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

Full Version: The Maelstrom of Violence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
(08-31-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see the identity of the ruling elites evolving.  The agricultural age had a nobility that attempted to monopolize weapon and thus political power.  As first the longbow and then muskets become dominant, we had citizen armies and the old nobility became land owning aristocrats.  The land owning aristocrats eventually contested with the robber barons as the means of gathering wealth changed.

I’m not thrilled by any group of elites being in control, and would emphasize feedback mechanism that allowed the People as a whole to keep the elites in check.  This has tended not to happen with representative democracy, in great part as the representatives tend to become corrupt.  Thus, I’d like to see direct vote networked democracy tried.

Yes, the current military has its virtues, but power corrupts.  The key is allowing a clear enough vision to spot the corruption, and a clear enough tool to pull the corrupt.

In Starship Troopers there is such a system though it isn't gone into much detail in the novel.  I've seen the movie (it is one of my favorite movies actually but I understand that movie was basically written by a cheese eating surrender monkey so his tinkering with the plot makes it suspect) but do not consider it canon. 

Heinlien said that veterans had the right to vote, though it is considered to be a lesser right.  As such this means that there is a lesser democracy.  Rather, the video clip I posted was far more relevant.  Exercising political power is exercising force.  As such it seems prudent to leave the exercising of that force to those who have demonstrated through military service that they are willing to make the safety and security of the body politic their personal responsibility.

This of course necessitates that any such state has an all volunteer military.  Fortunately the US already has such a military and instituting a draft would be an anathema except under the most dire of circumstances, if then.
I've read the book but not seen the movie.  I've read a lot of Heinlein.  You just have to remember a few things.  He and his wife were never able to have children, which resulted in somewhat odd virile heroines.  He and Schmitz did strong ladies before strong ladies became a thing.  He pushed libertarian politics and perspective fairly hard.  He also came at a time not far beyond the barnstormer, where a lot of people could build a near state of the art aircraft in their garage.  This resulted in a common science fiction shtick that anyone could build a space ship in their garage.  This meshed well with a notion that if you could see the smoke from your neighbor's chimney, it was time to move on.  Inhabitable Earth like planets were a dime a dozen.  The frontier was often endless.

In a way, NASA's space with hoards building craft in huge corporate clean rooms, and people constantly looking over the astronaut's shoulder is far less romantic.  Collin's Carrying the Fire gives a much better notion of space flight as often practiced.  How do you carry fire?  Very carefully.  There are so many things that can go wrong catastrophically.  This could change as technology makes space more familiar, but still now it is a structured environment.

Heinlein lived in a strange place, but he made for fun reading.  The movie, from what I heard, just came from a different strange place.

Can't resist a particular pair of airborne perspectives.

Annotated High Flight

      Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds1 of earth,
      And danced the skies2 on laughter-silvered wings;
      Sunward I've climbed,3 and joined the tumbling mirth4
      Of sun-split clouds5 -- and done a hundred things6
      You have not dreamed of -- Wheeled and soared and swung7
      High in the sunlit silence.8 Hov'ring there,9
      I've chased the shouting wind10 along, and flung
      My eager craft11 through footless halls of air.

      Up, up the long, delirious burning blue12
      I've topped the windswept heights13 with easy grace
      Where never lark, or even eagle14 flew.
      And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
      The high untrespassed sanctity of space,15
      Put out my hand,16 and touched the face of God.

  1. Flight crews must insure that all surly bonds have been slipped entirely before aircraft taxi or flight is attempted.
  2. During periods of severe sky dancing, the FASTEN SEATBELT sign must remain illuminated.
  3. Sunward climbs must not exceed the maximum permitted aircraft ceiling.
  4. Passenger aircraft are prohibited from joining the tumbling mirth.
  5. Pilots flying through sun-split clouds must comply with all applicable visual and instrument flight rules.
  6. These hundred things must be listed on a Federal Aviation Administration flight plan and approved prior to execution.
  7. Wheeling, soaring, and swinging will not be accomplished simultaneously except by pilots in the flight simulator or in their own aircraft on their own time.
  8. Be advised that sunlit silence will occur only when a major engine malfunction has occurred.
  9. "Hov'ring there" will constitute a highly reliable signal that a flight emergency is imminent.
  10. Forecasts of shouting winds are available from the local Flight Service Station. Encounters with unexpected shouting winds should be reported by pilots.
  11. Be forewarned that pilot craft-flinging is a leading cause of passenger airsickness.
  12. Should any crew member or passenger experience delirium while in the burning blue, submit an irregularity report upon flight termination.
  13. Windswept heights will be topped by a minimum of 1,000 feet to prevent massive airsickness-bag use.
  14. Aircraft engine ingestion of, or impact with, larks or eagles should be reported to the FAA and the appropriate aircraft maintenance facility.
  15. Air Traffic Control (ATC) must issue all special clearances for treading the high untrespassed sanctity of space.
  16. FAA regulations state that no one may sacrifice aircraft cabin pressure to open aircraft windows or doors while in flight
(08-31-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see the identity of the ruling elites evolving.  The agricultural age had a nobility that attempted to monopolize weapons and thus political power.  As first the longbow and then muskets become dominant, we had citizen armies and the old nobility became land owning aristocrats.  The land owning aristocrats eventually contested with the robber barons as the means of gathering wealth changed.

I’m not thrilled by any group of elites being in control, and would emphasize feedback mechanism that allowed the People as a whole to keep the elites in check.  This has tended not to happen with representative democracy, in great part as the representatives tend to become corrupt.  Thus, I’d like to see direct vote networked democracy tried.

Yes, the current military has its virtues, but power corrupts.  The key is allowing a clear enough vision to spot the corruption, and a clear enough tool to pull the corrupt.

We have several possible ruling elites. Among them:

1. Traditional landowners -- the people who own the land and literally lord it over agricultural laborers and sharecroppers who have no alternatives. Those are the exploiters of the agrarian era who may have even had literal ownership of their workers as chattel slaves. In more recent times, urban landlords can be the worst exploiters of the time. See the desirable parts of California, new York, and New England.

2. Financiers and industrialists -- the capitalists, whether bankers or factory owners. Maximal profits came from sweating the industrial workers. These people are the evil bourgeoisie of Marxist caricature.

3. Bureaucratic elites -- people who do not need to own property but exploit political or administrative power over workers. In Commie countries they were the infamous nomenklatura, people with connections and began to act like aristocrats, even pushing their children into such roles while doing everything possible to keep people with no connections from joining them (What loving parent who has a great way of life wants his beloved son or daughter to become a prole or peasant?)

4. Intellectuals -- people who create ideas and images and expand knowledge. These people create the cultural legacy and expand the scientific lore. (In America they are mostly under the thumb of the previous three elites).

5. Organized crime.

Democracy is in grave danger when four of the five have unrestrained power and the fourth is inder the thumb of others.
(08-31-2017, 10:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I've read the book but not seen the movie.

The movie is quite good but you have to have an attraction to sci-fi type movies to really like it. My son and boyfriend weren't impressed but I thought it was pretty awesome even if the director essentially pushed the mockery of fascism pretty hard. Honestly it is the type of film that really could only have been made in the 1990s.

 
Quote:He and Schmitz did strong ladies before strong ladies became a thing.

Strong ladies are often good if they are done correctly. When they are done poorly they essentially act like men who just happen to have tits and a vagina. An other one of my hobbies is reading Harry Potter fanfiction, we have a trope called "Herman Granger" where the character of Hermione is done so poorly and unfeminine as to really be essentially a man. In that can the character was clearly female, though have to admit that JKR didn't really pull off the heterosexual friendship well. Not that a woman really could be expected to. Male friendships and female friendships are inherently of a different nature.

As my brother in law put it once "Men are mean to each other but don't mean it; women on the other hand, are nice to each other but don't mean it."

Quote: He pushed libertarian politics and perspective fairly hard.

He definitely did that.
 
Quote:He also came at a time not far beyond the barnstormer, where a lot of people could build a near state of the art aircraft in their garage.  This resulted in a common science fiction shtick that anyone could build a space ship in their garage.

True perhaps, but building a space ship is most akin to living in a submarine. I guess you could say I was an aquanaut. Tongue That being said due to the environment of deep space being more like that of deep water it is more difficult to build to build a completely sealed pressurized structure that won't leak the precious oxygen into space or the ocean. That being said there have been garage built submersibles but they in general act more like diesel-electric dive boats than a modern nuclear submarine.

Quote:  This meshed well with a notion that if you could see the smoke from your neighbor's chimney, it was time to move on.  Inhabitable Earth like planets were a dime a dozen.  The frontier was often endless.

Given recent advances in the detection of exoplanets that is moving into the realm of science rather than science fiction.

Quote:In a way, NASA's space with hoards building craft in huge corporate clean rooms, and people constantly looking over the astronaut's shoulder is far less romantic.

I don't know about romantic, but it lacks a certain pizzazz that good science-fiction requires. It is like the notion of being on a submarine is far more romantic than the reality. The reality is more closely akin to living in a tin can for months on end without the ability to wear deodorant (because it interferes with the oxygen scrubbers). Needless to say you get used to the smells of your shipmates or you attempt to burn out your sense of smell.

Quote:  Collin's Carrying the Fire gives a much better notion of space flight as often practiced.  How do you carry fire?  Very carefully.  There are so many things that can go wrong catastrophically.  This could change as technology makes space more familiar, but still now it is a structured environment.

Possibly, but I'm of the opinion that humanity must develop space flight and eventually colonize other celestial bodies if we ever plan to survive as a species. First target of course is going to be Luna of course.
(08-31-2017, 09:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In Starship Troopers there is such a system though it isn't gone into much detail in the novel.  I've seen the movie (it is one of my favorite movies actually but I understand that movie was basically written by a cheese eating surrender monkey so his tinkering with the plot makes it suspect) but do not consider it canon. 

Heinlien said that veterans had the right to vote, though it is considered to be a lesser right.  As such this means that there is a lesser democracy.  Rather, the video clip I posted was far more relevant.  Exercising political power is exercising force.  As such it seems prudent to leave the exercising of that force to those who have demonstrated through military service that they are willing to make the safety and security of the body politic their personal responsibility.

This of course necessitates that any such state has an all volunteer military.  Fortunately the US already has such a military and instituting a draft would be an anathema except under the most dire of circumstances, if then.

First, the movie was one of the worst pieces of tripe I've ever tried to watch ... tried being the active verb here.  I tend to like Heinlein's books as sci-fi literature, though he is by far too libertarian for my taste politically.  There is at most a 0.00001% chance that a libertarian society can emerge and even less that it can work, so it's not a matter of pressing concern to me.  It's a philosophical paradigm suitable only for automatons. 

And fwiw, killing the draft was the first act in the play in which we're embedded.  It was a cynical ploy by Nixon, and the most likely takers on that offer werel on the right.  Why are the warmongers so unwilling to practice what they preach?
(09-01-2017, 01:42 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-31-2017, 09:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In Starship Troopers there is such a system though it isn't gone into much detail in the novel.  I've seen the movie (it is one of my favorite movies actually but I understand that movie was basically written by a cheese eating surrender monkey so his tinkering with the plot makes it suspect) but do not consider it canon. 

Heinlien said that veterans had the right to vote, though it is considered to be a lesser right.  As such this means that there is a lesser democracy.  Rather, the video clip I posted was far more relevant.  Exercising political power is exercising force.  As such it seems prudent to leave the exercising of that force to those who have demonstrated through military service that they are willing to make the safety and security of the body politic their personal responsibility.

This of course necessitates that any such state has an all volunteer military.  Fortunately the US already has such a military and instituting a draft would be an anathema except under the most dire of circumstances, if then.

First, the movie was one of the worst pieces of tripe I've ever tried to watch ... tried being the active verb here.  I tend to like Heinlein's books as sci-fi literature, though he is by far too libertarian for my taste politically.  There is at most a 0.00001% chance that a libertarian society can emerge and even less that it can work, so it's not a matter of pressing concern to me.  It's a philosophical paradigm suitable only for automatons. 

And fwiw, killing the draft was the first act in the play in which we're embedded.  It was a cynical ploy by Nixon, and the most likely takers on that offer werel on the right.  Why are the warmongers so unwilling to practice what they preach?

As regards the movie, well that's a matter of taste.  Believe me even if it was as bad as you say it is, there is far worse tripe to watch.  Essentially every Xmas movie on Hallmark channel to which I'm exposed between October and January.

For the record I oppose the whole Xmas in October thing.  I rather like Thanksgiving.

Anyway, I agree that a libertarian society is unlikely which is why I support a minarchist style Classical Liberal society.  We've already had a society like that, in this country.  It was just over thrown in 1932.

As to the Draft, I'm not convinced having one is a good idea. Also the biggest warmongers I've seen have been the Democrats. Remember the difference between a Trotskyite and a Neocon is that they changed their tie.
I can sympathize with blacks and homosexuals who have been stereotyped and the victim of prejudice.  You can say that it isn't my fight.  I don’t have a duty to go out and correct these things.  However, quite arguably, I have a duty not to be part of the problem.  (See Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience for the logic.)  If I have stereotypes and prejudices I feel an urge to stifle them, not to act on them to the best of my ability.  It is akin to tribal thinking.  One route to self improvement is to avoid vile stereotypes and the accompanying prejudice.

This is not a universal urge.  There are neo confederates and neo nazis among others who will play with prejudice and embrace tribal thinking with glee.

I’m a boomer, however.  Boomer hatred is common.  There are many people here who have boomer stereotypes and exercise boomer prejudices quite openly.  This is often not though as important as racial, cultural or gender stereotypes,  but it is comparable.  Some people build stereotypes and exercise prejudices.

I’m not totally innocent of this.  Thing is, part of being a blue boomer suggests trying to fight such things as prejudice and stereotypes.  Still, there are thing I do think of the younger generations.  Much of them fall under the category of “they do know know, they were not there.”  They have not felt the lynchings, bled over the coat hanger abortions, or carried a live draft card.  That takes some of the edge off the stereotypical thinking of the young, but it doesn’t help at a detailed level if someone is locked in, unwilling to listen, if someone lacks the imagination to figure it out.

I should be known for saying there are reasons for major cultures, subcultures.  They didn’t appear from nowhere.  The world views and values behind the cultures once were accurate, once produced favorable results.  There are places still where the old cultural memes still produce favorable results and are very well thought of.  Just watching the ‘debates’ here can show you that if you’d care to listen.

And generational gaps are quite akin to cultural gaps, political gaps, racial gaps, or gender gaps.  Humans are quite good at stereotypes, hatred, tribal thinking and hating the other guy.  I’d suggest that getting involved in any of them involves you in identity politics.  It is very human to divide between Us and Them, seeking to oppress Them in one way or another.  Simply, if you think you are joining an identity conflict without joining an identity conflict, think again. Examine the mirror closely.

I see Kinser as quite legitimately fighting racial and sexual problems.  That’s not directly my fight.  Doesn’t mean I won’t pull the verbal equivalent of a trigger if someone wanders into my sights.  Even then, if Kinser wants me to not fight his fights, I won’t.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions and won’t voice my opinions on the matter generally.  Kinser is hardly the only one with such problems, his isn’t the only approach, he hasn’t the authority to enforce that his approach is to be the only one.

And I’ll be muttering about his not having been there, he didn’t know what was necessary, he didn’t see the problems of the time.  That’s the real essence of generational prejudices.  Every generation is apt to pick up different lessons learned.  It is better to try to learn the other generation’s lessons than to practice stereotyping, prejudice and hate.
(09-01-2017, 03:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I can sympathize with blacks and homosexuals who have been stereotyped and the victim of prejudice.

More importantly can you sympathize with both groups being overtly told they are victims for the purpose of control, exploitation and victimization?  That is precisely what the left does since the worst racism I've ever experienced was from other blacks and the worst homophobia I've ever experienced was at the hands of other queers.

Quote: You can say that it isn't my fight.

It's not.  A white female student once asked Malcolm X what she could do to help blacks in their struggle.  He told her "nothing".  To be frank, if there was a race problem in this country there is nothing that white people could do or give to black people that would have any value, any merit or any appreciation.  Why?  Because, something given has no value.

Quote: I don’t have a duty to go out and correct these things.

You don't.  Mostly the problems the black man faces in the US today are problems of their own making.  The problems faced today are not because we have a big government institution intentionally and deliberately oppressing anyone on the basis of their race (excluding Affirmative Action which is actually oppressive to Whites and Asians far more than it is to Blacks or Latinos).

Rather these problems are the result of poor choices individually and a culture that promotes as good the most ignorant, criminal and vile aspects of our society.

Quote: However, quite arguably, I have a duty not to be part of the problem.  (See Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience for the logic.)  If I have stereotypes and prejudices I feel an urge to stifle them, not to act on them to the best of my ability.  It is akin to tribal thinking.  One route to self improvement is to avoid vile stereotypes and the accompanying prejudice.

Political correctness is not a matter of self-improvement, rather it is a matter of policing the speech of others.  This policing is done in the name of not hurting people's feelings.  You know what though?  Some people need to have their feelings hurt.  They need to be offended because that is the only thing that will get through to them.

Al Sharpton said this clip offended him.  You know what offends me?  Al Sharpton because I think that if MLK were alive today he'd see what has happened to the group he fought for and what they have become.  I think Malcolm X would be much the same.  And for the record I'm far closer to Malcolm than MLK.






Quote:This is not a universal urge.  There are neo confederates and neo nazis among others who will play with prejudice and embrace tribal thinking with glee.

There are.  There are also racist black groups too. BLM is the largest.  Largely speaking in 2013 according to the SPLC there were some 5000-8000 Klan in the US divided into 130 different groups.  There are around the same number of Neo-Nazi groups.  The rest of the so-called Alt-Right consists of Libertarians, Civic Nationalists (which can be all colors) and Kekistanis (I consider myself both of the latter groups).  

Given the choice between dealing with at most 16K neo-nazis and Klan vs every third black person wanting to riot and loot, I'll pick the one which isn't around 4% of the population thanks.  Neo-nazis and the Klan together only make up 0.00005333...% of the population.

Quote:I’m a boomer, however.  Boomer hatred is common.  There are many people here who have boomer stereotypes and exercise boomer prejudices quite openly.  This is often not though as important as racial, cultural or gender stereotypes,  but it is comparable.  Some people build stereotypes and exercise prejudices.

Many boomer sterotypes found on this board are quite accurate.  Cynic Hero not withstanding.  I think his deal is he is mentally ill or something.  He wouldn't be the only person on this board with a mental illness either so I don't want anyone getting on a high horse because of that--and I mean real mental illnesses not MFers running around pretending they have autism cause they're really just a feckless shiftless loser.

Quote:I’m not totally innocent of this.  Thing is, part of being a blue boomer suggests trying to fight such things as prejudice and stereotypes.  Still, there are thing I do think of the younger generations.  Much of them fall under the category of “they do know know, they were not there.”  They have not felt the lynchings, bled over the coat hanger abortions, or carried a live draft card.  That takes some of the edge off the stereotypical thinking of the young, but it doesn’t help at a detailed level if someone is locked in, unwilling to listen, if someone lacks the imagination to figure it out.

I do not have to have been enslaved to have felt in my skin the injustice of such a system.  I do not have to have a vagina in order to understand that not having access to a medical procedure rarely if ever taken up lightly is vitally important.  And I don't need to be hanged by a mob to know that all forms of vigilante justice is unacceptable in a country that aims to be civilized.  As for the draft card, well I volunteered to serve in the military so I don't see the point.  As far as I'm concerned pacifists need to have their heads caved in with a bat, because they are the first to surrender to any fascist, communist or foreign threat.  I take my line of thinking from Patrick Henry, a white man:

Patrick Henry Wrote:Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Quote:And generational gaps are quite akin to cultural gaps, political gaps, racial gaps, or gender gaps.  Humans are quite good at stereotypes, hatred, tribal thinking and hating the other guy.  I’d suggest that getting involved in any of them involves you in identity politics.  It is very human to divide between Us and Them, seeking to oppress Them in one way or another.  Simply, if you think you are joining an identity conflict without joining an identity conflict, think again.  Examine the mirror closely.

I would argue that politics is the result of culture, which is partially derived from identity.  Some of these identities are innate to an individual, some of them are matters of choice.  In America politics derived from innate idenities are stupid, each American has an overriding identity stronger and more powerful than being black or white or something else, or being a man or a woman (there is no something else there no matter what the snowflakes try to tell you), of being a Christian or a Jew or Muslim or an atheist or something else.  That identity is American.

That identity informs me that Thomas Jefferson and even Robert E. Lee are as important to my make up as my 3X great-grandfather who was a slave.

Quote:I see Kinser as quite legitimately fighting racial and sexual problems.  That’s not directly my fight.  Doesn’t mean I won’t pull the verbal equivalent of a trigger if someone wanders into my sights.  Even then, if Kinser wants me to not fight his fights, I won’t.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions and won’t voice my opinions on the matter generally.  Kinser is hardly the only one with such problems, his isn’t the only approach, he hasn’t the authority to enforce that his approach is to be the only one.

1.  I am.  I've had to deal with a great deal of hatred directed at the two most important people in my life.  Both because they are white, and one because he is a man.
2.  It isn't your fight to fight.  I don't want you involved in it.  Mostly this issue is directly between myself and the male human who donated his genetic material to my creation.
3.  I'm not interested in telling you to not say whatever you want.  If you're not inciting others to violence, crime or panic as far as I'm concerned your right to freedom of speech is absolute.  That applies to the most detestable person imaginable as the most lovable person imaginable.
4.  The methods by which I engage in this struggle is built upon experience.  I've tried many things, some of them dreadfully stupid, others more useful.  What I do know is that if the goal is to limit prejudice and discrimination then the solution cannot be found in "reverse" prejudice and discrimination.

I put reverse into quotes because from my perspective there isn't a reverse.  Discriminating against someone for being white is as bad as doing so because they are black.  Unless we're talking about my bedroom.  Apart from myself, and my cat (Espresso--he's a rescue cat and his fur is black, he also likes to kill things and put them into my shoes) Apartheid is in full effect.

Quote:And I’ll be muttering about his not having been there, he didn’t know what was necessary, he didn’t see the problems of the time.  That’s the real essence of generational prejudices.  Every generation is apt to pick up different lessons learned.  It is better to try to learn the other generation’s lessons than to practice stereotyping, prejudice and hate.

And I'll be muttering at you that you've not experienced the things I have either.  That you don't know what is necessary.  That you weren't there.  So everything you're going to do you'll be getting right back.
(08-31-2017, 09:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-31-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see the identity of the ruling elites evolving.  The agricultural age had a nobility that attempted to monopolize weapon and thus political power.  As first the longbow and then muskets become dominant, we had citizen armies and the old nobility became land owning aristocrats.  The land owning aristocrats eventually contested with the robber barons as the means of gathering wealth changed.

I’m not thrilled by any group of elites being in control, and would emphasize feedback mechanism that allowed the People as a whole to keep the elites in check.  This has tended not to happen with representative democracy, in great part as the representatives tend to become corrupt.  Thus, I’d like to see direct vote networked democracy tried.

Yes, the current military has its virtues, but power corrupts.  The key is allowing a clear enough vision to spot the corruption, and a clear enough tool to pull the corrupt.

In Starship Troopers there is such a system though it isn't gone into much detail in the novel.  I've seen the movie (it is one of my favorite movies actually but I understand that movie was basically written by a cheese eating surrender monkey so his tinkering with the plot makes it suspect) but do not consider it canon. 

Heinlien said that veterans had the right to vote, though it is considered to be a lesser right.  As such this means that there is a lesser democracy.  Rather, the video clip I posted was far more relevant.  Exercising political power is exercising force.  As such it seems prudent to leave the exercising of that force to those who have demonstrated through military service that they are willing to make the safety and security of the body politic their personal responsibility.

This of course necessitates that any such state has an all volunteer military.  Fortunately the US already has such a military and instituting a draft would be an anathema except under the most dire of circumstances, if then.

I think the era of the draft is over.  With nuclear weapons and modern military technology, wars are no longer just a matter of how many warm bodies you can put in the field with rifles.  You don't lose a war because one disgruntled draftee frags his sergeant, but when you're regularly using nuclear weapons, that picture changes.

The other thing mentioned in Heinlein's Starship Troopers is that the system is stable, because in the event of insurrection, the veterans are the ones that determine whether it succeeds.  I wonder how accurate that would be.  I don't think it would have been true in the warm bodies with rifles era, but again, we're due for a change with nuclear weapons.
Kinser

Not surprised.

There was an entertainment shtick not many decades ago where the name ’Bruce’ became associated with homosexuality. All an actress had to do to get a laugh was to pronounce ‘Bruce’ with the right inflection. Maybe you’d get an actor to portray the stereotypes of the time to milk the laughs. In time, this provoked a letter to a network executive. The author’s name was Bruce. The ‘comedy’ didn’t much bother him. He was an adult with considerable self confidence. However, his son was an elementary school student also called Bruce.

Stop.

It stopped.

When you say that violence is important, that words never hurt, I don’t doubt it is true of yourself. You sound much more like the father Bruce than the son. I don’t think you speak universal Truth. You speak one guy’s opinion. You have one life experience. The question is whether that opinion is worth anything.

I can admire your honesty regarding tribal thinking. The core of it is essentially true. Folk will care more about tribe members than folk outside the tribe. That seems just human and natural. I’d question the notion that tribal identity is fixed in size or in content. These things are culturally learned. To me, it is clear that this has become part of the US’s red / blue divide. Some have welcomed a greater number of people into their tribe. The idea of a maximum tribal size is just a poor excuse.

What I’m hearing is that tribal thinking has you not practicing identity politics within your tribe, but you will blatantly openly practice it outside the tribe. All I can say is that I have a larger tribe. As I don’t anticipate enlarging your thinking, I don’t expect you to shrink mine.

I can’t speak for all blue boomers, but I wouldn’t be surprised by a good number who would agree.

Refraining from tribal thinking, refraining from identity politics, refraining from stereotypes, prejudice and hate, all seem worthy goals to me. They are perhaps not the center of my life. I don’t feel compelled to stand on soap boxes on street corners, let alone make fists while standing in the shadow of a confederate general’s statue. However, on the rare occasion when the situations arise, the moral compass is there.

At your request, you can fight your own battles. Just don’t expect others not to fight theirs.

I did watch the Boondocks video. I sympathize with many of the ideas. I wouldn’t use the language, or get away with it. But, mostly, it seemed an exercise in one person from a different time with different values putting words in the mouth of another. The person who wrote the video’s words just didn’t earn MLK’s place, so he stole it.

Me, I’m glad MLK achieved what he did. At the same time, I suspect he wouldn’t have gotten so far without Malcom X in the wings. They are more a team, a complementary pair of representatives of their time, than many people appreciate.
(09-01-2017, 03:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I can sympathize with blacks and homosexuals who have been stereotyped and the victim of prejudice.  You can say that it isn't my fight.  I don’t have a duty to go out and correct these things.  However, quite arguably, I have a duty not to be part of the problem.  (See Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience for the logic.)  If I have stereotypes and prejudices I feel an urge to stifle them, not to act on them to the best of my ability.  It is akin to tribal thinking.  One route to self improvement is to avoid vile stereotypes and the accompanying prejudice.

It's "There but for the grace of God go I". If a difference is involuntary and harmless, then I am in no ethical position in which to disparage the difference. One does not choose one's ancestors and thus the genetic traits that suggest that (in America) that one's ancestors included chattel slaves. Religion usually reflects the culture in which one was brought up. One can reject the Catholic Church, but one cannot fully reject all of the subtle patterns of thought that are part of a Catholic childhood. One is not evil fr being a dwarf. Being caught in a house fire? The scars could remain with you for the rest of your life.  Until there is some discovery of a cure for spinal cord injury, we can assume paraplegia and quadriplegia permanent.

People can make destructive, harmful choices, and we can judge those. Criminality, drug addiction, and alcoholism are obvious enough. But nobody chose African origin in South Africa under Apartheid, and nobody chose to be classified as "Jewish" and thus damned to extermination under Hitler. Racism and religious bigotry might be just under the cautious cover of a personality, but when they are released in fullest virulence they can make life pointlessly miserable -- or damned. Nobody would ever see me as black, but on the Web I fit at least three stereotypes of "Jewishness".

I have experienced gay-bashing... and after that experience I decided to stand for homosexual rights so that people would have less of an excuse for doing evil to real or imagined homosexuals. The problem wasn't that I did not have the means with which to convince the angry bigot that I am straight. (It's really simple -- male homosexual porn does not excite me, and I am not going beyond that). I do not exude crude masculinity, so the bigot must have thought that because I am a sissy in contrast to him that I must be gay. I quit making gay jokes.



Quote:This is not a universal urge.  There are neo confederates and neo nazis among others who will play with prejudice and embrace tribal thinking with glee.

I certainly do not want in that tribe. But I do not want to belong to the tribe of pedophiles, either. Or car thieves. Or alcoholics.

If it is ethnicity, I am about half people of British and Irish origin and about half of German-speaking peoples (Germany and Switzerland). That's not much of a unifying identity except as "white". So what? Female beauty needs not look like me to be attractive.  There might be some comfort in my cultural identity, but that also imposes boredom.


Quote:I’m a boomer, however.  Boomer hatred is common.  There are many people here who have boomer stereotypes and exercise boomer prejudices quite openly.  This is often not though as important as racial, cultural or gender stereotypes,  but it is comparable. Some people build stereotypes and exercise prejudices.

As a Boomer I see some of the patterns. Of course I like to see myself as cultured and principled and with a capacity for vision. But if I have had ruthlessness, arrogance, or selfishness the elites (especially among my generation) have extirpated those. Boomer elites in politics, ownership, and management have treated even their generational peers harshly. There are people who believe resolutely that the rest of humanity are proles and peons to be treated badly for the gain and indulgence of elites as if such were the Will of God... and the harsher the view of the Will of God, the harsher is the person holding that view.

People like me did not prevail, and those who did prevail in my generation would be perfectly happy if I were to disappear.


Quote:I’m not totally innocent of this.  Thing is, part of being a blue boomer suggests trying to fight such things as prejudice and stereotypes.  Still, there are thing I do think of the younger generations.  Much of them fall under the category of “they do know know, they were not there.”  They have not felt the lynchings, bled over the coat hanger abortions, or carried a live draft card.

That takes some of the edge off the stereotypical thinking of the young, but it doesn’t help at a detailed level if someone is locked in, unwilling to listen, if someone lacks the imagination to figure it out.

I am as young as one could be to remember news reports of the dead-end resistance to desegregation. I remember seeing a nearly-new Ford Galaxie being pulled out of a Mississippi swamp and figuring that something really bad had happened to three missing young men. Soon afterward the bodies were found.





We still have video that can create genuine memories for people who were not there. So it was with newsreels of the exposure of Nazi concentration camps. If I find law and order essential to life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I find brutality and exploitation inexcusable.


Quote:I should be known for saying there are reasons for major cultures, subcultures.  They didn’t appear from nowhere.  The world views and values behind the cultures once were accurate, once produced favorable results.  There are places still where the old cultural memes still produce favorable results and are very well thought of.  Just watching the ‘debates’ here can show you that if you’d care to listen.

The fault with tribal thinking is not that it recognizes people as tribes different in their own rights and for benign causes, but instead that there is one's own tribe and everybody else as a sort of tribe of lesser value. 


Quote:And generational gaps are quite akin to cultural gaps, political gaps, racial gaps, or gender gaps.  Humans are quite good at stereotypes, hatred, tribal thinking and hating the other guy.  I’d suggest that getting involved in any of them involves you in identity politics.  It is very human to divide between Us and Them, seeking to oppress Them in one way or another.  Simply, if you think you are joining an identity conflict without joining an identity conflict, think again.  Examine the mirror closely.

Time is as much environment as anything else. Time establishes what technologies are available and what institutions are in operation. Something so obvious as "black" means something very different in Virginia in 1947 and in Virginia in 2017. Being gay in America once long meant being confused with pedophiles -- but a same-sex male couple that has a child might ferociously defend that child from any pedophile.

I may be wise enough to recognize that oppression does great, unconscionable harm. Add to this -- I can be jaded of my own 'group' as defined by ethnic origin. Someone else's culture might have something attractive to offer.

Need I be Japanese to appreciate this?

[Image: search?p=shiojiri+niwa+japanese+garden+m...mp=yhs-004]
Quote:I see Kinser as quite legitimately fighting racial and sexual problems.  That’s not directly my fight.  Doesn’t mean I won’t pull the verbal equivalent of a trigger if someone wanders into my sights.  Even then, if Kinser wants me to not fight his fights, I won’t.  That doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions and won’t voice my opinions on the matter generally.  Kinser is hardly the only one with such problems, his isn’t the only approach, he hasn’t the authority to enforce that his approach is to be the only one.

I do not have Asperger's syndrome. It has me.  I would rather be black or gay than live under a circumstance that has messed my life up about as badly as addiction or having an IQ on the borderline of mental retardation. I would not choose addiction or a low IQ, the former because of its consequences to others or the latter because, as little identity as I have outside of Asperger's, my intellect largely defines what I am and can enjoy.

Asperger's has messed up my ability to attract a wife. Yes, I would have likely married out of the ethnic background I was brought up in just to get some esthetic and intellectual enrichment.

Kinser has problems that make his homosexuality and blackness trivialities. He is an extremist, and you probably remember him in his Stalinist incarnation. I see a fanatic, and it is the fanaticism and not the shallow veneer of beliefs that make him so upsetting.

Quote:And I’ll be muttering about his not having been there, he didn’t know what was necessary, he didn’t see the problems of the time.  That’s the real essence of generational prejudices.  Every generation is apt to pick up different lessons learned.  It is better to try to learn the other generation’s lessons than to practice stereotyping, prejudice and hate.

There usually is something behind any stereotype, and when one understands the cause one can excuse the difference.
(09-01-2017, 09:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]I think the era of the draft is over.  With nuclear weapons and modern military technology, wars are no longer just a matter of how many warm bodies you can put in the field with rifles.  You don't lose a war because one disgruntled draftee frags his sergeant, but when you're regularly using nuclear weapons, that picture changes.

That's true enough as far as it goes, but as usual there are more factors.  I am thinking modern insurrection is something else to watch.

In the original colonial imperial era, one colonial power tended not to go around arming another power's natives.  That has gone away.  Today, it doesn't seem hard to find someone willing to arm you.  For every would be colonial power, there tends to be another with conflicting interests thrilled to let someone else die for their cause.

The population size in insurrections also tends to be problematic.  To suppress an insurrection these days, you need a number if boots on the ground proportional the the local population.  The would be colonial powers don't seem ready to mobilize that many boots.

Then there are world views.  The Middle East has totally discredited Western values.  The locals also have severe difficulties fighting traditional war with things like tanks and front lines.  We're seeing religious values and war by atrocity.  If they can't seem to win by our rules, they'll look to change the rules.  It would take a different form in other parts of the world, but in war you can't expect what you want.

These don't change what you say about nuclear weapons, but as you say, the picture changes.
(09-01-2017, 09:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-31-2017, 09:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-31-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I see the identity of the ruling elites evolving.  The agricultural age had a nobility that attempted to monopolize weapon and thus political power.  As first the longbow and then muskets become dominant, we had citizen armies and the old nobility became land owning aristocrats.  The land owning aristocrats eventually contested with the robber barons as the means of gathering wealth changed.

I’m not thrilled by any group of elites being in control, and would emphasize feedback mechanism that allowed the People as a whole to keep the elites in check.  This has tended not to happen with representative democracy, in great part as the representatives tend to become corrupt.  Thus, I’d like to see direct vote networked democracy tried.

Yes, the current military has its virtues, but power corrupts.  The key is allowing a clear enough vision to spot the corruption, and a clear enough tool to pull the corrupt.

In Starship Troopers there is such a system though it isn't gone into much detail in the novel.  I've seen the movie (it is one of my favorite movies actually but I understand that movie was basically written by a cheese eating surrender monkey so his tinkering with the plot makes it suspect) but do not consider it canon. 

Heinlien said that veterans had the right to vote, though it is considered to be a lesser right.  As such this means that there is a lesser democracy.  Rather, the video clip I posted was far more relevant.  Exercising political power is exercising force.  As such it seems prudent to leave the exercising of that force to those who have demonstrated through military service that they are willing to make the safety and security of the body politic their personal responsibility.

This of course necessitates that any such state has an all volunteer military.  Fortunately the US already has such a military and instituting a draft would be an anathema except under the most dire of circumstances, if then.

I think the era of the draft is over.  With nuclear weapons and modern military technology, wars are no longer just a matter of how many warm bodies you can put in the field with rifles.  You don't lose a war because one disgruntled draftee frags his sergeant, but when you're regularly using nuclear weapons, that picture changes.

The other thing mentioned in Heinlein's Starship Troopers is that the system is stable, because in the event of insurrection, the veterans are the ones that determine whether it succeeds.  I wonder how accurate that would be.  I don't think it would have been true in the warm bodies with rifles era, but again, we're due for a change with nuclear weapons.

In the book, regular use of nuclear weapons on the field was a daily occurrence and was launched from a device similar to a bazooka or panzerfaust.  I would imagine if one is essentially using a nuclear RPG that the issue of radiation has been addressed.

However, in such a scenario it would be those with those arms who would determine future state of the state.
Bob, your post feels disjointed. Perhaps you should use quote tags on what you're responding to, or try to think about what you're trying to say.

(09-02-2017, 01:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Kinser

Not surprised.

There was an entertainment shtick not many decades ago where the name ’Bruce’ became associated with homosexuality. All an actress had to do to get a laugh was to pronounce ‘Bruce’ with the right inflection. Maybe you’d get an actor to portray the stereotypes of the time to milk the laughs. In time, this provoked a letter to a network executive. The author’s name was Bruce. The ‘comedy’ didn’t much bother him. He was an adult with considerable self confidence. However, his son was an elementary school student also called Bruce.

Stop.

It stopped.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. We aren't talking about protecting children. Remember I'm a father too, though I'm fairly certain that my kid, since we essentially accquired him because he adopted us (kinda like Espresso adopted me) because he is gay would take the attitude I would have had in grade school.

That attitude is alone the lines of "yeah, and your problem is". The fact is that children are not adults. Children need to be protected, adults do not. Adults can protect themselves.

Quote:When you say that violence is important, that words never hurt, I don’t doubt it is true of yourself. You sound much more like the father Bruce than the son. I don’t think you speak universal Truth. You speak one guy’s opinion. You have one life experience. The question is whether that opinion is worth anything.

Words are not violence full stop. End of discussion. Anything else opens up the pathway to slavery.

Quote:I can admire your honesty regarding tribal thinking. The core of it is essentially true. Folk will care more about tribe members than folk outside the tribe.

The core of it is because it is based on human nature, in so far as humans have a nature. For millions of years humans roamed the earth hunting and gathering their food, staying in a spot until they exhausted the local game and plant resources and then moving on. The idea of staying one place for extended periods of time, building permanent structures and erecting all the other trappings are only about 8000 years old. Evolutionary speaking it is the blink of an eye.

Quote: That seems just human and natural. I’d question the notion that tribal identity is fixed in size or in content. These things are culturally learned.

Some of it is, some of it is more organic. My tribal connections to my sister and her children is pretty much organic. As the Uncle it is expected that I assist her with her children. I would say my toleration of her husband is more learned in my case. Honestly I really don't like him all that much. I've had to learn to tolerate the man she spends her life with.

Quote: To me, it is clear that this has become part of the US’s red / blue divide. Some have welcomed a greater number of people into their tribe. The idea of a maximum tribal size is just a poor excuse.

Even if we agree that it was a poor excuse, and we don't, Dunbar's number is a sociological fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Can you really tell me that you care, like actually care, about what happens to someone on the other side of the planet, which you will never meet, who doesn't speak your language, who has a tribe of his own which might very well be opposed to your tribe. I don't think you can.

Quote:What I’m hearing is that tribal thinking has you not practicing identity politics within your tribe, but you will blatantly openly practice it outside the tribe.

Such is the case outside of the tribe because the tribe is greater than the individual. Inside the tribe the utmost consideration must be practiced. It is only inside the tribe that this really matters, outside of it consideration is irrelevant.

Quote: All I can say is that I have a larger tribe. As I don’t anticipate enlarging your thinking, I don’t expect you to shrink mine.

I have no desire to. It is no skin off my nose if you choose to delude yourself. However the truth is this: You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love everyone and everything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up being a pretty poor judge of character and quality. If anything is used too freely it loses its true meaning. Therefore, you should love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!

Quote:I can’t speak for all blue boomers, but I wouldn’t be surprised by a good number who would agree.

I could care less whether other boomers would agree with you or not. Largely speaking I view that generation as holding us back from progress at current.

Quote:Refraining from tribal thinking, refraining from identity politics, refraining from stereotypes, prejudice and hate, all seem worthy goals to me. They are perhaps not the center of my life. I don’t feel compelled to stand on soap boxes on street corners, let alone make fists while standing in the shadow of a confederate general’s statue. However, on the rare occasion when the situations arise, the moral compass is there.

You're missing the point Bob. You can't refrain from tribal thinking, unless of course you refrain from thinking. Some people actually do that, the other day some leftist moron in Commiefornia was claiming that Ben Carson wasn't a black man. I don't know Ben Carson personally but I've seen pictures on him, he looks pretty black to me.

As for those who wish to pull down statues and desecrate monuments, well they have something in common with ISIS and deserve the same treatment.

Quote:At your request, you can fight your own battles. Just don’t expect others not to fight theirs.

Good. That being said, as a white man the plight of the black man isn't your battle. It never was, it never will be.

Quote:I did watch the Boondocks video. I sympathize with many of the ideas. I wouldn’t use the language, or get away with it. But, mostly, it seemed an exercise in one person from a different time with different values putting words in the mouth of another. The person who wrote the video’s words just didn’t earn MLK’s place, so he stole it.

The Boondocks is a cartoon written by a black American and expresses some of his frustrations with other black Americans. But I wouldn't say that he stole MLK's place any more than if I had drawn a cartoon doing the same thing with Malcolm and as I said, I feel more strongly attached to Malcolm X than I do MLK.

I would say that MLK as he was a leader would look out at what his people have done with their opportunities, how many have squandered everyone offered them, begging for hand outs from the white man. And he would tell them the truth that they wouldn't want to hear.

Truth is often bitter medicine.

Quote:Me, I’m glad MLK achieved what he did. At the same time, I suspect he wouldn’t have gotten so far without Malcom X in the wings. They are more a team, a complementary pair of representatives of their time, than many people appreciate.

MLK wouldn't have gotten the legislative and executive actions he had without having ability to threaten whites with Malcolm. MLK was asking for the opportunity to be equal, Malcolm was the threat of taking it by force. Without the ability to bring violence, non-violence never works. Without the opportunity to have non-violent solutions the only option is violence.
(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.  We aren't talking about protecting children.  Remember I'm a father too, though I'm fairly certain that my kid, since we essentially accquired him because he adopted us (kinda like Espresso adopted me) because he is gay would take the attitude I would have had in grade school.

That attitude is alone the lines of "yeah, and your problem is".  The fact is that children are not adults.  Children need to be protected, adults do not.  Adults can protect themselves.

I quite believe you can sincerely draw a firm line between words and violence, and another between children and adults.  I do not believe they are absolute lines.  Many a forum contributor, notably extreme partisans, speak like the Pope issuing a Bull, in terms of absolute universal truths.  If so, in a broad sense, I'm not Catholic.  Things which are part of your world view are no more than personal opinions.

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Words are not violence full stop.  End of discussion.  Anything else opens up the pathway to slavery.

What slavery?  Words are thrown around and I don't see the auctioneer's sales block returning.  Again, your personal values are not necessarily universal truths no matter how they feel to you.

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Can you really tell me that you care, like actually care, about what happens to someone on the other side of the planet, which you will never meet, who doesn't speak your language, who has a tribe of his own which might very well be opposed to your tribe.  I don't think you can.

Does it matter?  I can cast a vote without hugging the guy on the other side of the planet.  I allow my politics to be shaped by more people than I could possibly hug and make kissy kissy.  I am hardly alone.  You choose not to care, not to feel, not to act.  That's a personal choice, not something forced on you by belonging to this or that group.

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Such is the case outside of the tribe because the tribe is greater than the individual.  Inside the tribe the utmost consideration must be practiced.  It is only inside the tribe that this really matters, outside of it consideration is irrelevant.

To you.  Culturally in part.  This is not universal.  It is your choice.

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I have no desire to.  It is no skin off my nose if you choose to delude yourself.  However the truth is this:  You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love everyone and everything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up being a pretty poor judge of character and quality. If anything is used too freely it loses its true meaning. Therefore, you should love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!

I never claimed to be in love with hoards.  That's pure stawman.  However, I have claimed to vote as if people mattered.

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
I Wrote:Refraining from tribal thinking, refraining from identity politics, refraining from stereotypes, prejudice and hate, all seem worthy goals to me.  They are perhaps not the center of my life.  I don’t feel compelled to stand on soap boxes on street corners, let alone make fists while standing in the shadow of a confederate general’s statue.  However, on the rare occasion when the situations arise, the moral compass is there.

You're missing the point Bob.  You can't refrain from tribal thinking, unless of course you refrain from thinking.  Some people actually do that, the other day some leftist moron in Commiefornia was claiming that Ben Carson wasn't a black man.  I don't know Ben Carson personally but I've seen pictures on him, he looks pretty black to me.

I didn't see the clip in question, but I'd wager he was speaking more of culture than of skin pigmentation.  If true, you are deliberately taking his words out of context.  Similar things were said of Obama.  He may have grown up with a white parent doing most of the nurturing.  He might have later belonged more with elite college students than in the hood.  His immersion into black politics may have come later than his beliefs were formed.  Did that effect his skin pigmentation?  No.  Did it effect who he is, what his beliefs are, and how he led the nation?  I believe so.  As senator and president, which mattered?

Again, you don't have to make kissy kissy to vote.

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Good.  That being said, as a white man the plight of the black man isn't your battle.  It never was, it never will be.

The fight against tribal thinking, identity politics, stereotyping, prejudice and hatred can belong to anyone who cares.  You don't own it.  You can't give it to those you agree with, withhold it from those you don't.  You don't particularly need help fighting your perceived battle.  You do need someone to undo the damage you're doing.

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The Boondocks is a cartoon written by a black American and expresses some of his frustrations with other black Americans.  But I wouldn't say that he stole MLK's place any more than if I had drawn a cartoon doing the same thing with Malcolm and as I said, I feel more strongly attached to Malcolm X than I do MLK.

I respect MLK a lot.  Malcolm X?  Pardon if I give respect from a safe distance rather than make kissy kissy.  MLK's actual words though, and Malcom X's, have enough power and relevancy that I can resent people putting their own words in their mouths.

I think Lincoln was one of the great writers and speakers of all time.  Does that mean I put my words in his mouth?  Feels like blaspheme.  This doesn't mean I wouldn't mind a good animation of the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural.
Kinser--

Words can indicate violent or murderous intention depending upon the circumstances. "This is a stick-up" is itself a clear act of violence in some scenarios. That sentence might be exculpable in a screenplay or a book, but not in a bank, store, restaurant, gas station, etc.

Julius Streicher was found guilty of crimes against humanity, and hanged for such, for publishing a relentless stream of anti-Jewish propaganda in a political order in which the Jews had no chance to rebut what he said of them. His libels made the murder of Jews far easier because in a totalitarian order, speech and even suggestion are practically command.

If you wish to disparage the removal of Confederate monuments from public places to what ISIS or the Taliban does -- ask me what those people would do to monuments of Martin Luther King.
(09-02-2017, 05:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]If you wish to disparage the removal of Confederate monuments from public places to what ISIS or the Taliban does -- ask me what those people would do to monuments of Martin Luther King.

If we're speaking of Antifa, which I am at any rate, the same thing they did to a statue of Abraham Lincoln. I've heard nothing from white identitarians about a desire to do a damn thing about any monument to MLK or any other black Americans. They seem far more preoccupied with the notion that no monuments be destroyed.

As for words indicating intention to commit violence. Tell me which is providing that intention:

"Hey everyone lets have a rally for free speech"

"Let's go punch some nazis."
(09-02-2017, 05:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I quite believe you can sincerely draw a firm line between words and violence, and another between children and adults.  I do not believe they are absolute lines.

It isn't an opinion that hitting someone, or stabbing them or shooting them is fundamentally different from saying you don't like them, or don't agree with what they have to say.  It also isn't an opinion that a child is not the same as an adult.

Quote: Many a forum contributor, notably extreme partisans, speak like the Pope issuing a Bull, in terms of absolute universal truths.  If so, in a broad sense, I'm not Catholic.  Things which are part of your world view are no more than personal opinions.

There are many positions that I take that are matters of opinion and perspective.  And there are some that are absolute truths.  The examples above count as absolute truths.  To attempt to argue otherwise requires one to go outside of the realm of reality.  And quite frankly I simply don't have time for post-modernist stupidity.

Quote:
(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Words are not violence full stop.  End of discussion.  Anything else opens up the pathway to slavery.

What slavery?  Words are thrown around and I don't see the auctioneer's sales block returning.  Again, your personal values are not necessarily universal truths no matter how they feel to you.

Fredrick Douglas Wrote:"To make a contented slave it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken the moral and mental vision and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason."

If you destroy a language to the point that it isn't considered absurd for people to make the claim that milk and solar eclipses are racist then reason becomes impossible.  

Quote:Does it matter?  I can cast a vote without hugging the guy on the other side of the planet.  I allow my politics to be shaped by more people than I could possibly hug and make kissy kissy.  I am hardly alone.  You choose not to care, not to feel, not to act.  That's a personal choice, not something forced on you by belonging to this or that group.

How can you care about someone you cannot know?  The simple fact is you cannot.  To say you can either indicates that you have no discretion on who is worthy and who is unworthy or is, worse still, deliberate deception of yourself and others.  It is evident to me that you missed the point of my statement:

Myself Wrote:You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love everyone and everything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up being a pretty poor judge of character and quality. If anything is used too freely it loses its true meaning. Therefore, you should love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!

Mr. On-the-otherside-of-the-world may or may not be my enemy, but unless I know him, unless I can deem him worthy of my love, then to bring him into my consideration politically or otherwise is the height of hypocrisy.

I blame the limitations of the English Language for your obsession with being all "kissy kissy".  I was speaking of Philios rather than Eros and quite honestly outside of perhaps parental love (and honestly often not even then) agape is impossible for humans.  

Quote:
(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Such is the case outside of the tribe because the tribe is greater than the individual.  Inside the tribe the utmost consideration must be practiced.  It is only inside the tribe that this really matters, outside of it consideration is irrelevant.

To you.  Culturally in part.  This is not universal.  It is your choice.

It is my choice.  It is also the only non-hypocritical choice if one is aware of the nature of mankind.  Those who are deluded as to the nature of mankind may not be hypocrites, rather they are merely delusional.

Quote:I never claimed to be in love with hoards.  That's pure stawman.  However, I have claimed to vote as if people mattered.

So do I.  That is why I oppose the welfare state, massive immigration, and a whole host of other issues for reasons I've explained before, Bob.  The people in my tribe matter, that those outside of it may benefit is entirely incidental.  I just don't try to justify doing the exact opposite and claim that "I'm helping, I'm virtuous" while doing it.  It is far harder in my experience of both sides to be on the Right and be virtuous than to be on the Left and signal that you are virtuous while actually being anything but.

Quote:I didn't see the clip in question, but I'd wager he was speaking more of culture than of skin pigmentation.

Ultimately there is no "black" culture in America that isn't American unless we are speaking of African or Caribbean immigrants--which Carson isn't.  So considering that she, the person in question was obviously female, was discussing his color and not his culture (Ben Carson is an American just like Obama is) she is a moron.  Ben Carson is darker than I am!  And I'm no high yellow.  It is self-evident to anyone who isn't blind that he is a black man.

Quote: If true, you are deliberately taking his words out of context.

I am not.  It is pretty hard to take out of context someone saying that someone who is black is not in fact black.  There was no word "act" in there--which even the dumbest ghetto nigger would insert.  I've been told by more than one person about how much of a coon I am for "acting white" by which they mean doing such things as studying, reading, and speaking grammatically correct English.

If that makes me a coon then I'm in good company. By that definition Fredrick Douglas, Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois and even former President Obama are all coons.

 
Quote:Similar things were said of Obama.

Not really.  I never heard anyone say that he wasn't black when he clearly is a light skinned Negro.  

Quote: He may have grown up with a white parent doing most of the nurturing.  He might have later belonged more with elite college students than in the hood.  His immersion into black politics may have come later than his beliefs were formed.  Did that effect his skin pigmentation?  No.  Did it effect who he is, what his beliefs are, and how he led the nation?  I believe so.  As senator and president, which mattered?

If I'm perfectly honest, I think that not being around the very worst elements of the black population due to being raised primarily by his white mother and maternal grandparents is what allowed him to become president.  I guarantee had he been in "Da Hood" growing up he would have been subject to all the "acting white" comments I was.

Having never been white I'm unsure if a jealousy against those who are gifted with intelligence and drive exists among them, but among blacks those who lack intelligence and drive seek to drag down those who do.  

Quote:Again, you don't have to make kissy kissy to vote.

What is with your obsession with being "kissy kissy".  Were I speaking only of eros-type love then my tribe would be limited to one other person.  After 12 years I'm pretty sure we'll be spending the rest of our lives together.  Ultimately voting is nothing more than a charade anyway.  After all the people in North Korea vote.

Politics is deeper than merely voting.

Quote:The fight against tribal thinking, identity politics, stereotyping, prejudice and hatred can belong to anyone who cares.  You don't own it.  You can't give it to those you agree with, withhold it from those you don't.  You don't particularly need help fighting your perceived battle.  You do need someone to undo the damage you're doing.

Unless you plan on dismantling the political culture of the left then you're not helping and doing far more damage than I ever could.  But thanks for calling me an Uncle Tom.  I've never heard that one before. Rolleyes


Quote:I respect MLK a lot.  Malcolm X?  Pardon if I give respect from a safe distance rather than make kissy kissy.  MLK's actual words though, and Malcom X's, have enough power and relevancy that I can resent people putting their own words in their mouths.

I'm reversed on the respect issue, but that's to be expected.  I would argue that the artistic format that the whole episode took, took the form it took because Aaron McGruder saying what he wanted to say did not have the impact of the image of MLK saying them.  The whole point of the series is that a black man is pointing a giant spotlight as to the cultural problems among black Americans.

Your resentment is noted, and treated exactly like Al Sharpton's.  Though perhaps with less disdain.  I can go "Bless his heart, poor white liberal" with you I simply can't with the-no-so-Reverend Sharpton.  In short, I can give you a pass for "he don't know no better" that I can't with Sharpton who as a self-proclaimed black leader should know better.

Quote:I think Lincoln was one of the great writers and speakers of all time.  Does that mean I put my words in his mouth?  Feels like blaspheme.  This doesn't mean I wouldn't mind a good animation of the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural.

If it feels like blasphemy then that merely means you've elevated a man to a place of a god.  I have no gods.  I need no gods.  

the dictionary Wrote:
  1. 1a :  the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God accused of [i]blasphemy[/i]
    1b :  the act of claiming the attributes of a deity for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy — John Bright †1889
  2. 2 :  irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

MLK, Malcolm X, Lincoln, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, etc, etc, etc are men.  They are neither sacred or inviolable, and they are not gods, and even if they claim themselves to be gods it would be, definitionally speaking, blasphemy to agree with them.

Also, "blaspheme" is the act of committing blasphemy.  I'm going to assume that is a matter of auto-correct since it was clear what you meant.
(09-02-2017, 03:07 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-01-2017, 09:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-31-2017, 09:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In Starship Troopers there is such a system though it isn't gone into much detail in the novel.  I've seen the movie (it is one of my favorite movies actually but I understand that movie was basically written by a cheese eating surrender monkey so his tinkering with the plot makes it suspect) but do not consider it canon. 

Heinlien said that veterans had the right to vote, though it is considered to be a lesser right.  As such this means that there is a lesser democracy.  Rather, the video clip I posted was far more relevant.  Exercising political power is exercising force.  As such it seems prudent to leave the exercising of that force to those who have demonstrated through military service that they are willing to make the safety and security of the body politic their personal responsibility.

This of course necessitates that any such state has an all volunteer military.  Fortunately the US already has such a military and instituting a draft would be an anathema except under the most dire of circumstances, if then.

I think the era of the draft is over.  With nuclear weapons and modern military technology, wars are no longer just a matter of how many warm bodies you can put in the field with rifles.  You don't lose a war because one disgruntled draftee frags his sergeant, but when you're regularly using nuclear weapons, that picture changes.

The other thing mentioned in Heinlein's Starship Troopers is that the system is stable, because in the event of insurrection, the veterans are the ones that determine whether it succeeds.  I wonder how accurate that would be.  I don't think it would have been true in the warm bodies with rifles era, but again, we're due for a change with nuclear weapons.

In the book, regular use of nuclear weapons on the field was a daily occurrence and was launched from a device similar to a bazooka or panzerfaust.  I would imagine if one is essentially using a nuclear RPG that the issue of radiation has been addressed.

However, in such a scenario it would be those with those arms who would determine future state of the state.

In real life, there is a three order of magnitude gap between the power of the largest conventional weapons and the power of the smallest nuclear weapons.  Heinlein envisioned nuclear weapons using subcritical masses to fill that gap, but technology hasn't developed them yet, and it's not clear the science will support its doing so.

In Heinlein's world, those weapons, and their portability, provided a role for what are essentially commandos in powered armor.  Without those weapons, I'm not sure such a role exists.  The only remaining use for infantry may be security forces for occupation.

Even in Heinlein's Starship Troopers, though, there still existed strategic scale nuclear weapons; let's not forget the huge crater that the protagonist's platoon was on the edge of during one battle.

I would agree it will be people who control the nuclear weapons who determine what the state looks like, at least internally.  Assuming more realistically than Heinlein that nuclear weapons remain too large to destroy less than a city at a time, what does that look like?  So far, the state that has developed nuclear weapons most efficiently has been North Korea; is the future a world full of North Koreas?  That's what I worry about.
(09-02-2017, 07:06 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2017, 05:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]If you wish to disparage the removal of Confederate monuments from public places to what ISIS or the Taliban does -- ask me what those people would do to monuments of Martin Luther King.

If we're speaking of Antifa, which I am at any rate, the same thing they did to a statue of Abraham Lincoln.  I've heard nothing from white identitarians about a desire to do a damn thing about any monument to MLK or any other black Americans.  They seem far more preoccupied with the notion that no monuments be destroyed.

As for words indicating intention to commit violence.  Tell me which is providing that intention:

"Hey everyone lets have a rally for free speech"

Criminal speech has never had protection under the law. That includes incitement to riot.

Quote:"Let's go punch some nazis."

There are countries in which Nazism itself is illegal. That's not much of a loss of liberty.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32