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
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech.  This makes him...  how do you say it politely... an odd duck.  What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?

I'd like him to be explicit.  Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries.  Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating?  They like to dance around the issue.  I'm opposed to the dance.

Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits.  Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words.  Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously.  I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.

I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language.  Working with others, it is impossible to get. 

Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?
(09-17-2017, 03:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech.  This makes him...  how do you say it politely... an odd duck.  What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?

I'd like him to be explicit.  Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries.  Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating?  They like to dance around the issue.  I'm opposed to the dance.

Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits.  Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words.  Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously.  I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.

I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language.  Working with others, it is impossible to get. 

Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?

Just gave you one.  Seems like you managed to talk yourself into ignoring it.

If you actually wanted honest evaluation and decent language, you'd apologize and stop it instead.  Alternatively, you could learn to ignore what you perceive to be others' hate speech, and count on them to ignore yours, too.

But really, it seems you don't want honest evaluation and decent language; you just want to confirm your biases.
(09-17-2017, 03:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 03:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech.  This makes him...  how do you say it politely... an odd duck.  What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?

I'd like him to be explicit.  Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries.  Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating?  They like to dance around the issue.  I'm opposed to the dance.

Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits.  Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words.  Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously.  I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.

I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language.  Working with others, it is impossible to get. 

Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?

Just gave you one.  Seems like you managed to talk yourself into ignoring it.

If you actually wanted honest evaluation and decent language, you'd apologize and stop it instead.  Alternatively, you could learn to ignore what you perceive to be others' hate speech, and count on them to ignore yours, too.

But really, it seems you don't want honest evaluation and decent language; you just want to confirm your biases.

Really?

I might be called many things.  Among them - accurate and descriptive - might be White, Democratic, Whig, lapsed Catholic, heterosexual and yankee.  I’m inclined to believe there are insulting and / or obscene variations for most if not all of the above groups.  The important thing is that there must be a legitimate way to refer to the various groups.  Obscenities might be inevitable, but I would hope to avoid them holding a civil conversation.  There ought to be legitimate names.

I suppose I could call people neo-NSDAP or neo National Socialist German Workers Party members.  That would be the official names.  A lot of folk wouldn’t know what I was talking about.  It would also be more than a little inaccurate as the philosophy isn’t particularly German anymore.  I might also not capitalize anything.  Wiki suggests that uncapitalized, the more common word is a more generic slang word and held to be offensive by many.  I don’t trust simply not capitalizing, though, to convey that significant difference.

I also don’t feel a particular need to apologize to Kinser.  He wears a helmet.  If his boasts are right, insults bounce of him.  This can be a fine thing, though not as universal as he seems to think.  Many, like you, will object to the use of certain words in certain ways.  Anyway, Kinser and I seem to avoid sending unnecessary insults at each other.  His notes to me are significantly different than his other notes.  I assume this is deliberate, and appreciate it.

Anyway, what is the non-insulting politically correct term for the German political party that dominated during World War II?  Do you have a political correctness problem with the usual name of the pro slavery side of the US Civil War?  How much political correctness will you demand?

And you are disavowing the alt right?  From Kinser’s arguments, free speech seems to mean that any speech is allowed.  There is no such thing as obscene, no such thing as politically correct.  Free speech to him seems to mean use any word at any time.  Everyone should wear helmets.

I would, of course, disagree.

Confirming biases?  To some degree we are all here to confirm biases and force them on others.  There are legitimate fields and perspectives that can be confirmed by observation and experiment.  Climate science and evolution are among them.  People with strong political or religious perspectives have been known to cast away entire fields of science to keep their world views intact.  The statistical aspect of gun policy and salt / fresh water economics are on the other hand not confirmed.  Rival schools have not been able to convince their opposites of a clear truth, and let their political values over ride their knowledge of science.  They will assert their opinions as True.

We have very different ideas about how to confirm biases.  I started out on the usual liberal side of the gun policy question, and wound up flipping to the mostly conservative perspective during the bias confirming processes.  The founding father’s opinions and intent are quite clear, if in conflict with the modern values of some.

And, of course, much of politics involves hopeful yet contradictory assertions.  I have asserted mine in Jefferson’s self-evident truths paragraph and Bill of Rights.  Can they be proven in anything like a scientific sense?  Not really.  Can they be defended as a solid place to start?  Absolutely.  Should one check vigilantly and often that the assumed matches the real world?  Absolutely.

My feeling, though, is that I’m dealing with unidentified and unquestioned assumptions.  Much of the ‘conversation’ here is just ever louder stating of assumptions.  Destination?  Nowhere.
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.


He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.
(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.


He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

What makes you personally not a true believer?  I’m not picking on you.  Really wondering.  

We all believe in our own perspective and advocate them.  I’ve tried to isolate mine, and come up with the self-evident paragraph and the Bill of Rights.  To that, maybe I’d add cautiously the S&H cycles.  In a true crisis, one works together for the common good, while in an unravelling one can tend to be selfish.  There are some who want to make the cyclical selfishness permanent.

Have you thought through your anchors?  Are there things that must be changed?  How desperately?  What makes one a true believer?

While this is addressed to Pbrower, anyone might feel free to answer.
(09-17-2017, 05:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The stand down approach at Cal Berkeley is ending.

Good!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-17...al-liberty


I'm getting sick and tired of all of these special snowflakes and antifa motherfuckers finding some reason or other to make asses of themselves.


I'm also sick and tired of this double standard.  Fuck snowflakes, damn them to hell. Rats and roaches are far more worthy of biomass than fucking shitass antifas. 

OK, antifa triggers Rags.  Does that mean I can shut them down because they piss me off?

For Bob:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S..._of_Skokie

That's  settled.  If folks don't want to experience marches, either hold a counter protest somewhere else of just fucking ignore it.  I'll be there if there's an anti antifa march here in Oklahoma.  Look, I do want to expose antifas to some really nasty chemicals like benzene, but I won't do it because that's illegal.  That's how much I hate, hate, hate, those self righteous motherfuckers.
[Image: 800px-Benzene-aromatic-3D-balls.png]
(09-15-2017, 07:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2017, 07:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon?  That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess.  Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.

It isn't a matter of think.  Read what he posts, figure it out for yourself. 

As for Neocons, well no they aren't conservative, not one bit.  And one really shouldn't expect them to be.  It is an outgrowth of Trotskyism, they just happen to be in the elephant party at the moment, the populists are slowly purging the party of them.

@PBR

1.  Yes it does matter.  Fascism like communism is a creature of the left.  The difference between the two is whether one focuses on a particular nation or preaches internationalism.

2.  I could care less if the President is mean or a demagogue.  He was elected to do the job, and provided he does it, any means he uses is justified. 

Like I told Bobby life is tough get a helmet.


1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.
(09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.

There is an idea, a saying, usually expressed religiously, usually associated with the neo Wiccans, that varies around “Do as you will, but harm none.”

Now I try to run my values scientific first, political second, with religious a poor third.  However, this one can become or illustrate political ideas.  If you assume the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to what you want without interference from the government, from anyone, the first phase is a general and inclusive as you like.  If one accepts that negative rights to not guarantee a protected right to do harm, the second phase is solid.

I guess ‘Do as you will, but harm none” could be the short version.

Thus one can ask, do we really need the Maelstrom of Violence?

I mean, I can admire Martin Luther King.  Lots of folks do.  Would he have got as far as he did without Malcom X lurking in the background?

Kinser has started to call out for folks to wear a helmet.  As a Whig, can I ask if the idea of government is that people shouldn’t have to wear helmets?  If the purpose of government is to subdue those who do harm, why should we embrace an idea of helmets for all?

This left me more than a little disturbed by Ragnarok’s recent post.  There are lots of points I can agree with.  I see lots of Agricultural Age government tainted by authoritarian tyrants, and the political struggles against tyranny as tightly tied with the struggles over industry.  I see any appearance of re-establishing colonialism, which Bush 43 gave, as related to what the Neocons and Neoliberals might attempt.  A lot of the conflicts Ragnarok raises are pertinent.

And, yes, I have a fireplace screen saver.

But I get cold feet.  Do as you will, but harm none.  Can those who would do harm, for whatever reason, be subdued without doing harm.  Can the desire of each to do as he will be honored, not be answered by threats to coerce?

Fact aside, is Ragnarok’s tone necessary?

No answers.  Some questions.
(09-18-2017, 07:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.

There is an idea, a saying, usually expressed religiously, usually associated with the neo Wiccans, that varies around “Do as you will, but harm none.”

Now I try to run my values scientific first, political second, with religious a poor third.  However, this one can become or illustrate political ideas.  If you assume the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to what you want without interference from the government, from anyone, the first phase is a general and inclusive as you like.  If one accepts that negative rights to not guarantee a protected right to do harm, the second phase is solid.

I guess ‘Do as you will, but harm none” could be the short version.

Thus one can ask, do we really need the Maelstrom of Violence?

I mean, I can admire Martin Luther King.  Lots of folks do.  Would he have got as far as he did without Malcom X lurking in the background?

Kinser has started to call out for folks to wear a helmet.  As a Whig, can I ask if the idea of government is that people shouldn’t have to wear helmets?  If the purpose of government is to subdue those who do harm, why should we embrace an idea of helmets for all?

This left me more than a little disturbed by Ragnarok’s recent post.  There are lots of points I can agree with.  I see lots of Agricultural Age government tainted by authoritarian tyrants, and the political struggles against tyranny as tightly tied with the struggles over industry.  I see any appearance of re-establishing colonialism, which Bush 43 gave, as related to what the Neocons and Neoliberals might attempt.  A lot of the conflicts Ragnarok raises are pertinent.

And, yes, I have a fireplace screen saver.

But I get cold feet.  Do as you will, but harm none.  Can those who would do harm, for whatever reason, be subdued without doing harm.  Can the desire of each to do as he will be honored, not be answered by threats to coerce?

Fact aside, is Ragnarok’s tone necessary?

No answers.  Some questions.

1. Yes, the I take a lot of ideas from Wicca, tbh.

2. Wrt antifa, it's the lack of a spotlight as to how evil they are. Big Tech denied the Fascists should of course be banned, but so should Antifa.  That's the point, there's no equal treatment hardly anywhere. If one thing is evil, and another thing is equally evil, why is one evil called out, but the other is not.  It's the basic  fairness doctrine. Fascists for the most part , just troll around, but Antifa not only trolls, but attacks things / people who aren't actually Fascists.  Here's a good video for this.







And uh, so I here from Antifa that Ben Shapiro is a Nazi?   Really,  not Antifa's weed is something I can believe in.

I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

The way I'm taking it is that Malcolm X is also tied to The Weather Underground and SLA. ? Do you see these 3 as similar to each other. IOW, they seek ends of the counterculture like chucking Jim Crow and the 'Nam war, but with some sort of mixed violent means.
I am not nearly so angry and rebelled by antifa as Rags is. For one, I agree with a lot of their views, tho not their extreme ones if and when they are communists, etc. But most are just protesting racism and inserting themselves in their face. So, they broke a few windows at Cal. Not smart strategy, no; but I don't find such an action stirring hatred in me towards them.

They make a good point that racism can't be tolerated. I don't know if I agree that people who are racists should be silenced or attacked, but there's a good case to be made for silencing them, especially for laws against hate crimes and such. If their actions make people like Rags hate them, though, then their movement may well be counter-productive. Hard to say, really. If they start bombing people and buildings, like the Weather Underground did a few times, then that is criminal, and not good; nor would I agree with such an action.
Rags wrote: "Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols? They may as well be adorned with swastikas."

Hmm, I thought Mr. Rags liked black and red. And very loud bllasts of red and black sound assaulting you. Hmmmmm
(09-18-2017, 08:40 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-18-2017, 07:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.

There is an idea, a saying, usually expressed religiously, usually associated with the neo Wiccans, that varies around “Do as you will, but harm none.”

Now I try to run my values scientific first, political second, with religious a poor third.  However, this one can become or illustrate political ideas.  If you assume the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to what you want without interference from the government, from anyone, the first phase is a general and inclusive as you like.  If one accepts that negative rights to not guarantee a protected right to do harm, the second phase is solid.

I guess ‘Do as you will, but harm none” could be the short version.

Thus one can ask, do we really need the Maelstrom of Violence?

I mean, I can admire Martin Luther King.  Lots of folks do.  Would he have got as far as he did without Malcom X lurking in the background?

Kinser has started to call out for folks to wear a helmet.  As a Whig, can I ask if the idea of government is that people shouldn’t have to wear helmets?  If the purpose of government is to subdue those who do harm, why should we embrace an idea of helmets for all?

This left me more than a little disturbed by Ragnarok’s recent post.  There are lots of points I can agree with.  I see lots of Agricultural Age government tainted by authoritarian tyrants, and the political struggles against tyranny as tightly tied with the struggles over industry.  I see any appearance of re-establishing colonialism, which Bush 43 gave, as related to what the Neocons and Neoliberals might attempt.  A lot of the conflicts Ragnarok raises are pertinent.

And, yes, I have a fireplace screen saver.

But I get cold feet.  Do as you will, but harm none.  Can those who would do harm, for whatever reason, be subdued without doing harm.  Can the desire of each to do as he will be honored, not be answered by threats to coerce?

Fact aside, is Ragnarok’s tone necessary?

No answers.  Some questions.

1. Yes, the I take a lot of ideas from Wicca, tbh.

2. Wrt antifa, it's the lack of a spotlight as to how evil they are. Big Tech denied the Fascists should of course be banned, but so should Antifa.  That's the point, there's no equal treatment hardly anywhere. If one thing is evil, and another thing is equally evil, why is one evil called out, but the other is not.  It's the basic  fairness doctrine. Fascists for the most part , just troll around, but Antifa not only trolls, but attacks things / people who aren't actually Fascists.  Here's a good video for this.







And uh, so I here from Antifa that Ben Shapiro is a Nazi?   Really,  not Antifa's weed is something I can believe in.

I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

The way I'm taking it is that Malcolm X is also tied to The Weather Underground and SLA. ? Do you see these 3 as similar to each other. IOW, they seek ends of the counterculture like chucking Jim Crow and the 'Nam war, but with some sort of mixed violent means.

SLA: a bunch of mid-70s silly nuts whose only actions were to go around and rob banks and commit crimes, while shouting revolutionary slogans.

Weather Underground was a more-violent late-60s New Left group, and an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society.

Malcolm X from the early to mid-60s said that he and his followers would not be non-violent towards those who were not non-violent towards him and his followers. In this he contrasted with Martin Luther King Jr., and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who exhorted and instructed his followers to meet brute force with soul force.
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

I've essentially determined that what passes for liberalism these days is really a form of mental illness.  Essentially this video explains it well.  Again, David Cullen typically discusses technology not politics, but when it comes to politics he's pretty spot on for a European.



(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.


He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

Unlikely.  Muslims want to throw people like me off roofs.  Since I don't have a desire to test the theory "fags can't fly" I don't find their ideology attractive.
(09-18-2017, 08:40 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]And uh, so I here from Antifa that Ben Shapiro is a Nazi?   Really,  not Antifa's weed is something I can believe in.

I don't know what the Antifas and the libtards are on but it isn't weed. I'm sticking by my theory that they have a mental illness. It should be noted for those who aren't paying attention that Benjamin Shapiro is a Conservative and Practicing Orthodox Jew. As I've said before, to these clowns anyone to the right of Mao is literally Hitler.

Quote:I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

I believe that he is alluding to the fact that the nonviolent change acheived by MLK was mostly the result of the fact that his version of change was preferable to the violent change that Malcolm X was willing to engage in. The Civil Rights Movement used a good cop/bad cop method. In that particular case MLK played the good cop while Malcolm the bad cop. It was similar to the Indian Independence movement with Gandhi playing good cop while the Hindu Ultranationalist played the bad cops.
(09-19-2017, 12:29 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-18-2017, 08:40 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

I believe that he is alluding to the fact that the nonviolent change achieved by MLK was mostly the result of the fact that his version of change was preferable to the violent change that Malcolm X was willing to engage in.  The Civil Rights Movement used a good cop/bad cop method.  In that particular case MLK played the good cop while Malcolm the bad cop.  It was similar to the Indian Independence movement with Gandhi playing good cop while the Hindu Ultranationalist played the bad cops.

I'm not sure I'd use variations of the word 'play'. Lots of folks would have been quite in earnest. Other than that, he's got the right idea.
(09-18-2017, 12:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.


He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

What makes you personally not a true believer?  I’m not picking on you.  Really wondering.  

We all believe in our own perspective and advocate them.  I’ve tried to isolate mine, and come up with the self-evident paragraph and the Bill of Rights.  To that, maybe I’d add cautiously the S&H cycles.  In a true crisis, one works together for the common good, while in an unravelling one can tend to be selfish.  There are some who want to make the cyclical selfishness permanent.

Have you thought through your anchors?  Are there things that must be changed?  How desperately?  What makes one a true believer?

While this is addressed to Pbrower, anyone might feel free to answer.

Good points. My political ideology is basically what it was about forty years ago when I was in college (I went from conservative to liberal). Changing my stubborn mind requires a well-honed argument, and not simply promises of glory, a great afterlife, or corrupt indulgence. I prefer science as an arbiter of fact.

Have I changed? Sure. Homosexual rights, which I find necessary for the sake of law and order. After I was threatened with gay-bashing I came to the realization that the problem was not that I had a swift and decisive defense of my 'straightness' but instead that there are people who believe that it is acceptable to beat and rob gay men. That attitude is incompatible with the safety of anyone, straight or gay. Whatever causes homosexuals to get more respect for their humanity makes life safer for us all. I came to accept a conservative critique of the idea that criminal behavior resulted from oppression and economic deprivation once I came to the recognition that (1) there are plenty of good people in even the worst places in which to live (prisons possibly excepted) who do not do crime, (2) that many criminals have never experienced 'oppression', (3) because poverty is heavily concentrated in certain ethnic groups an assumption that poverty is linked to oppression and thus crime is thus racist or classist, and (4) that sociopathy better predicts crime than anything else. I read about an embezzler and I think "I could never do that" and find that the crook had advantages that I never had. I have never been in the political avant-garde because I have known of too many risks.

I consider radicalism of any kind dangerous, and any call to violence suspect. I have read enough history, not all of it American, to recognize the potential horror of any revolution. I also recognize that entrenched power, economic or political, can become both corrupt and cruel. It's up to us to grasp virtue as a blessing in its own right and recognize vice as a fraud.

I recognize that the essence of democracy is not so much in having free, fair, and competitive elections -- but as significantly, the willingness to lose those elections. Anyone who wants electoral politics to ratify how wonderful he is must recognize that in most places one has a 50-50 chance of losing an election.

But I have no obligation to accept the political wind of the day as wonderful. I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who lamented every 'Presidentiad' (Emerson coined the word) from Andrew Jackson to James Buchanan, only to become enthusiastic about Abraham Lincoln. I am not Ralph Waldo Emerson, but just imagine how excited I will be about the next Lincoln-like President.  If Jimmy Carter is the new John Quincy Adams and Ronald Reagan is the new Andrew Jackson, then we are about due.
(09-19-2017, 09:59 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]But I have no obligation to accept the political wind of the day as wonderful. I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who lamented every 'Presidentiad' (Emerson coined the word) from Andrew Jackson to James Buchanan, only to become enthusiastic about Abraham Lincoln. I am not Ralph Waldo Emerson, but just imagine how excited I will be about the next Lincoln-like President.  If Jimmy Carter is the new John Quincy Adams and Ronald Reagan is the new Andrew Jackson, then we are about due.

The 'about due' part I can sympathize with.

The rest requires a bit of thinking...
(09-19-2017, 12:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.


He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

Unlikely.  Muslims want to throw people like me off roofs.  Since I don't have a desire to test the theory "fags can't fly" I don't find their ideology attractive.

OK.  Let's assume no racial or gender group is good at flying.  Other than that, you seem to have evaded the question.  Of course, the question wasn't really asked well.

How to you tell a True Believer from on who believes in his world view?  It seems pretty safe to say that everyone believes in his world view.

Part of it would be whether there is an element of superiority or vileness to it.  "Mine is the master race.  Some should wait in line for the genocide machine."  "Some races should endure slavery as that is their proper place."  "Only those with a demonstrated ability to fly should be tolerated.  This should be tested immediately."  This immediate judgement, this prejudice, is one quick clue that somebody is off the deep end.

Another criteria would be a definition of 'harm' similar to that applied to a Bill of Rights.  If someone proclaims they are members of the sole race suitable to be the world's policemen, or a race which has a manifest destiny, or a race that bears a 'burden' to rule, color me dubious.  I'd be looking for anything that might resemble harm, as I would suspect a lot of people would be.  That sort of claim of superiority has been over done.

On the other hand Hoffer actually advocates nationalism, the idea that pride of place is essential to getting ahead, to create anything new.  Let us suppose that Americans are ahead of the game in education.  This might mean more places of higher education, more students ready to apply themselves, more jobs ready for those who do apply themselves.  To a great degree, no one is getting hurt if this is truly a strength.  (Let's ignore, for the moment, more people prepared to a specific job than will be hired within the specialty.  I need an example of a positive strength.)

Could I have examples of nationalistic virtues?  Can groups claim they are good at something, have a reason for their pride?  "I can fly!  (Flap. Flap.)  Look, I can... (Thud.)"

By declaring a people have a strength, a superiority, and that they are not out to hurt anyone, can one pretend that certain true believers are not fanatical True Believers?

I have a feeling that the notion of tribal thinking, tribal morality, could be involved.  If person or group is out to hurt someone for their own advantage, should this be considered OK if the person hurt is of another tribe?  I can see the guy from the other tribe getting indignant.

Then, there is the degree of ideological blindness.  You see a lot of thinking of the pattern "all people of (insert group here) are (insert stereotype here).  Often it isn't true.  Often harm is involved in assuming it is true.  Is it important that a world view should be clear of that type of stereotype?

Just chasing my tail.  I have an interesting perspective that needs hammering down.

OK.  For a moment, let's assume an American progressive.  You might think one of the two...

  1. He wants to build a strong community, with the government being a good tool.
  2. What is he smoking?  Can I get some?
Then here comes a conservative. You might think one of the two...

  1. He wants to build a strong community, but the government just messes it up.
  2. What is he smoking?  Can I get some?
The above might prove only that America has a drug problem.
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