican Party will morph into an authoritarian, monopoly party like the old Spanish Phalanx of Francisco Franco and shut out or control any opposition indefinitely. We shall see soon enough.

Falangismo? That might be the course of the Republican Party.

I highly doubt that.  But then again it is the typical "educated white liberal" tactic to say that anyone who disagrees with them ever is literally Hitler.

The GOP is going to morph into a Civic Nationalist party, which is its very origins.  Should the Democratic Party collapse I would see no big loss there.

How do things like National Bolshevism, Alt-Right, Neo-Naziism, White Nationalism, etc, fit into Civic Nationalism? That's a mighty big tent, if so.

The Naz-bols are mostly a Russian phenominon. Their ideology wouldn't translate well to America. The Alt-Right does have some component of the 14/88 crowd but they are far smaller than the rest of the Alt-Right. As for the Alt-Right, well we Xers are known for doing Alternative things.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what...ht-is.html

(11-10-2016, 03:14 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]I have no problem with calling racists, sexists, homophobes, religious bigots, and economic sadists 'deplorable'.

So then you'd agree then that those who insist that blacks require affirmative action because they are black are racist? You'd agree that those who call for the special treatment of women (aka feminists) to be sexists? So you'd call those who persecute Christians on the basis of their religious beliefs to be religious bigots? And you'd call welfare statists to be economic sadists? All of those are definitely deplorable. But not Deplorable...there is a vast difference.

As for Homophobia...it doesn't exist. I've yet to meet anyone who was actually afraid of homosexuals. Oh no there's a gang of drag queens headed my way I might get mugged.

HRC thought she was insulting us. Typical Boomer. She simply doesn't understand the Xer psyche.

(11-10-2016, 03:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]HRC thought she was insulting us.  Typical Boomer.  She simply doesn't understand the Xer psyche.

A Boomer doesn't like us. How is that new?  Usually it means that you are doing the right thing.

(11-10-2016, 03:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:00 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]If I believed you to be self-aware, which I don't, I'd make a claim that it is because I was right.  It was babble designed to make yourself look more intelligent then you really are.  Stephan Molyneux would call such a person a sophist.  Fortunately for me you are not self-aware, a trait you share with most bleeding hearts, sjws and other sundry scum, so you don't realize that everyone with more than two functioning brain cells sees right through you.  Which means that of the posters on this board, you're fooling nobody--not even Eric.  And Eric is a fool.

I've heard one test for self awareness used by scientists, mostly on animals.  One dabs a little paint on the face of the individual being tested, then holds up a mirror so the individual can see the face with its paint.  A self aware individual will generally try to wipe off the paint.  A less developed individual will interpret the mirror as being another individual, and might attack or initiate some sort of social interactions with the perceived other individual.

Maybe we should ask Playwrite to perform the test on himself?

There is another test.  I'm not sure what the test is for, exactly.  One states a political opinion.  If the individual hearing the opinion launches insults and other social attacks, there is something wrong with the individual launching the personal attack.  I'm not sure I can properly describe what the test tests without failing the test.

Playdude would refuse to take the test. If playdude was standing on a cliff penny less, he 'd jump because playdude doesn't have what it takes to succeed or survive in my world. You would be wise to remove deplorable people like playdude before your party is completely destroyed by them. The blue cloak was removed during this election.

I think you just failed the second test.  I'd rather do issues than exchange personal attacks.  That's one of the many reasons I dislike Trump and the atmosphere he is encouraging.  We have enough problems keeping these forums civil and focused without a leader who profits from discord, and this forum reflects the country as a whole.

I believe Hillary's use of 'deplorable' referred to the bigots, the racist and sexist element of the Republican base who think political correctness has been taken too far, who want to be free to express and act on their debased opinions of women and minorities.  It only took a few hours for the 'not my president' movement to materialize, and this is in reaction to how Trump alienated minorities and women...  in a similar enough way to how Playwright alienates red leaners.  The resurfacing of the bigoted deplorables Hillary referred to is as problematic to the acceptance of Republicans as you say the existence of Playwrite and is ilk is problematic to the acceptance of Democrats.

I've been using 'partisan' rather than 'deplorable'.  There are folks on more than two sides who are locked into badly skewed ideas of how reality works and ought to work.  The difference in perspectives is big enough to make communication nearly impossible, let alone cooperation.  I could agree with you that the extreme partisans should be dumped if the country is going to cease being stagnant and dysfunctional.  Unfortunately, you would be one of the extreme partisans that needs to be dumped.  I half expect that if Dan adopted the policy of banning the extreme partisans that make rational conversation impossible there would be no one left.  Thus, rational conversation remains impossible.

Anyway, I half expect Dan to break in soon and firmly suggest we talk about politics rather than each other's faults.  I suspect he'll have to be doing this a lot for a while.

I'm a take no crap Republican voter. I've spent years battling with the more extreme partisans on your side. The majority of whom aren't around anymore for one reason or another. You don't know extreme because you've never seen extreme. What's extreme to you? An American who isn't afraid to call you out and get in your face or insult you because of something you said about them isn't extreme based on my standards. If it comes across as extreme, you don't go out and haven't got around very much and lived within America. Dude, I am a typical American raised in 1970's suburban culture. A culture with civic rules and moral standards. An American who can relate to most Americans who can handle being around people that use of bad words, see open displays of anger and an occasional fight. Who are you? Where are you from? What do you do? What can you handle? Do you live in a world full of blue cream puffs who aren't real or live the real world? A blue uppity world where swearing and open displays of anger are illegal for those who aren't liberals. REALITY IS WHAT REALITY IS BASED ON ONES EXPERIENCES AND KNOWLEDGE GAINED DURING LIFE. THE REALITY IS YOU DON"T LIVE IN HEAVEN WHERE THE HEAVENLY VALUES AND RULES YOU EXPECT US TO LIVE BY ONLY EXIST. You don't like what I have to say to you or say about your values or beliefs, your views of other people or your views in general. Well, TFB, you live in America and America just reminded you clowns where you live. In my opinion, if you can handle anti-sentiment and dish it out then you can handle anti-black and brown sentiments as well. If not, you have a partisan issue that I do not have and an issue with convincing me that your any better than those than those always bitching about and putting down. I'd eliminate you and replace you with someone real. In short, if I offend, you fucked up and I will tell you/show you where you fucked up with me. I've never applied a negative term that wasn't earned. Rational conversation requires people who handle negative comments and accept failures. How many posters here are capable of handling either one? I've never seen as many thin skinned people who can't take shit or criticism as I see on forums like these.

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, the problem is that it is the SJW cult and their version of political correctness that has gone too far.  Given the choice between some moron calling me a racial epithet that begins with the letter n and someone assuming that I require affirmative action to get a job or a place at a university because of my race, which is the more detrimental racism?

I could try to explain it but I've tried with Boomers thousands of times and the problem is that they are stuck in the 20th century and don't see the reality of the 21st.

Part of that is subjective.  Do you need or value a job more, or respect?  I would think most would expect and desire both.  Being arbitrarily denied either out of bigotry and hatred seems problematic.

It is also a question of whether the university in question is practicing clear discrimination.   If everyone above a certain rank happens to be white male and protestant, I would favor the SJW over the bigots.  If the balance is close enough to the statistical norm of the local population, if there is no clear evidence of bigots behaving badly, I'd mutter something about the SJW not being an (expletive deleted) and walk on by.

But it's not just job markets, it's how people treat one another.  My sister is a teacher.  There is an increasing bullying problem.  I was bullied enough as a kid that I don't like it one bit.  At this point I'm less concerned about job equality than people treating each other with respect.  Suppressing prejudice and hatred is a long hard process.  Taking a large step backwards seems like a bad idea.

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As for using the term Deplorable...many of us on the Trump Train take to being called that as a compliment.

There are people on the blue side describing themselves as 'nasty women' as well.  That seems to be one possible direction the country is heading...  nasty versus deplorable.  Pardon if I lack enthusiasm.  I'll try to stick with the less provoking 'partisan', but you are a nasty deplorable Xer.  Civility doesn't seem to be your way.

(11-10-2016, 03:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 12:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 01:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2016, 09:38 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2016, 08:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]One Yuge problem with that theory bro.  The GOP elites hate Trump and Trump's base.  They will be absorbed by the Democrats most likely because the party's have switched coats again.  I would have thought you'd have noticed that she sounded like the Goldwater girl she always was and he sounds like a Jack Kennedy Democrat.

-- b4 the Donald ran 4 prez he was a Dem

More specifically -- the Republican Party needs the votes, It will never get  them from humanistic liberals unless the Democrats nominate someone as cranky as Trump.

Donald Trump will quickly go to the orthodox part of the Republican party upon inauguration. He will not be seeking votes until 2020... so he can betray his erstwhile supporters at will as he does everything that the Corporate wing wants, transforming America into a pure plutocracy that entrenches power  forever and ensures that liberals will be forever irrelevant in American political life.

Expect this horrible man to include hypocrisy and betrayal among his repertory of evil. He no more cares about the common man than he cares about a sea anemone.  He might as well say "Suffer for my greed, peons!" after he is inaugurated.

2018 should be a slam-dunk tor Republicans with the likeli9hood of picking up a couple of Senate seats and maybe some House seats due to low turnout by people who have largely lost faith in the American political process.

I have no faith in 2020. Democracy in America that depends upon a contest of ideas could be dead that year and afterward. From then on we might as well be a single-party dictatorship until the dissolution of the USA, most likely in World War III.

He will be spending the next 4 years earning the votes (the trust) of the voters that he will need to be re-elected in 2020. That's right, he will actually be EARNING the votes vs expecting to receive them like the Democrats. Democrats have moved so far a way from the concept of working and earning that they no longer relate to those who have worked and earned everything that they have. There's your gap, a gap that racist, fascist and whatever deplorable term that you use isn't going to slice into or influence. The party of the wealthy blue uppity (playdude) and the welfare recipient (Odin & Eric) with government workers (Wonk) and an ever shrinking pool of private sector workers (minority white/blue collar) in between is positioned to be in big trouble as far as the upcoming 4t is concerned

The Republican leadership cares only about (1) power, and (2) survival.  Principle? Hardly. It keeps stringing along the Religious Right with promises to ban abortion and same-sex marriage that it can never do. It gives lip service to forcing creationism and school prayer into public schools and can never achieve such. Whether one believes in such attempts to make American laws identical with "God's Law", whatever that is, Republicans who promise unconstitutional reforms of personal morality by law upon people not in the Religious Right swindle such people. Such is grossly immoral.

If it can maintain its power in free elections it will of course do so. But if it is scared of losing power through a free election we might expect some electoral shenannigans -- especially if its leadership has done criminal acts (corruption, war crimes). I expect efforts to privatize public assets -- like the Interstate Highway System -- perhaps to political cronies.

The Republican Party is undeniably a reactionary entity whose economic ideology is stuck in the Gilded Age. That;s when workers toiled for 70 hours a week and lived for about 40 years. Such is great for profits, but horrible for those who must do such work. Don't fool yourself: these fellows want the federal Income Tax abolished; they want Big Business to have the right to refuse to deal with unions; they want occupational safety and environmental regulation gutted. They want people in hock to predatory lenders who might even turn defaulting borrowers into serfs.

That is all profitable, even if it is all destructive to the working class. But the Economic Right, which generally has no more compassion for working people than it has for a piece of used toilet paper, would be delighted to achieve such and rely upon a brutal police to enforce such.  All that can now  stop any of that is a Democratic filibuster.

Or a Socialist insurrection if such nasty conditions endure. Make the local capitalism objectionable and I might become a Marxist.

You should become a Marxist. You have much more in common with them belief and attitude wise. Plus, it would be easier for me to understand your positions and the origin of your political beliefs. To me, you are the one who is clinging to the old industrial age values of your parents time. You know, the white working class values associated with your childhood that we blew off as being irrelevant to our time.

(11-10-2016, 04:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a take no crap Republican voter. I've spent years battling with the more extreme partisans on your side. The majority of whom are around anymore You don't know extreme because you've never seen an extreme. What's extreme to you? An American who isn't afraid to call you out and get in your face isn't extreme based on my standards. If it's extreme, you don't go out or get around very much within America. Dude, I am a typical American raised in 1970's suburban culture. A culture with civic rules and moral standards.  An American who can relate to most Americans who can handle being around the use of bad words, open displays of anger and an occasional fight. Who are you? Where are you from? Do you live in a world full of blue cream puffs or the real world? A blue uppity world where swearing and open displays of anger are illegal for those who aren't liberal. REALITY IS WHAT REALITY IS BASED ON ONES EXPERIENCES AND KNOWLEDGE. THE REALITY IS YOU DON"T LIVE IN HEAVEN WHERE THE HEAVENLY VALUES EXIST. You don't like what I have to say to you or say to you in regards to your beliefs or views of other people and your views. Well, TFB, you live in America and America just reminded you clowns where you live. In my opinion, if you can handle anti-sentiment and dish it out then you can handle anti-black and brown as well. If not, you have a partisan issue that I do not have and an issue with convincing me that your any better than those than your always bitching about. I'd eliminate you and replace you with someone real. In short, if I offend, you fucked up and I will tell you/show where you fucked up. I've never applied a negative term that wasn't earned. Rational conversation requires people who handle negative comments and accept failures. How many posters here are capable of handling either one? I've never seen as many thin skinned people who can't take shit or criticism as I see on forums like these.

When I was young enough that someone might want to pick a fight with me, I had studied martial arts.  As I figured it, anyone immature and undisciplined enough to want to start a fight would be an unworthy opponent.  I found that if one was confident enough of this fact, it was trivially easy to avoid fights.

I'm from greater Boston, was a professional software engineer, and have gotten along with folks well enough that I have not and had no desire to hurt people.  I do not consider myself unusual in this.  Then again, most of my time in Boston was spent at Northeastern, MIT and Draper Labs, not in Roxbury or Southie.  There is Boston, and then there is Boston.

I'm currently in a role playing game group where most everyone but me is a veteran.  Surprise, surprise, they occasionally use pungent language.  I don't faint or get upset when it happens.  However, one of the veterans, the owner of the game store, tries to welcome children and their parents.  The store sells games appropriate for youth, tries to keep the ugly language down, as Jay's living to some extent depends on the store maintaining a family friendly reputation.  The tradition is, if someone uses salty language, a second person turns on a third person who hasn't said anything and rebukes at him.  It's a joke at one level, and no one is really upset, but everyone does acknowledge that we're in a civilized place and everyone should try to be civil.   We've had a few folk who have no interest in civility.  They don't last long in our gaming groups.  As I figure it, that's the way things ought to be.

The first week at work as a janitor for the old Bell System, the others based at the garage noted I didn't use foul language.  One of them predicted that this wouldn't last long.  Wrong.  Still going...  Yet, the language didn't bother me in the least.

I've been reading Hillbilly Elegy, J. D. Vance's loving yet scathing description of the rural Scotts-Irish culture.  It provides a glimpse of sorts into an alternate culture.  One doesn't start a fight unless they insult your family, family is important, but it is OK to insult the other guy's family.  One never beat's one's wife unless she throws the first blow, then it's OK.  The book provides one perspective on a deplorable culture, a culture of poverty, prejudice, drugs and violence.  The author viewed Hillbilly culture as a trap to be escaped.  Not everyone sees it as a trap.  Not everyone tries to escape.  Some accept poverty, prejudice, drugs and violence as the norm.  Well, accept might not be the right word.  They take pride in being dysfunctional.

Sure, I wouldn't do well in a Rust Belt Hillbilly culture.  I'm doubtful that you would do well on Route 128 or in Silicone Valley.  We both grew into our own cultures, and might not be content living under a different set of assumptions among people who live in a different world that requires different values.

I don't expect to convince you that being deplorable is a bad thing.

But being deplorable, violent, abusive, dysfunctional, etc...  is not the only American culture.  The Hillbilly culture is one aspect of America, but one should not confuse this with Hillbilly Culture being America.  The Lockheed Aircraft facilities south of San Francisco properly fly bigger flags on top of higher flag poles than the average uneducated deplorable and proud hillbilly.  This is a metaphor for something or other.

(11-10-2016, 03:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:00 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]If I believed you to be self-aware, which I don't, I'd make a claim that it is because I was right.  It was babble designed to make yourself look more intelligent then you really are.  Stephan Molyneux would call such a person a sophist.  Fortunately for me you are not self-aware, a trait you share with most bleeding hearts, sjws and other sundry scum, so you don't realize that everyone with more than two functioning brain cells sees right through you.  Which means that of the posters on this board, you're fooling nobody--not even Eric.  And Eric is a fool.

I've heard one test for self awareness used by scientists, mostly on animals.  One dabs a little paint on the face of the individual being tested, then holds up a mirror so the individual can see the face with its paint.  A self aware individual will generally try to wipe off the paint.  A less developed individual will interpret the mirror as being another individual, and might attack or initiate some sort of social interactions with the perceived other individual.

Maybe we should ask Playwrite to perform the test on himself?

There is another test.  I'm not sure what the test is for, exactly.  One states a political opinion.  If the individual hearing the opinion launches insults and other social attacks, there is something wrong with the individual launching the personal attack.  I'm not sure I can properly describe what the test tests without failing the test.

Playdude would refuse to take the test. If playdude was standing on a cliff penny less, he 'd jump because playdude doesn't have what it takes to succeed or survive in my world. You would be wise to remove deplorable people like playdude before your party is completely destroyed by them. The blue cloak was removed during this election.

I think you just failed the second test.  I'd rather do issues than exchange personal attacks.  That's one of the many reasons I dislike Trump and the atmosphere he is encouraging.  We have enough problems keeping these forums civil and focused without a leader who profits from discord, and this forum reflects the country as a whole.

I believe Hillary's use of 'deplorable' referred to the bigots, the racist and sexist element of the Republican base who think political correctness has been taken too far, who want to be free to express and act on their debased opinions of women and minorities.  It only took a few hours for the 'not my president' movement to materialize, and this is in reaction to how Trump alienated minorities and women...  in a similar enough way to how Playwright alienates red leaners.  The resurfacing of the bigoted deplorables Hillary referred to is as problematic to the acceptance of Republicans as you say the existence of Playwrite and is ilk is problematic to the acceptance of Democrats.

I've been using 'partisan' rather than 'deplorable'.  There are folks on more than two sides who are locked into badly skewed ideas of how reality works and ought to work.  The difference in perspectives is big enough to make communication nearly impossible, let alone cooperation.  I could agree with you that the extreme partisans should be dumped if the country is going to cease being stagnant and dysfunctional.  Unfortunately, you would be one of the extreme partisans that needs to be dumped.  I half expect that if Dan adopted the policy of banning the extreme partisans that make rational conversation impossible there would be no one left.  Thus, rational conversation remains impossible.

Anyway, I half expect Dan to break in soon and firmly suggest we talk about politics rather than each other's faults.  I suspect he'll have to be doing this a lot for a while.

I understand. I suspect since Tuesday night we have entered a period where rational discourse will decline.

(wow, what a polite understatement THAT was )

(11-10-2016, 05:04 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]You should become a Marxist. You have much more in common with them belief and attitude wise. Plus, it would be easier for me to understand your positions and the origin of your political beliefs. To me, you are the one who is clinging to the old industrial age values of your parents time. You know, the white working class values associated with your childhood that we blew off as being irrelevant to our time.

I'm not sure of his parents generation, but I'm guessing the values of his parents were the values of the time when America was Great. I don't think the energy and focus of the GIs was sustainable. If they saw a challenge, they would attack it, and there are real limits with what can be done with tax and spend. We found those limits in the 1970s. We decided not to push the limits, and that decision was the end of our being great.

I spent much of my life under the selfish hedonistic values of the unravelling. My GI parents left me with a notion that one must pay one's dues, one must put in the work. I don't claim the sort of greatness the GI veterans might be honored for, but I earned my share of the selfish pleasure of the unravelling.

As I see it, the unravelling was a vacation, a pause in the work ethic that has driven America forward. I still don't feel we'll be able to extend the vacation indefinitely.

(11-10-2016, 03:52 PM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]A Boomer doesn't like us. How is that new?  Usually it means that you are doing the right thing.

When the Boomer in question is a Clinton it is definitely the right thing. I couldn't stand her in the 90s, I couldn't stand her in 08 and 16 was no different

(11-10-2016, 04:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Bob, the problem is that it is the SJW cult and their version of political correctness that has gone too far.  Given the choice between some moron calling me a racial epithet that begins with the letter n and someone assuming that I require affirmative action to get a job or a place at a university because of my race, which is the more detrimental racism?

I could try to explain it but I've tried with Boomers thousands of times and the problem is that they are stuck in the 20th century and don't see the reality of the 21st.

Part of that is subjective.  Do you need or value a job more, or respect?  I would think most would expect and desire both.  Being arbitrarily denied either out of bigotry and hatred seems problematic.

Respect is something that is earned. In order to get respect from anyone else one must first respect themselves. In the case of men especially one cannot have respect for themselves unless they are doing something productive. In short they need a job to respect themselves before they can even expect the respect of others.

I agree that being arbitrarily denied employment out of bigotry is problematic. One of the reasons why hiring quotas are a terrible idea. One does not solve the problem of bigotry with bigotry.

Quote:It is also a question of whether the university in question is practicing clear discrimination.

It has to first be determined that there is discrimination even happening. Often that is not the case as I'll demonstrate below.

Quote:If everyone above a certain rank happens to be white male and protestant, I would favor the SJW over the bigots.

Or it could just be possible that everyone who has attained that rank is a white, male, protestant because they took the initiative to acheive that rank. It is telling to me that in countries where there is the greatest equality among races and sexes that you find the largest divergence in income and education. Why would that happen? Could it just be possible that different people make different choices?

Quote:  If the balance is close enough to the statistical norm of the local population, if there is no clear evidence of bigots behaving badly, I'd mutter something about the SJW not being an (expletive deleted) and walk on by.

I really hate to be that guy, but would you make the same statement if we were talking about sanitation workers instead of say civil servants? Women are greatly under represented in the field of sanitation, lumber jacking and mining. Is that the case because of sexism? Or does that arise because women choose to not go into those fields.

In most cases with SJWs they simply hate anyone who is white, male and heterosexual--though white gay males have fallen in the scoring for the Oppression Olympics.

Quote:But it's not just job markets, it's how people treat one another.  My sister is a teacher.

A field in which men are under represented. My boyfriend is a teacher as well.

Quote: There is an increasing bullying problem.

No there isn't. The increasing problem is that many adults are attempting to stifle normal childhood development which includes bullying. Children, particularly male children, must bully and be bullied in order to establish their rank in the social hierarchy. I would assume that females undergo a similar, yet different system.

Quote:  I was bullied enough as a kid that I don't like it one bit.

So was I. You're not supposed to like it. You are supposed to overcome it. Humans like all other organisms can only acheive their full potential in their most natural environment. That is why home grown tomatoes grown in dirt taste far superior to anything a hot-house can produce no matter how local. I would argue that the reasoning behind that is because tomatoes grown in dirt have to struggle against the wind and the soil and the rain.

 

Quote:At this point I'm less concerned about job equality than people treating each other with respect.  Suppressing prejudice and hatred is a long hard process.  Taking a large step backwards seems like a bad idea.

The only ones who seem interested in taking a step backward are the SJWs who want to judge people on the basis of their race, sex, or sexual orientation. MLK is spinning in his grave over the demands by BLM and others for segregation. I strongly suggest you turn off your tee-vee lookity box and examine what is actually happening on campuses and in the real world.

As for those who are not SJWs most of us are simply too busy to be racist. I don't have time to judge a man on his skin color, I'm too busy examining what he shows me of his character.

(11-10-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As for using the term Deplorable...many of us on the Trump Train take to being called that as a compliment.

There are people on the blue side describing themselves as 'nasty women' as well.  That seems to be one possible direction the country is heading...  nasty versus deplorable.  Pardon if I lack enthusiasm.  I'll try to stick with the less provoking 'partisan', but you are a nasty deplorable Xer.  Civility doesn't seem to be your way.
[/quote]

I would say in large part the time for civility is over. The "blue" side needs to be completely crushed or the Republic collapses. We are headed for the climax in the next 4-8 years. I'm thinking that if there is more to these protests than some anarch-scum acting out your spiral of violence will spin out of hand.

As for me, and my house we will stand with Law, Order and the Republic.

(11-10-2016, 04:32 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 04:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 03:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-10-2016, 02:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard one test for self awareness used by scientists, mostly on animals.  One dabs a little paint on the face of the individual being tested, then holds up a mirror so the individual can see the face with its paint.  A self aware individual will generally try to wipe off the paint.  A less developed individual will interpret the mirror as being another individual, and might attack or initiate some sort of social interactions with the perceived other individual.

Maybe we should ask Playwrite to perform the test on himself?

There is another test.  I'm not sure what the test is for, exactly.  One states a political opinion.  If the individual hearing the opinion launches insults and other social attacks, there is something wrong with the individual launching the personal attack.  I'm not sure I can properly describe what the test tests without failing the test.

Playdude would refuse to take the test. If playdude was standing on a cliff penny less, he 'd jump because playdude doesn't have what it takes to succeed or survive in my world. You would be wise to remove deplorable people like playdude before your party is completely destroyed by them. The blue cloak was removed during this election.

I think you just failed the second test.  I'd rather do issues than exchange personal attacks.  That's one of the many reasons I dislike Trump and the atmosphere he is encouraging.  We have enough problems keeping these forums civil and focused without a leader who profits from discord, and this forum reflects the country as a whole.

I believe Hillary's use of 'deplorable' referred to the bigots, the racist and sexist element of the Republican base who think political correctness has been taken too far, who want to be free to express and act on their debased opinions of women and minorities.  It only took a few hours for the 'not my president' movement to materialize, and this is in reaction to how Trump alienated minorities and women...  in a similar enough way to how Playwright alienates red leaners.  The resurfacing of the bigoted deplorables Hillary referred to is as problematic to the acceptance of Republicans as you say the existence of Playwrite and is ilk is problematic to the acceptance of Democrats.

I've been using 'partisan' rather than 'deplorable'.  There are folks on more than two sides who are locked into badly skewed ideas of how reality works and ought to work.  The difference in perspectives is big enough to make communication nearly impossible, let alone cooperation.  I could agree with you that the extreme partisans should be dumped if the country is going to cease being stagnant and dysfunctional.  Unfortunately, you would be one of the extreme partisans that needs to be dumped.  I half expect that if Dan adopted the policy of banning the extreme partisans that make rational conversation impossible there would be no one left.  Thus, rational conversation remains impossible.

Anyway, I half expect Dan to break in soon and firmly suggest we talk about politics rather than each other's faults.  I suspect he'll have to be doing this a lot for a while.

I'm a take no crap Republican voter. I've spent years battling with the more extreme partisans on your side. The majority of whom aren't around anymore for one reason or another. You don't know extreme because you've never seen extreme. What's extreme to you? An American who isn't afraid to call you out and get in your face or insult you because of something you said about them isn't extreme based on my standards. If it comes across as extreme, you don't go out and haven't got around very much and lived within America. Dude, I am a typical American raised in 1970's suburban culture. A culture with civic rules and moral standards. An American who can relate to most Americans who can handle being around people that use of bad words, see open displays of anger and an occasional fight. Who are you? Where are you from? What do you do? What can you handle? Do you live in a world full of blue cream puffs who aren't real or live the real world? A blue uppity world where swearing and open displays of anger are illegal for those who aren't liberals. REALITY IS WHAT REALITY IS BASED ON ONES EXPERIENCES AND KNOWLEDGE GAINED DURING LIFE. THE REALITY IS YOU DON"T LIVE IN HEAVEN WHERE THE HEAVENLY VALUES AND RULES YOU EXPECT US TO LIVE BY ONLY EXIST. You don't like what I have to say to you or say about your values or beliefs, your views of other people or your views in general. Well, TFB, you live in America and America just reminded you clowns where you live. In my opinion, if you can handle anti-sentiment and dish it out then you can handle anti-black and brown sentiments as well. If not, you have a partisan issue that I do not have and an issue with convincing me that your any better than those than those always bitching about and putting down. I'd eliminate you and replace you with someone real. In short, if I offend, you fucked up and I will tell you/show you where you fucked up with me. I've never applied a negative term that wasn't earned. Rational conversation requires people who handle negative comments and accept failures. How many posters here are capable of handling either one? I've never seen as many thin skinned people who can't take shit or criticism as I see on forums like these.

Damn dude, take a chill pill.

(BTW, what I just wrote has even stopped a biker fight or three, well, maybe with the help of 3 - 4 four dudes holding the other two apart).

I'm not fighting with Bob. I pointed out to Bob where his partisan views of me were way off again. I associate Bob with a party that regularly engages, encourages, supports and allows the use of anti-white sentiment. The Democrats aren't very smart people. Smart people don't do or allow stupid shit that creates a bigger issue for themselves. Are Democrats capable of pulling their heads out of their asses and using them as intended. We'll see.

Just a reminder to talk about the issues rather than each other. I know that the old forum was unmoderated but I'd like to keep this place civil and tensions are high post-election.

Moderators all over America are going to have a harder job now, sorry to say, just because of who is in the White House.