The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

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

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

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

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

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

These don't change what you say about nuclear weapons, but as you say, the picture changes.

[Kinser79]

(09-01-2017, 09:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-31-2017, 09:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-31-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I see the identity of the ruling elites evolving.  The agricultural age had a nobility that attempted to monopolize weapon and thus political power.  As first the longbow and then muskets become dominant, we had citizen armies and the old nobility became land owning aristocrats.  The land owning aristocrats eventually contested with the robber barons as the means of gathering wealth changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kinser79]

Bob, your post feels disjointed. Perhaps you should use quote tags on what you're responding to, or try to think about what you're trying to say.

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

Not surprised.

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

Stop.

It stopped.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth is often bitter medicine.

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

MLK wouldn't have gotten the legislative and executive actions he had without having ability to threaten whites with Malcolm. MLK was asking for the opportunity to be equal, Malcolm was the threat of taking it by force. Without the ability to bring violence, non-violence never works. Without the opportunity to have non-violent solutions the only option is violence.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.  We aren't talking about protecting children.  Remember I'm a father too, though I'm fairly certain that my kid, since we essentially accquired him because he adopted us (kinda like Espresso adopted me) because he is gay would take the attitude I would have had in grade school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(09-02-2017, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbrower2a]

Kinser--

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

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

If you wish to disparage the removal of Confederate monuments from public places to what ISIS or the Taliban does -- ask me what those people would do to monuments of Martin Luther King.

[Kinser79]

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

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

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

"Hey everyone lets have a rally for free speech"

"Let's go punch some nazis."

[Kinser79]

(09-02-2017, 05:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I quite believe you can sincerely draw a firm line between words and violence, and another between children and adults.  I do not believe they are absolute lines.

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Quote:Similar things were said of Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics is deeper than merely voting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the dictionary Wrote:

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

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

Also, "blaspheme" is the act of committing blasphemy.  I'm going to assume that is a matter of auto-correct since it was clear what you meant.

[Warren Dew]

(09-02-2017, 03:07 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-01-2017, 09:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-31-2017, 09:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: In Starship Troopers there is such a system though it isn't gone into much detail in the novel.  I've seen the movie (it is one of my favorite movies actually but I understand that movie was basically written by a cheese eating surrender monkey so his tinkering with the plot makes it suspect) but do not consider it canon. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would agree it will be people who control the nuclear weapons who determine what the state looks like, at least internally.  Assuming more realistically than Heinlein that nuclear weapons remain too large to destroy less than a city at a time, what does that look like?  So far, the state that has developed nuclear weapons most efficiently has been North Korea; is the future a world full of North Koreas?  That's what I worry about.

[pbrower2a]

(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.

[Ragnarök_62]

(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.

[Warren Dew]

Agreed except for one nit, Rags. The USAPATRIOT act needs to be repealed and NOT replaced.

[Bob Butler 54]

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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(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.

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.

[Ragnarök_62]

(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.

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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(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.

[pbrower2a]

(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.

Neither am I.

[Kinser79]

(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.

[Kinser79]

(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.

[Kinser79]

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.

[Bob Butler 54]

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.