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 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
(09-02-2017, 09:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

1.   Here's the legal definition of incitement. .  While "Jews will not replace us" is objectionable, it's not incitement... Well, perhaps with the exception of snowflakes who get triggered by any speech outside their "safe spaces".  I, personally prefer to apply law in a non subjective fashion.

2. "Let's go punch some Nazis" does fall under incitement, since that phrase calls for explicit violence against "Nazis".  The term, "Nazi" is highly subjective which is why that word isn't in the law books. Antifa, for example does as Kinser has explained before, applies the term "Nazi" to pretty much anyone to the right of Mao.  If the law allows one to allow the punching of group X. Then, yeah, I'd love to get a simple message of "Let's go pepper spray/taser anyone who either is or appears to be a member of Antifa" out, since that would  be just as legal.

3. It is highly desirable to have the rule of law instead of wishy washy or vague application of punishment due to subjective interpretations. In fact there are lots of laws like the PATRIOT act that are full of emotional subjective laws.  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.

4. There are indeed laws against assorted free speech we have here in the US, but you'll find such laws in Russia,EU,China,and a shitpot of 3rd world hellholes like Venezuela. I find none of those places worthy of emulation when it comes to fundamental rights.

NB.  The link above is for Australia.  Here's some info for the US.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ive+Speech

Rags is not a lawyer. Tongue
Agreed except for one nit, Rags. The USAPATRIOT act needs to be repealed and NOT replaced.
Boston is the nearest major city to where I am. A while ago they had dueling demonstrations. One side was demonstrating for their code word ‘free speech’ The other was demonstrating against, and overwhelmed the first big time.

There is no one with authority to say I couldn’t join the latter. There are some with limited ideas on who should do what, but what does that matter? Partisan opinions are varied, and often disregarded.

Back in the sixties laws were passed which opened restaurants, ended mandates on bathrooms and bubbles, and otherwise ended non violent but regular demonstrations of white supremacy. Then, there was much to be done and celebration that it was done. The lines of some are arbitrary and personally drawn. No matter how much they might be felt, and sometimes one my choose to acknowledge that feeling, they are just feelings. I choose to value certain other principles higher. Among them are a dislike of identity politics, prejudice, stereotypes and hatred. I will spend a bit of time speaking against these things. I will oppose them regardless of who is practicing them.

I do draw a line between blue boomers and red. I lean towards the first. The America of our youth was flawed. Racial equality and gender equality were among the issues that divided the country. Both linger. I’m not going to apologize for thinking so.

Legislation was passed. There was no generally open rebellion against it after it passed. Reassurance and hotels become open to all. Two sets of bathrooms and bubblers became past. It was never purely about violence, but also about the myriad ways white supremacy was rubbed in people’s face. Nixon shaped the Southern Strategy. If the Democrats wanted the black vote, the Republican should be quietly aggressive the other way. I believe that if racism went undercover, fell silent for a time, it did not go away. What was felt generations ago when the nation was openly flawed is resurfacing again, weaker, and often covering their weakness with doublespeak. Freedom of speech, for example, is often used as an excuse to harass and demean.

And that is often the defining line between the blue and the red. Oh, hardly the only issue to be dealt with. There are violent young running on testosterone among both sides. Still, identity politics was always part of it. Those who lump the blue and red together are missing most of the tension. The blue ended a bunch of flaws. The red suffered a lot of culture shock, suddenly seeing much of their supremacy taken away. Ever since that time they have been posturing at each other. Some want their supremacy back. Others will quite firmly say no. The net effect is a lot of high emotion stubbornness being displayed by both factions. It is easy to see how the younger generations get sick of it. It is also easy to see why the younger generations are getting nowhere. While they nurse their grudges at their elders they are refusing to acknowledge just how much energy has to go into changing a culture. Until Trump, the old divides had been driven underground to some degree, but it emphatically had not gone away. The younger generations have rejected the intensity it takes;

Meanwhile, no regeneracy. No true crisis. Nothing really going anywhere. The deplorable spend not nearly enough energy to truly get anywhere while we wait for another unrelated issue to bubble up.

Or that’s my lesson learned. Each generation will shape their lessons learned differently, hopefully not in identity politics, stereotypes and hate.

Distortion and hatred? That’s not the best lesson learned. Me, I would prefer to understand and respect. Lately, the understanding comes much easier.
(09-02-2017, 09:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1.   Here's the legal definition of incitement. .  While "Jews will not replace us" is objectionable, it's not incitement... Well, perhaps with the exception of snowflakes who get triggered by any speech outside their "safe spaces".  I, personally prefer to apply law in a non subjective fashion.

2. "Let's go punch some Nazis" does fall under incitement, since that phrase calls for explicit violence against "Nazis".  The term, "Nazi" is highly subjective which is why that word isn't in the law books. Antifa, for example does as Kinser has explained before, applies the term "Nazi" to pretty much anyone to the right of Mao.  If the law allows one to allow the punching of group X. Then, yeah, I'd love to get a simple message of "Let's go pepper spray/taser anyone who either is or appears to be a member of Antifa" out, since that would  be just as legal.

3. It is highly desirable to have the rule of law instead of wishy washy or vague application of punishment due to subjective interpretations. In fact there are lots of laws like the PATRIOT act that are full of emotional subjective laws.  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.

4. There are indeed laws against assorted free speech we have here in the US, but you'll find such laws in Russia,EU,China,and a shitpot of 3rd world hellholes like Venezuela. I find none of those places worthy of emulation when it comes to fundamental rights.

NB.  The link above is for Australia.  Here's some info for the US.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ive+Speech

Rags is not a lawyer. Tongue

In the 60s, the focus of much of the equality argument was about restaurants, hotels, bathrooms and water fountains. This involved supremacists exercising the perceived superiority, they were about degradation and insult, but these specific issues were not about words. The federal government claimed and achieved jurisdiction anyway.

The above free dictionary link does mention fighting words. If you happen to be a fit 200+ pound male with any sort of martial training or skill, that gives recourse of sorts. The recourse available to a 100 pound female is less. The form of recourse is not ideal, is not what I want encouraged. I think the equality arguments are emotional and subjective at times. The point of much of the prejudice and hate is to inflict emotional scars. If you are going to refine things like the Patriot's Act, pardon if I don't chime in.

It would be great if people could just be nice to one another, and not to go out of one's way to chase what they consider not nice. That seems a dream to me. Not all people are nice. Somehow, if people are not nice enough, I would think it matters.
(09-03-2017, 10:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2017, 09:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1.   Here's the legal definition of incitement. .  While "Jews will not replace us" is objectionable, it's not incitement... Well, perhaps with the exception of snowflakes who get triggered by any speech outside their "safe spaces".  I, personally prefer to apply law in a non subjective fashion.

2. "Let's go punch some Nazis" does fall under incitement, since that phrase calls for explicit violence against "Nazis".  The term, "Nazi" is highly subjective which is why that word isn't in the law books. Antifa, for example does as Kinser has explained before, applies the term "Nazi" to pretty much anyone to the right of Mao.  If the law allows one to allow the punching of group X. Then, yeah, I'd love to get a simple message of "Let's go pepper spray/taser anyone who either is or appears to be a member of Antifa" out, since that would  be just as legal.

3. It is highly desirable to have the rule of law instead of wishy washy or vague application of punishment due to subjective interpretations. In fact there are lots of laws like the PATRIOT act that are full of emotional subjective laws.  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.

4. There are indeed laws against assorted free speech we have here in the US, but you'll find such laws in Russia,EU,China,and a shitpot of 3rd world hellholes like Venezuela. I find none of those places worthy of emulation when it comes to fundamental rights.

NB.  The link above is for Australia.  Here's some info for the US.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ive+Speech

Rags is not a lawyer. Tongue

In the 60s, the focus of much of the equality argument was about restaurants, hotels, bathrooms and water fountains.  This involved supremacists exercising the perceived superiority, they were about degradation and insult, but these specific issues were not about words.  The federal government claimed and achieved jurisdiction anyway.

The above free dictionary link does mention fighting words.  If you happen to be a fit 200+ pound male with any sort of martial training or skill, that gives recourse of sorts.  The recourse available to a 100 pound female is less.  The form of recourse is not ideal, is not what I want encouraged.  I think the equality arguments are emotional and subjective at times.  The point of much of the prejudice and hate is to inflict emotional scars.  If you are going to refine things like the Patriot's Act, pardon if I don't chime in.

It would be great if people could just be nice to one another, and not to go out of one's way to chase what they consider not nice.  That seems a dream to me.  Not all people are nice.  Somehow, if people are not nice enough, I would think it matters.


1. 1960's equality fights:  I'll admit those are hazy due to my age at the time. With that said, and I can be off base here due to said age of those times. I do recall lots of marches where there was no violence, but lots of symbolism on one hand [which I don't recall any fear/anger.  On the other hand and I think it's another case of what was old , is new again.  Antifa reminds me of icky things like the Weather Underground and the SLA.  The other demonstrators besides antifa who haven't been violent, I see no issues with.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S..._of_Skokie
I remember this as well. This another piece of the puzzle as to why a bunch of white supremacists can go marching around and looking stupid. Perhaps this is why nobody has enacted bans. 

3. Dreams and the like.  Well, feel free to come up with a solution to the puzzle. The PATRIOT act to me anyways has provisions which violate some of the Bill of Rights.  I don't know how much of the act would remain if said act were to undergo strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.


4. I also have dreams believe it or not. I'd also allow civil asset forfeiture only after conviction. To prevent flight risk and the like, the assets would go into escrow so the defendant can draw some funds to cover legal costs and do stuff like pay living expenses for us proles.  We left/libertarians are like that. I guess that would go under "not all governments are nice" either.


5. Why not steal a page from Alinsky.  Just have a counter march with folks in dunce caps to look like KKK and Star Wars Storm Troopers  to match the white polo shirts of the others? Mocking is both fun and effective ... and of course is non violent.
(09-03-2017, 11:50 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1960's equality fights:  I'll admit those are hazy due to my age at the time. With that said, and I can be off base here due to said age of those times. I do recall lots of marches where there was no violence, but lots of symbolism on one hand [which I don't recall any fear/anger.  On the other hand and I think it's another case of what was old , is new again.  Antifa reminds me of icky things like the Weather Underground and the SLA.  The other demonstrators besides antifa who haven't been violent, I see no issues with.

I feel many who on the surface demonstrate for free speech are really looking for a right to demean, insult and display their self proclaimed superiority.  I’ll advocate for free speech in general as loudly as many.  The First Amendment is a fine thing.  I just see demonstrating superiority is more about oppressing others who aren’t in one’s group.  That is the class of ‘free speech’ that folks are in disagreement about.  To me it is about the desire for some who perceive themselves superior trying to make it so.

I don’t perceive those who practice identity politics, prejudice and hate as superior.  Don't tell me that those wearing Nazi and Confederate symbols aren't practicing identity politics.  Don't tell me what they do is harmless.  Those wearing neo nazi and neo confederate symbols do so to invoke the ideas behind the symbols.  Those who wish to harm others ought to find the law focused accordingly to stop them.

The old days were quite violent enough.  There was more acceptance, more arbitrary rejection, more love and more thoughtless hate.  It was different.  It was a very good thing in small doses.  It is likely wise and prudent to sleep walk through compromise, to play the unraveling game for a time.  The old hate was never gone, but neither was its rejection.  The intensely passionate stalemate so hated by younger generations is still there.  The old America of white only, male men only, live draft cards, coat hanger abortions and stinking polluted water is to a great extent gone and not coming back.  So says this blue boomer.  Try for the worst of yesterday and watch the ashes of the old hippies burn back to life.  No.  Just, no.

Some of the old hate lingers.  Trump made use of it, allowed it to the surface again.  It won’t win.  It resurfaced wimpy and weak compared to the old days.  A generation or two underground will to that.

The idea of protests though mocking seems interesting, though I may take the old culture too seriously for that.
(09-02-2017, 09:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2017, 09:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

1.   Here's the legal definition of incitement. .  While "Jews will not replace us" is objectionable, it's not incitement... Well, perhaps with the exception of snowflakes who get triggered by any speech outside their "safe spaces".  I, personally prefer to apply law in a non subjective fashion.

I have no legal training, but I would make a guess:

Imminent threat of death, severe bodily harm, or destruction of property would make speech incitement. "Jews will not replace us!" may be offensive, but it is not a clear threat. "Ki11 the Jews!" in the presence of real or imagined Jews is an incetement.  Attempting to form a lynch mob would be incitement even if one leaves the scene. Public threats that in secret would be conspiracy to violate human rights or destroy property would be incitement because it encourages the enhancement of a mob into something more powerful and dangerous.

One can encourage people to commit a destructive crime without being one who throws the punches, stones, or Molotov cocktails.  That encouragement sounds like incitement.


Quote:2. "Let's go punch some Nazis" does fall under incitement, since that phrase calls for explicit violence against "Nazis".  The term, "Nazi" is highly subjective which is why that word isn't in the law books. Antifa, for example does as Kinser has explained before, applies the term "Nazi" to pretty much anyone to the right of Mao.  If the law allows one to allow the punching of group X. Then, yeah, I'd love to get a simple message of "Let's go pepper spray/taser anyone who either is or appears to be a member of Antifa" out, since that would  be just as legal.

I concur with that. Some chapters of Antifa are extremely authoritarian, but some aren't.


Quote:3. It is highly desirable to have the rule of law instead of wishy washy or vague application of punishment due to subjective interpretations. In fact there are lots of laws like the PATRIOT act that are full of emotional subjective laws.  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.

The Patriot Act is suspect. It may already be obsolete. The law itself may be more dangerous than the crimes that it allegedly prevents.  We will soon be sixteen years past 9/11.


Quote:4. There are indeed laws against assorted free speech we have here in the US, but you'll find such laws in Russia,EU,China,and a shitpot of 3rd world hellholes like Venezuela. I find none of those places worthy of emulation when it comes to fundamental rights.

I can understand bans on Nazi activities in countries that have endured them. The difference between Nazis in Germany and the Klan is not that the Klan had less malign intent. To the contrary, a Klan-dominated America would have been much like Nazi Germany. But the Klan disintegrated before it could gain political power, let alone commit genocide. I see little danger in banning Nazi symbols, salutes, slogans, and Nazi-like organizations in Germany, Austria, the  Czech Republic (which had a large German minority before 1945)

Quote:NB.  The link above is for Australia.  Here's some info for the US.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ive+Speech

Rags is not a lawyer. Tongue

Neither am I.
(09-02-2017, 05:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I'm not a nuclear engineer so I'm not sure what science will and will not support.

Quote: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.

Insider scuttlebutt is that infantry exoskeletons are already under development. These exoskeletons would act similarly to Heinlein's powered armor. As for the future of infantry, it will still be required. Fancy units may take ground but infantry holds it.

Quote: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.

It should be noted that the DPRK was given both nuclear material and reactors by Bill Clinton to start with. That they've gone from some material and a functional reactor to H-bombs in 20 years speaks well of them, but they are not the most efficent state to have developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China both took 10 years and had to start from scratch. The US took a bit longer but was the first country to develop nukes.

I don't think we have to concern ourselves with a world of North Koreas--on the diplomatic fronts Russia is pulling civilians from Vladivostok and other Siberian Far East zones likely to be targeted. ROK and Japan have both said they will not tolerate the DPRK's actions, and China has also condemned the DPRK's recent test.

What is troubling though is that there are only three possiblities to explain the outcome of that test.
1. Kim isn't lying and they really do have the H-bomb
2. They made a bigger primative nuke in the 100 Kiloton range
3. They strung together a bunch of little primative nukes together to result in a 100kt test.

Option 1 is by far the worst. If they already have an H-bomb it is only a matter of time before they figure out how to put it on one of their ICBMs.

Option 2 means that they have managed to build a bomb 10 times the size of Little Boy.

Option 3 means that their nuclear arsenal, though still in the Fat Man/Little Boy stage is far larger than Military Intelligence expected.

Over all with North Korea I'm thinking war with them is pretty much inevitable.
(09-03-2017, 09:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Back in the sixties laws were passed which opened restaurants, ended mandates on bathrooms and bubbles, and otherwise ended non violent but regular demonstrations of white supremacy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bubbles". I'm going to assume it is an autocorrection for "bubbler" which for people from places other than New England means a public drinking fountain. Yes, non-discrimination is good when it comes to public institutions and private ones that serve the public. Which is what a restaurant would fall under, it is a private business whose business is serving the public.

I don't think that's a major issue, it hasn't been for DECADES!

Quote: Then, there was much to be done and celebration that it was done. The lines of some are arbitrary and personally drawn. No matter how much they might be felt, and sometimes one my choose to acknowledge that feeling, they are just feelings. I choose to value certain other principles higher. Among them are a dislike of identity politics, prejudice, stereotypes and hatred. I will spend a bit of time speaking against these things. I will oppose them regardless of who is practicing them.

In that case you have to oppose BLM as much as the Klan then. In fact the former is far more powerful than the latter at current.

Quote:I do draw a line between blue boomers and red. I lean towards the first. The America of our youth was flawed. Racial equality and gender equality were among the issues that divided the country. Both linger. I’m not going to apologize for thinking so.

If your demand is for equality then you'll never achieve it. If the demand is for non-discrimination then ending Affirmative Action is necessary. As for myself, I don't believe in equality. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, different desires and abilities. As such equality is not only impossible to achieve, but any attempt to achieve it must result in the pulling down of the smart and the strong to the level of the weak and the stupid.

They have equality in the DPRK for example. There everyone is equally poor, equally indoctrinated and equally expendable to the regime.

Quote:Nixon shaped the Southern Strategy.

Is a myth. Of the Segregationist Governors and Legislators at the state and Federal level only one crossed the floor, Strom Thurmond. The Democrats lost the White South not because they stopped being racist--they are still very racist. I've explained to you how soft-bigotry works at least 100 times Bob. Rather what changed is the Democrats drifted so far to the left as to alienate the largely conservative white southerner.

Quote: If the Democrats wanted the black vote,

The Democrats only care about black votes and black voters at election time. The rest of the time they don't do shit for black citizens. There is a reason why right leaning blacks call it "the Democrat Plantation".

Quote: the Republican should be quietly aggressive the other way.

Unnecessary. The GOP just had to stay conservative, the Democrats drifting left did all the work.

Quote: I believe that if racism went undercover, fell silent for a time, it did not go away.

No it didn't. Racism is alive and well and has been as loud as it has ever been. Simply put the Democratic party cannot allow racism to die its natural death because they need it to deliver black voters (the low information ones anyway) to the polls to pull the lever for the guy with the D after his name.

The rest of the time they spend pushing race quotas, because black people obviously can't get to a university on their own or something. How you can't see the racism in that is beyond me, but whatever. I've already concluded that you are values locked and probably have been since before I was born anyway.

Quote:What was felt generations ago when the nation was openly flawed is resurfacing again, weaker, and often covering their weakness with doublespeak. Freedom of speech, for example, is often used as an excuse to harass and demean.

No, it never went away so it can't be resurfacing. Racism is weaker because the understanding that judging someone on the basis of his race is flawed is much stronger. That would be the universe bending toward justice. As for demeaning others, that is covered under freedom of speech. Again freedom of speech is absolute except in cases of incitement.

I'm going to leave my response to this post here because it is just more of the same refusal to recognize the regeneracy that has already happened because it does not conform to your expectations.
Also I would respond to PBR but it looks like Rags beat me to it. Let me just say that I don't want the US to Emulate even Germany or Canada or the UK when it comes to free speech. But I think I'll leave this little ditty here:

First they came for the National Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a National Socialist.

Then they came for the Traditionalists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Traditionalist.

Then they came for the Whites, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a White.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Also:

Winston Churchill Wrote:The Fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.
You know, in a lot of ways it would be nice to have a black perspective.  Instead, we have a black guy who goes against the grain, fighting the usual black perspective.  What we've got is one man's opinion, to be taken with a grain of salt...  perhaps a lot of salt.

(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In that case you have to oppose BLM as much as the Klan then.  In fact the former is far more powerful than the latter at current.

You are wrong as usual.  I sympathize with BLM on their original issue.  The federal government is making too much military surplus equipment available to local police.  This has contributed to a militarized attitude.  Not enough training is being made available.  The court system seems to allow 'I was afraid' as a defense, and too many are afraid of people of color.  BLM has a legit gripe.

The clan?  Well, power is not the only relevant metric.

(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]If the demand is for non-discrimination then ending Affirmative Action is necessary.  As for myself, I don't believe in equality.  Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, different desires and abilities.  As such equality is not only impossible to achieve, but any attempt to achieve it must result in the pulling down of the smart and the strong to the level of the weak and the stupid.

Both equality and non discrimination are desirable.  I just don't see that either one need eliminate the other under all circumstances.  Arbitrarily jumping on one bandwagon at the expense of the other seems strange.

(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Of the Segregationist Governors and Legislators at the state and Federal level only one crossed the floor, Strom Thurmond.  The Democrats lost the White South not because they stopped being racist--they are still very racist.  I've explained to you how soft-bigotry works at least 100 times Bob.  Rather what changed is the Democrats drifted so far to the left as to alienate the largely conservative white southerner.

The Democrats, seeking the urban black vote, did drive away from the largely conservative (and racist) white southerner.  Party affiliation for most has remained that way since.  I could accept that Nixon got a bit too much credit for it.  He may have recognized it a bit earlier than most rather than initiating it.  Still, the trend is quite real if one isn't value locked out of it.

(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Unnecessary.  The GOP just had to stay conservative, the Democrats drifting left did all the work.

Both parties played politics and won the loyalty of those they were seeking.  May both find joy with what they claimed.


(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]No it didn't.  Racism is alive and well and has been as loud as it has ever been.  Simply put the Democratic party cannot allow racism to die its natural death because they need it to deliver black voters (the low information ones anyway) to the polls to pull the lever for the guy with the D after his name.  

The rest of the time they spend pushing race quotas, because black people obviously can't get to a university on their own or something.  How you can't see the racism in that is beyond me, but whatever.  I've already concluded that you are values locked and probably have been since before I was born anyway.

Again, I find both ending discrimination and equality as worthy goals, parallel in fact.  Knee jerk reactions of ending one to achieve the other are misguided.  You should try to be more sophisticated.

(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]No, it never went away so it can't be resurfacing.  Racism is weaker because the understanding that judging someone on the basis of his race is flawed is much stronger.  That would be the universe bending toward justice.  As for demeaning others, that is covered under freedom of speech.  Again freedom of speech is absolute except in cases of incitement.

With Trump's use of racism in his campaign, the increase and openness of calls to prejudice and hate have increased.  Any attempting contact with reality would see it.  I'll stick with resurfacing as an appropriate word, and wonder a bit at the wannabe black guy siding with Trump.

(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to leave my response to this post here because it is just more of the same refusal to recognize the regeneracy that has already happened because it does not conform to your expectations.


That is more measurable.  The see saw seems is alive and well.  You can pretend that Trump is building a culture defining and changing status as much as you like.  Your delusion, not mine.  I am seeing declining popularity, discord, a president with a split party, a guy who will be lucky to get a second term let alone build a consensus to rival Lincoln's and FDR's.  Much of the problem is he needed to sell the unraveling memes to steal the Republican base.  This gives him a problem about respecting the memes in office... cut domestic spending, push a tough military, borrow and spend trickle down, etc...  He has the choice of honoring obsolete ideas or breaking promises.  One guarantees failure, while the other loses him his base.  Being he is intuitive rather than dogmatic, honoring promises seems unlikely.  This parallels a divide between those who want him to become more presidential and those who want to ride the wild card that got him as far as it did.

I've been trying not to be too judgemental, but he's far enough along that it is hard not to.  He still has time to pull out of his flat spin.  He's got a hard road, though.

For decades I've grumbled that the division in DC is so strong that nobody can get anywhere.  Finally, that trend seems almost a good thing.
(09-04-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]You know, in a lot of ways it would be nice to have a black perspective.  Instead, we have a black guy who goes against the grain, fighting the usual black perspective.

There is no "black perspective". There are black people with perspectives. Just like there is no "white perspective", just white people with perspectives. Unless of course you're implying that all blacks are a monolithic amorphious blob--which they clearly are not. As for going against the grain, yeah, I do cause I walked off the plantation and lots of other blacks hate me for it.

 What we've got is one man's opinion, to be taken with a grain of salt...  perhaps a lot of salt.

Quote:
(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In that case you have to oppose BLM as much as the Klan then.  In fact the former is far more powerful than the latter at current.

You are wrong as usual.

No I'm not actually. Unless of course you really do want to give your dwelling to black people or have them take it by force.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...e-up-home/

Quote:  I sympathize with BLM on their original issue.  The federal government is making too much military surplus equipment available to local police.  This has contributed to a militarized attitude.  Not enough training is being made available.

Policing is a problem in this country to be sure, it always has been. We have an unconstitutional and unconscionable "war on drugs" which really should be viewed as a war on people who choose to do drugs and falls disproportionately on poor people be they black, white, or you name it.

I think one possible solution is to have any surplus military hardware for police forces to be determined on the local level. An APC might make sense in an urban area where there is major gang warfare, but most other areas are served perfectly with your standard squad car and 9mm side arm.

I will say that I am fully on board with the police having body cameras on their person. It would nip in the bud major legacy media lies such as "hands up don't shoot".

Quote:  The court system seems to allow 'I was afraid' as a defense, and too many are afraid of people of color.

The right to self-defense is universal. If someone breaks into my house they are getting shot, I don't care if they are black, white, or purple with green polka dots. Are many people afraid of black people? Yes. And with good reason. Here have some "hate facts" as the SJW clowns call them:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ack-crime/

Quote:BLM has a legit gripe.

Yeah. Too many black people are getting killed. Strangely I don't hear them complaining about the gangsters that make largely black communities violent. Instead they want to whine about police, not all of whom are white, killing a few people who chose to escelate situations that they shouldn't had been in had they just followed Chris Rock's advice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Quote:The clan?  Well, power is not the only relevant metric.

Yeah it kinda is. Who takes the Klan seriously these days? Nobody. They are irrelevant.

Quote:
(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]If the demand is for non-discrimination then ending Affirmative Action is necessary.  As for myself, I don't believe in equality.  Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, different desires and abilities.  As such equality is not only impossible to achieve, but any attempt to achieve it must result in the pulling down of the smart and the strong to the level of the weak and the stupid.

Both equality and non discrimination are desirable.  I just don't see that either one need eliminate the other under all circumstances.  Arbitrarily jumping on one bandwagon at the expense of the other seems strange.

Equality is not desirable. What equality means is an equality of outcome which means you drag down the intelligent, driven and strong to the level of the lazy, unmotivated and stupid. Because everyone has different abilities, levels of drive and skill there are going to be different outcomes.

Ending non-discrimination is not only desirable but also doable, and has largely already been accomplished where there aren't Affirmative Action quotas. But Affirmative Action by its very nature requires discrimination. But I've already explained this several times. Perhaps I'm not being effective at communicating--it happens--perhaps it is a matter of values lock (I run into it with my mother all the time, you listen to her you'd be convinced it was still 1968 or something)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbHHHvVSu7A

Quote:
(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]Of the Segregationist Governors and Legislators at the state and Federal level only one crossed the floor, Strom Thurmond.  The Democrats lost the White South not because they stopped being racist--they are still very racist.  I've explained to you how soft-bigotry works at least 100 times Bob.  Rather what changed is the Democrats drifted so far to the left as to alienate the largely conservative white southerner.

The Democrats, seeking the urban black vote, did drive away from the largely conservative (and racist) white southerner.  Party affiliation for most has remained that way since.  I could accept that Nixon got a bit too much credit for it.  He may have recognized it a bit earlier than most rather than initiating it.  Still, the trend is quite real if one isn't value locked out of it.

And yet the GOP didn't suddenly become some sort of racist party. Believe me if they were I'd have nothing to do with them. As for the urban black vote, have you been to those areas that are controlled by the Democrats in many cases 40, 50, 100 years? I have, which made me question Democratic policies pretty early in life.

Quote:Again, I find both ending discrimination and equality as worthy goals, parallel in fact.  Knee jerk reactions of ending one to achieve the other are misguided.  You should try to be more sophisticated.

Well at least you didn't call me articulate, indicating that you believe it is rare or special to find a black man who is literate and speaks correctly. As is typical of a white liberal Bob you seek to fight racism without first questioning yourself as to your own. I find it beneficial to first remove the beam from my own eye, in order to see clearly to remove the splinter from the eye of my brother.

Quote:With Trump's use of racism in his campaign,

What racism?

I'm sorry but it seems you've been infected with TDS. It must be a mild case because I thought you were one of the few liberals on this board who wasn't infected. Must be catching, I'll need to go get a vaccine or something I guess. Hope I don't get the autisms.

Quote: the increase and openness of calls to prejudice and hate have increased.

No they haven't, unless you're talking about Antifa and BLM wanting to kill white people and police.

 
Quote:Any attempting contact with reality would see it.

Really? Then I suggest you try it sometime. I've seen no increase in racist rhetoric around unless you're counting anti-white rhetoric. That isn't to say you don't have folks like David Duke running around but they are basically laughing stocks.

 
Quote:I'll stick with resurfacing as an appropriate word, and wonder a bit at the wannabe black guy siding with Trump.

So now you're going to say that I'm not black. I've never heard that one before! I must be just as not-black as Ben Carson then. Though I do find it troubling that you think that all black people must think a certain way, must have a specific attitude and most importantly must vote for the Democrat even if she is the epitome of everything wrong with both the country and her party.

Quote:
(09-04-2017, 02:42 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to leave my response to this post here because it is just more of the same refusal to recognize the regeneracy that has already happened because it does not conform to your expectations.

I left my statements as to the so-called see-saw because you are deliberately choosing to not see the complete redefinition of the culture that Trump has brought. I simply cannot do anything with self-deception; I cannot reason you out of a position you weren't reasoned into. But that's okay. According to Scott Adams the side that loses politically is the one which must have the most hallucinations.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/16449216770...opposition
(09-03-2017, 11:50 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1. 1960's equality fights:  I'll admit those are hazy due to my age at the time. With that said, and I can be off base here due to said age of those times. I do recall lots of marches where there was no violence, but lots of symbolism on one hand [which I don't recall any fear/anger.  On the other hand and I think it's another case of what was old , is new again.  Antifa reminds me of icky things like the Weather Underground and the SLA.  The other demonstrators besides antifa who haven't been violent, I see no issues with.

There was real discrimination back in the 1960s.  I remember the "whites" and "coloreds" drinking fountains.  I don't remember which one I drank at - I think I skipped taking a drink because my mother didn't want me drinking at the "coloreds" fountain and I didn't want to break the rules my father had explained by drinking at the "whites" one.  But maybe I just blocked it out of my memory.

Jews, blacks, and Asians couldn't get into top universities.  Now it's whites and Asians that are discriminated against through affirmative action, thanks to the "two wrongs make a right" approach of folks like Bob Butler.
(09-04-2017, 02:15 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2017, 05:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I'm not a nuclear engineer so I'm not sure what science will and will not support.

Just for the record, I am a nuclear engineer, or was until I switched to a faster growing industry.  This will become relevant later in this post.

Quote:
Quote: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.

Insider scuttlebutt is that infantry exoskeletons are already under development.  These exoskeletons would act similarly to Heinlein's powered armor.  As for the future of infantry, it will still be required.  Fancy units may take ground but infantry holds it.

Right.  That's what I refer to as "security forces" - the guys who hold the territory behind the front lines, if there are still front lines.

Quote:
Quote: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.

It should be noted that the DPRK was given both nuclear material and reactors by Bill Clinton to start with.  That they've gone from some material and a functional reactor to H-bombs in 20 years speaks well of them, but they are not the most efficent state to have developed nuclear weapons.  Russia and China both took 10 years and had to start from scratch.  The US took a bit longer but was the first country to develop nukes.

Valid points.  Their scientists also got training from the Soviet Union way back when.
That said, Russia and China were much larger economies with much larger populations from which to draw talented people.  They didn't start from scratch, either; the Soviet Union got help from spies in the US like Klaus Fuchs and others, and China got a lot of open help from the Soviet Union.

Quote:I don't think we have to concern ourselves with a world of North Koreas--on the diplomatic fronts Russia is pulling civilians from Vladivostok and other Siberian Far East zones likely to be targeted.  ROK and Japan have both said they will not tolerate the DPRK's actions, and China has also condemned the DPRK's recent test.

That's what they say, but at the same time South Korea is lobbying the US against military action.  The only concrete actions anyone is taking are economic sanctions, and I'd bet there are plenty of nuclear wannabes that would be thrilled to give Kim what little foreign exchange he needs in return for help on setting up nuclear weapons programs.

Quote:What is troubling though is that there are only three possiblities to explain the outcome of that test.
1.  Kim isn't lying and they really do have the H-bomb
2.  They made a bigger primative nuke in the 100 Kiloton range
3.  They strung together a bunch of little primative nukes together to result in a 100kt test.

Option 1 is by far the worst.  If they already have an H-bomb it is only a matter of time before they figure out how to put it on one of their ICBMs.

Option 2 means that they have managed to build a bomb 10 times the size of Little Boy.

Option 3 means that their nuclear arsenal, though still in the Fat Man/Little Boy stage is far larger than Military Intelligence expected.

Over all with North Korea I'm thinking war with them is pretty much inevitable.

North Korea has kindly provided photographs of the warhead, just like they did with last September's test.  It took the better part of a year for the US government to admit what Kim had last time around, but it should have been obvious from the beginning.  Because of the classified nature of the Teller-Ulam geometry, it's not as obvious this time, but those of us who have independently figured out the Teller-Ulam geometry can figure it out.

What North Korea has is a two stage thermonuclear device.  It does not have the proper Teller-Ulam geometry, which is why the yield was only about 100kt rather than closer to the 1Mt range.  That said, most of its energy does come from fusion.

It is easily small enough to mount in a warhead.  The only question at this point is whether North Korea's warheads can survive reentry and whether they have the fusing to cause an explosion at an appropriate altitude.  Most likely they do, after all their missile tests and with their having had conventional missiles for decades now.

How do you think the path to war will proceed?  My concern is that war with North Korea isn't inevitable, and the McMasters of the world manage to convince Trump to accept North Korea as a nuclear power.  Then Iran gets back into the game, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and Myanmar and Venezuela and a bunch of others, and sooner or later someone uses one, and then people start using them regularly.  Eventually some regional nuclear war escalates into a global one, and whoever has the last nuke wins.  And I'm far from certain that will be us, since we have too many interests that will require our using them earlier than, say, Russia will have to.
(09-04-2017, 01:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Valid points.  Their scientists also got training from the Soviet Union way back when.
That said, Russia and China were much larger economies with much larger populations from which to draw talented people.  They didn't start from scratch, either; the Soviet Union got help from spies in the US like Klaus Fuchs and others, and China got a lot of open help from the Soviet Union.

If you consider sending a few scientists to "not be starting from scratch" then not even the US did that. The British essentially sent over their entire "Tube Alloys" program to the US in 1942ish.

Quote:That's what they say, but at the same time South Korea is lobbying the US against military action.  The only concrete actions anyone is taking are economic sanctions, and I'd bet there are plenty of nuclear wannabes that would be thrilled to give Kim what little foreign exchange he needs in return for help on setting up nuclear weapons programs.

The ROK is going to be on the front lines of a war that is sure to to devastate their economy. Their natural inclination is to starve out the DPRK and avoid a war. Unfortunately I think it is far too late for that. And all three Kims have already demonstraed that they simply don't care if their population starves to death, they are going to do what they are going to do.

Quote:North Korea has kindly provided photographs of the warhead, just like they did with last September's test.  It took the better part of a year for the US government to admit what Kim had last time around, but it should have been obvious from the beginning.  Because of the classified nature of the Teller-Ulam geometry, it's not as obvious this time, but those of us who have independently figured out the Teller-Ulam geometry can figure it out.

What North Korea has is a two stage thermonuclear device.  It does not have the proper Teller-Ulam geometry, which is why the yield was only about 100kt rather than closer to the 1Mt range.  That said, most of its energy does come from fusion.

I'm not sure what this means, but I do have a very generic idea of what a two stage thermonuclear device is. Are you saying that the test yielded a 100kt result because they got their maths wrong or because their design is not maximally efficient?

Quote:It is easily small enough to mount in a warhead.  The only question at this point is whether North Korea's warheads can survive reentry and whether they have the fusing to cause an explosion at an appropriate altitude.  Most likely they do, after all their missile tests and with their having had conventional missiles for decades now.

I would say that if they don't have war heads for their weapon systems now, they will in short order. We do know that their conventional warheads do survive re-entry.

Quote:How do you think the path to war will proceed?

I would imagine that Kim would likely launch an attack on ROK and/or Japan first. Both having a formal treaty of alliance with the US would drag us in--unless of course an alliance with the US isn't worth the paper it is written on. Remember this is someone who threatens the world with nukes at least once a week.

 
Quote: My concern is that war with North Korea isn't inevitable, and the McMasters of the world manage to convince Trump to accept North Korea as a nuclear power.

North Korea doesn't act like any other nuclear power so there is no reason to delay. Russia doesn't threaten to nuke its neighbors once a week. Neither does China, India, Pakistan, Israel, or for that matter Iran or Saudi Arabia (as it is assumed that both have some nukes already). They would be a nuclear power of a completely different sort. Also you can call McMaster many things but pacifist isn't one of them.

 
Quote: Then Iran gets back into the game,

Iran never left the game and anyone who says that they did is either a moron, or is delusional. If they don't already have a device hidden in their mountainous country then they are almost certainly working on one. I don't care what deal they signed, they cannot be trusted.

Quote: and Saudi Arabia

It is believed that if Saudi Arabia has a nuclear weapon, they bought it lock, stock and barrel bought it from someone. That is their typical modus operandi

Quote:and Turkey,

Is a NATO power so they already have our arsenal to protect them, they don't need to waste money on their own. Unless of course you're saying that an alliance with the US isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Quote:and Myanmar

Would be invaded by India PDQ. Burma (because I refuse to call that country by that ridiculous and unpronounceable name) is not as advanced as India or Pakistan and India can take them out as there is little reason to accept a nuclear power at their back door. Also there is no indication that the Burmese government is even interested as that would almost certainly get the attention of India.

Quote:and Venezuela

Is in chaos, so is in no position to develop a weapon and unless the price of oil rises substantially doesn't have the money to buy one.

Quote: and a bunch of others, and sooner or later someone uses one, and then people start using them regularly.  Eventually some regional nuclear war escalates into a global one, and whoever has the last nuke wins.  And I'm far from certain that will be us, since we have too many interests that will require our using them earlier than, say, Russia will have to.

That sounds like an argument for nipping a problem in the bud if I ever heard one.
North Korea is already a nuclear power, and Iran isn't getting back into the game. But there's a chance Japan might, although its history probably militates against that.
[quote pid='28459' dateline='1504478226']
Text in blue.

(09-02-2017, 09:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2017, 09:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

1.   Here's the legal definition of incitement. .  While "Jews will not replace us" is objectionable, it's not incitement... Well, perhaps with the exception of snowflakes who get triggered by any speech outside their "safe spaces".  I, personally prefer to apply law in a non subjective fashion.

I have no legal training, but I would make a guess:

Imminent threat of death, severe bodily harm, or destruction of property would make speech incitement. "Jews will not replace us!" may be offensive, but it is not a clear threat. "Ki11 the Jews!" in the presence of real or imagined Jews is an incetement.  Attempting to form a lynch mob would be incitement even if one leaves the scene. Public threats that in secret would be conspiracy to violate human rights or destroy property would be incitement because it encourages the enhancement of a mob into something more powerful and dangerous.

One can encourage people to commit a destructive crime without being one who throws the punches, stones, or Molotov cocktails.  That encouragement sounds like incitement.


Quote:2. "Let's go punch some Nazis" does fall under incitement, since that phrase calls for explicit violence against "Nazis".  The term, "Nazi" is highly subjective which is why that word isn't in the law books. Antifa, for example does as Kinser has explained before, applies the term "Nazi" to pretty much anyone to the right of Mao.  If the law allows one to allow the punching of group X. Then, yeah, I'd love to get a simple message of "Let's go pepper spray/taser anyone who either is or appears to be a member of Antifa" out, since that would  be just as legal.

I concur with that. Some chapters of Antifa are extremely authoritarian, but some aren't.

Yes. Antifa as such, is comprised of more or less independent cells. Said cells have  loose and often temporary ties to other cells. Like ISIS, for example, this is a true and tried technique to forestall infiltration.
Quote:3. It is highly desirable to have the rule of law instead of wishy washy or vague application of punishment due to subjective interpretations. In fact there are lots of laws like the PATRIOT act that are full of emotional subjective laws.  Thus, the PATRIOT needs to be repealed and replaced.

The Patriot Act is suspect. It may already be obsolete. The law itself may be more dangerous than the crimes that it allegedly prevents.  We will soon be sixteen years past 9/11.

Agreed. The Patriot Act is also a product passed in a highly emotionally charged atmosphere. Come to think of it , the law(s) passed to detain the Japanese may still be on the books. I think both such ridiculous laws should be repealed and not replaced with anything. Since CRA is being used, I can think of no finer examples of stuff to purge.
Quote:4. There are indeed laws against assorted free speech we have here in the US, but you'll find such laws in Russia,EU,China,and a shitpot of 3rd world hellholes like Venezuela. I find none of those places worthy of emulation when it comes to fundamental rights.

I can understand bans on Nazi activities in countries that have endured them. The difference between Nazis in Germany and the Klan is not that the Klan had less malign intent. To the contrary, a Klan-dominated America would have been much like Nazi Germany. But the Klan disintegrated before it could gain political power, let alone commit genocide. I see little danger in banning Nazi symbols, salutes, slogans, and Nazi-like organizations in Germany, Austria, the  Czech Republic (which had a large German minority before 1945)

OK, but we'd also have to ban all of those  commie symbols as well.  Both are odious. Who knows how far it will go. Everyone has something that has a symbol which will be on the block to be banned.  Taking a law and making it bigger is one feature, not a bug of the US  government anyhow.  Just add 1 and only 1 McCarthy like person and away we go.

Quote:NB.  The link above is for Australia.  Here's some info for the US.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ive+Speech

Rags is not a lawyer. Tongue

Neither am I.
[/quote]
(09-04-2017, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]North Korea is already a nuclear power, and Iran isn't getting back into the game. But there's a chance Japan might, although its history probably militates against that.

I wouldn't be shocked by Japan speaking softly...  and carrying one heck of a big stick.
(09-03-2017, 03:23 PM)Bob Butler 54   :  Another post, I\ Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-03-2017, 11:50 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1960's equality fights:  I'll admit those are hazy due to my age at the time. With that said, and I can be off base here due to said age of those times. I do recall lots of marches where there was no violence, but lots of symbolism on one hand [which I don't recall any fear/anger.  On the other hand and I think it's another case of what was old , is new again.  Antifa reminds me of icky things like the Weather Underground and the SLA.  The other demonstrators besides antifa who haven't been violent, I see no issues with.

I feel many who on the surface demonstrate for free speech are really looking for a right to demean, insult and display their self proclaimed superiority.  I’ll advocate for free speech in general as loudly as many.  The First Amendment is a fine thing.  I just see demonstrating superiority is more about oppressing others who aren’t in one’s group.  That is the class of ‘free speech’ that folks are in disagreement about.  To me it is about the desire for some who perceive themselves superior trying to make it so.

Takes can of course vary.  I see those demonstrations as trolling on the part of some. In other cases, you have really trigger happy snowflakes who basically get trolled by normal speech. OTOH, of course one finds   So.. while there's lots of dross, there are nuggets. I think it best to keep the nuggets and find some way of and this is the tricky part , separating the dross in a way that doesn't damage the environment [social/political environment in this case. Like I said to Prower2a, how would one ban "hate speech" One man's hate speech is another man's choir music. The local paper I read has a police blotter. "Verbal only" conflicts don't result  in arrest , while physical altercations do result in a ride to the police station.

Quote:I don’t perceive those who practice identity politics, prejudice and hate as superior.  Don't tell me that those wearing Nazi and Confederate symbols aren't practicing identity politics.

Of course. I think they are the originators of the idea.  So the irony is that the origin of PC is in white supremacy organizations and the white supremacist organizations are now fighting their mirror images.

Quote: Don't tell me what they do is harmless.  Those wearing neo nazi and neo confederate symbols do so to invoke the ideas behind the symbols.  Those who wish to harm others ought to find the law focused accordingly to stop them.
OK, then if you're OK with my broad model, then the symbols of [swastika,KKK regalia,anarcho-communist regalia, and whatever some other folks think are violence associated symbols as well. ] I'm too stupid of course to even contemplate how to draft said law.


The old days were quite violent enough.  There was more acceptance, more arbitrary rejection, more love and more thoughtless hate.  It was different.  It was a very good thing in small doses.  It is likely wise and prudent to sleep walk through compromise, to play the unraveling game for a time.  The old hate was never gone, but neither was its rejection.  The intensely passionate stalemate so hated by younger generations is still there.  The old America of white only, male men only, live draft cards, coat hanger abortions and stinking polluted water is to a great extent gone and not coming back.  So says this blue boomer.  Try for the worst of yesterday and watch the ashes of the old hippies burn back to life.  No.  Just, no.

Yes, those results are far better than before.

Some of the old hate lingers.  Trump made use of it, allowed it to the surface again.  It won’t win.  It resurfaced wimpy and weak compared to the old days.  A generation or two underground will to that.

The idea of protests though mocking seems interesting, though I may take the old culture too seriously for that.

Mocking is easy.  AG Sessions what reminds me of the "before times".

"Good people don't smoke marijuana".   - Sessions.

Rags hasn't been a good person for a long, long time. Big Grin
(09-04-2017, 06:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-04-2017, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]North Korea is already a nuclear power, and Iran isn't getting back into the game. But there's a chance Japan might, although its history probably militates against that.

I wouldn't be shocked by Japan speaking softly...  and carrying one heck of a big stick.

I would be shocked if they weren't.  In any event they are at the same technology level as the US and could probably set up a nuclear weapons program in less than a year and be in production in two.  They already have plenty of nuclear material as they went with nuclear power for energy generation for some pretty obvious reasons.
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 33 34 35 36 37 38 39