The Maelstrom of Violence

[Kinser79]

(09-04-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You know, in a lot of ways it would be nice to have a black perspective.  Instead, we have a black guy who goes against the grain, fighting the usual black perspective.

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

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

Quote:

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

You are wrong as usual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:BLM has a legit gripe.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What racism?

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

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

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

 

Quote:Any attempting contact with reality would see it.

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

 

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

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

Quote:

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

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

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/16449216770...opposition

[Warren Dew]

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

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

Jews, blacks, and Asians couldn't get into top universities.  Now it's whites and Asians that are discriminated against through affirmative action, thanks to the "two wrongs make a right" approach of folks like Bob Butler.

[Warren Dew]

(09-04-2017, 02:15 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-02-2017, 05:39 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: In real life, there is a three order of magnitude gap between the power of the largest conventional weapons and the power of the smallest nuclear weapons.  Heinlein envisioned nuclear weapons using subcritical masses to fill that gap, but technology hasn't developed them yet, and it's not clear the science will support its doing so.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you think the path to war will proceed?  My concern is that war with North Korea isn't inevitable, and the McMasters of the world manage to convince Trump to accept North Korea as a nuclear power.  Then Iran gets back into the game, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and Myanmar and Venezuela and a bunch of others, and sooner or later someone uses one, and then people start using them regularly.  Eventually some regional nuclear war escalates into a global one, and whoever has the last nuke wins.  And I'm far from certain that will be us, since we have too many interests that will require our using them earlier than, say, Russia will have to.

[Kinser79]

(09-04-2017, 01:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Valid points.  Their scientists also got training from the Soviet Union way back when.
That said, Russia and China were much larger economies with much larger populations from which to draw talented people.  They didn't start from scratch, either; the Soviet Union got help from spies in the US like Klaus Fuchs and others, and China got a lot of open help from the Soviet Union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Quote: Then Iran gets back into the game,

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

Quote: and Saudi Arabia

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

Quote:and Turkey,

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

Quote:and Myanmar

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

Quote:and Venezuela

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

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

That sounds like an argument for nipping a problem in the bud if I ever heard one.

[Eric the Green]

North Korea is already a nuclear power, and Iran isn't getting back into the game. But there's a chance Japan might, although its history probably militates against that.

[Ragnarök_62]

[quote pid='28459' dateline='1504478226']
Text in blue.

(09-02-2017, 09:36 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-02-2017, 09:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-02-2017, 07:06 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

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

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

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

"Hey everyone lets have a rally for free speech"

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

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

There are countries in which Nazism itself is illegal. That's not much of a loss of liberty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Antifa as such, is comprised of more or less independent cells. Said cells have  loose and often temporary ties to other cells. Like ISIS, for example, this is a true and tried technique to forestall infiltration.

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

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

Agreed. The Patriot Act is also a product passed in a highly emotionally charged atmosphere. Come to think of it , the law(s) passed to detain the Japanese may still be on the books. I think both such ridiculous laws should be repealed and not replaced with anything. Since CRA is being used, I can think of no finer examples of stuff to purge.

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

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

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

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

Rags is not a lawyer.

Neither am I.
[/quote]

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-04-2017, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: North Korea is already a nuclear power, and Iran isn't getting back into the game. But there's a chance Japan might, although its history probably militates against that.

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

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-03-2017, 03:23 PM)Bob Butler 54   :  Another post, I\ Wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote: Don't tell me what they do is harmless.  Those wearing neo nazi and neo confederate symbols do so to invoke the ideas behind the symbols.  Those who wish to harm others ought to find the law focused accordingly to stop them.

OK, then if you're OK with my broad model, then the symbols of [swastika,KKK regalia,anarcho-communist regalia, and whatever some other folks think are violence associated symbols as well. ] I'm too stupid of course to even contemplate how to draft said law.


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

Yes, those results are far better than before.

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

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

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

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

Rags hasn't been a good person for a long, long time.

[Kinser79]

(09-04-2017, 06:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-04-2017, 04:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: North Korea is already a nuclear power, and Iran isn't getting back into the game. But there's a chance Japan might, although its history probably militates against that.

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

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

[pbrower2a]

(09-04-2017, 02:50 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 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.

It's for innocent people -- and not for pirates, drug traffickers, murderers, rapists, thieves, and child abusers. Or Nazis or Stalinists. It's for people who never did anything wrong.



.

[Bob Butler 54]

Kinser

I guess two points. To some extent most everyone will generalize or stereotype. To a degree they are just different degrees of the same thing. I call myself ‘leaning blue’ often, but I see myself looking deeper into the past and guessing further into the future than most. Also, if anyone thinks I lean blue on gun policy, they will find the errors of the ways real fast. While I generalize, and see that as unavoidable dealing with huge numbers of people, vile stereotyping and expecting people to live up to the stereotypes is another level. That is highly problematic if altogether common.

You? Anyone who jumps from Marx to Trump isn’t going to fit cleanly into the obvious pidgin holes. I find myself agreeing a lot with what you say about health care. However, it would seem you favor sharing risks and costs, which puts you quite some distance from many reds. One of many blindnesses you have is in expecting your chosen father and party to be with you on health care. I’m doubtful. Not vital. I’ll wait and see.

What does it mean to be black? I don’t mean skin pigmentation. It’s more about the culture. Many share a good deal of culture and life experience. Some diverge strongly. I don’t think I’d nominate Obama, Carson or yourself as being particularly close to any pattern or stereotype. Anyone who jumped from Marx to Trump likely shouldn’t center any pattern or stereotype. You’re you, which is nothing to be ashamed of, but means a lot of your opinions fit only those in your pattern or stereotype.

Which aren’t exactly numerous. I’m not saying main line black is significantly better or worse than main line red, main line blue, or any other color combination. I just don’t see you as main line anything, which is in may ways a good thing. Who wants to be boring? But, if you shun the main lines, you aren’t the pope.

I do know the civil rights movement shifted a lot of party allegiances. You seem to be trying to deny this and the logic behind it. I don’t think your beliefs change reality.

I do have a perceived problem with extreme partisans. Ideally I’d favor a scientific world view. One looks at reality and build a descriptive method for analyzing and understanding the world. The extreme partisan approach is in many ways the opposite. One decides on a method for analyzing and understanding the world, then closes one’s mind to anything that conflicts with the analysis. A nigh on religious faith in the value of the analysis is common. My fate seems to be to feud with the many extreme partisans that contribute to these forums, whose world views are many if linked to the individual, varied, and often extremely narrow. Your tendency seems to be to latch onto a particular partisan world view and ignore any faults it may have.

You have lately given your loyalty to one guy. Any reason to question this loyalty gets value locked out of your personal variation of existence. This isn’t apt to change. You’ll just issue a papal bull claiming what you don’t want to be so isn’t so. Not much to be done about it. However. not much from that perspective is to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, if your basic loyalty isn’t that of a typical black guy, you’re not much help in building up black generalizations or stereotype. I might not be an expert in saying what makes someone culturally ‘black’, but if building a culture or stereotype were my goal, I wouldn’t start with you. I don’t count that as a big deal insult. Being kinda unique can be a good thing. It just doesn’t make you representative.

Sifting to Trump and the see saw...

Given an apparent extreme partisan worldview which gives loyalty to Trump, expecting to open your eyes seems futile. The only reason for hope is the ability to leap away from Marx.

Trump preempted the Republican base by adapting the unraveling memes and enabling the old racism. You won’t want to see this. I feel a papal bull coming on. “I don’t like it, thus it mustn’t be so!” Anyway, I don’t see the culture being transformed by a rehash of obsolete ideas. That makes me dubious on one level. Then I look at the dysfunctional White House, narcism, vindictiveness, a failed agenda, ignored promises, sexism, a split dysfunctional party, impulsiveness… Well, part of my judgement comes from leaning blue, and that part is to be considered dubious, but I still really can’t see Trump building a policy and personality capable of shifting a culture. While you’ve a world view that seems designed to allow you not to see it, I’m anticipating another bounce of the see saw. What this see saw bounce will lead to, I don’t know. Ask a blue extreme partisan. I’m guessing they’ll tell you. It’s all very clear in the stars, I’m sure.

Oh. And this piece isn’t so much about shifting an extreme partisan world view. That is unlikely. It is more about the nature of extreme partisanship.

[Kinser79]

(09-05-2017, 05:40 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-04-2017, 02:50 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: 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.

It's for innocent people -- and not for pirates, drug traffickers, murderers, rapists, thieves, and child abusers. Or Nazis or Stalinists. It's for people who never did anything wrong.



.

PBR, it is hilarious and sad that you are so profoundly ignorant.  Freedom of speech does not exist to protect popular speech.  Anyone in the world can say that kittens are cute or that the sky is blue with no repercussions whatsoever.  Rather freedom of speech is designed for unpopular speech.

An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

Therefore since I value the freedom of speech so highly, it am required like Voltaire to defend it.  I spent six years in the country's military doing so, have you?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

One could reword that. "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."

If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious. If one does, you get to a different place.

If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.

The question seems to be who is the pope.

[Kinser79]

(09-05-2017, 07:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser

I guess two points.

You posted a novel for two points.  I strongly suspect that one of the two situations has arisen.  (A) you have have more than two points, or (B) you're not very efficent in expounding on so few points.

Quote:Also, if anyone thinks I lean blue on gun policy, they will find the errors of the ways real fast.

That only demonstrates that you either have no desire to have a permanent blue ruling class or you have realized that their position on having an unarmed population is extremely dangerous.

Quote:While I generalize, and see that as unavoidable dealing with huge numbers of people, vile stereotyping and expecting people to live up to the stereotypes is another level.

And yet you still do it.  After all how can it not be anything but sterotyping of the vilest type to say such things as I or Ben Carson are not black when we clearly have black skin.

Quote:You?  Anyone who jumps from Marx to Trump isn’t going to fit cleanly into the obvious pidgin holes.  I find myself agreeing a lot with what you say about health care.  However, it would seem you favor sharing risks and costs, which puts you quite some distance from many reds.  One of many blindnesses you have is in expecting your chosen father and party to be with you on health care.  I’m doubtful.  Not vital.  I’ll wait and see.

A bit to unpack here, so it seems you've already gone over your two point limit already.

1.  Daddy has stated publicly that he wants real healthcare reform, that it will cover everyone and that it will do so in a way that is cheaper and less onerous than Obamacare.  I already know he more or less agrees with my view on health care.  He may or may not agree as to details, but I'm not overly concerned with details at the moment.
2.  The GOP has several competing factions.  The Evangelo-Cons as I call them, they would be the remnant of the social issues Republicans and are largely aging out.  You have the Neo-Cons (which are indistinguishable from the Neo-Liberals in the Dimocrat party--and often referred to as the Uniparty in some circles), the Trumpists which is a motley collection of numerious strains of political thought united only by the fact that the Dimocrat party is hostile to their view points entirely.
3.  I'm not blind to the limitations that Trump has.  Fortunately or unfortunately a constitutional system of government is quite messy, however, he's already taken action where he can take action.  The President cannot be held to be responsible for when Congress fails to do its job.  Though I do have a couple ideas how to get Congress back into working order without having a revolution.

Since the Neo-Con remnant holds most of the leadership in the House and Senate I don't expect much out of them, but the Party is already rapidly reforming itself.  I don't foresee the Dimocrats even being able to mount a serious challenge to GOP domination until 2022 at the earliest.  As it stands if the Wall gets started either this year, or early 2018 the GOP will retain the House and Senate even though it is likely that the Neo-Con faction of the party will be taken out.

America does not have ideologically driven parties like Europe does so that makes government even messier than it otherwise would be.  Personally I'd like to get rid of both parties but I doubt that is ever going to happen.  The formations of political factions didn't even wait until after Washington's Administration.

Quote:What does it mean to be black?  I don’t mean skin pigmentation.

What does it mean to be white?  And I also don't mean skin pigmentation.

Quote:It’s more about the culture.

If you expect there to be a black American culture that is actually different from American culture generally you'd be sorely mistaken.  Culturally speaking in the US there are only two main groups, and I'll give you a hint they aren't split on racial lines.  Those groups are Americans and Non-Americans.

Quote:I don’t think I’d nominate Obama, Carson or yourself as being particularly close to any pattern or stereotype.

I wouldn't either, but I wouldn't because of their race.  Rather I would say that the commonalities between myself, Obama and Carson begin and end in having above average intelligence and sharing the American culture.  I would like to think, Bob, that these are also commonalities that are shared between myself and you.  Unfortunately you're making that view difficult to maintain because if you do have above average intelligence you should be able to step back and coldly observe that the cultural differences between black and white are not present apart from propaganda pushed by various race hustlers.  

There is a reason why I put Al Sharpton in the same category as David Duke.  And it isn't because both are nominally Christian.

 

Quote:Anyone who jumped from Marx to Trump likely shouldn’t center any pattern or stereotype.

It wasn't exactly a jump.  Honestly I wanted Sanders to win the Dimocratic nomination, it was for me the last chance for that party to prove to me that it was worth staying around in.  They failed that test.  And no Sanders wouldn't have beat Trump either, but he wouldn't have alienated half the Millennial generation in the process of not winning the election.  In short the DNC shot itself in the foot and all they have now is Russians under every bed and attempting to stir up racial discontent.

Quote:You’re you, which is nothing to be ashamed of, but means a lot if your opinions fit only those in your pattern or stereotype.

In other words: I cannot possibly be black because I dare to think for myself and don't blindly adhere to whatever nonsense so-called black leaders push.  Yeah, that's not racist at all, Bob.

Quote:Which aren’t exactly numerous.  I’m not saying main line black is significantly better or worse than main line red, main line blue, or any other color combination.  I just don’t see you as main line anything, which is in may ways a good thing.  Who wants to be boring?  But, if you shun the main lines,  you aren’t the pope.

I'm not sure what the Pope has to do with anything, but I'm kinda glad I'm not him seeing as how he's running the Catholic Church into the ground.  But true, I'm not mainline anything, I also never claimed to be.  But I do have many serious criticisms of what black people do, particularly in the name of people who are black.  That of course starts from an understanding that there are only two groups in the US:  Americans and Not-Americans.  As I've said previously I have no use for hyphenated Americans.

Quote:I do know the civil rights movement shifted a lot of party allegiances.  You seem to be trying to deny this and the logic behind it.  I don’t think your beliefs change reality.

I don't deny that the civil rights movement was significant and significantly altered the political landscape.  However, in not denying that, I also don't have to drink the "But the racists switched parties" kool aid when historical facts indicate otherwise.  I strongly recommend that you watch Hillary's America by Dinesh D'Souza (indeed what a terribly white name he has).  The only cure for your blue pilled mentality is to take a red pill.  

Quote:I do have a perceived problem with extreme partisans.  Ideally I’d favor a scientific world view.  You look at reality and build a descriptive method for analyzing and understanding the world.  The extreme partisan approach is in many ways the opposite.  One decides on a method for analyzing and understanding the world, then closes one’s mind to anything that conflicts with the analysis.  A nigh on religious faith in the value of the analysis is common.  My fate seems to be to feud with the many extreme partisans that contribute to these forums, whose world views are many if linked to the individual, varied, and often extremely narrow.  Your tendency seems to be to latch onto a particular partisan world view and ignore any faults it may have.

There are several problems with this.

1.  Generally speaking people are terrible at looking at the world, analysing it logically and developing an ideology from it.  I think both of us try to do this but it is strictly speaking not scientific.
2.  There are a great many partisans on this board, there always were.  To a certain extent I would say that cyclical theories of history allow partisans of whatever stripe assurance that their world view will come back into dominance at some point.
3.  I have many faults, but there is a problem with your assessment.  Civic Nationalism doesn't require me to hold any particular view other than that the Union, and Constitutional government must be preserved.  Any other views I hold besides those two is incidental to the main one of Civic Nationalism.

Quote:You have lately given your loyalty to one guy.

Not really.  If he decides to not follow through on his program I'll abandon him in a heart beat unless it is a Congressional-ly or Judicially induced delay in the long string of winning we need.

Quote:Any reason to question this loyalty gets value locked out of your personal variation of existence.  This isn’t apt to change.  You’ll just issue a papal bull claiming what you don’t want to be so isn’t so.  Not much to be done about it.  However. not much from that perspective is to be taken seriously.

This is an odd position for someone who claims that racism has increased in recent years but has yet failed to produce actual evidence of this happening apart from BLM and Antifa.  I conclude this is a matter of a pot informing a kettle that he is indeed black.  

I find this action amusing since you seem to have assumed that because I don't follow your preconceptions of what a black man is supposed to be like I cannot possibly be black.  It makes me wonder if your head starts to hurt if you have to use doublethink too often.

Quote:Meanwhile, if your basic loyalty isn’t that of a typical black guy,

I'm loyal to the President because he's doing what he needs to do.  He's doing the job I hired him to do.  The fact that some other black people are not loyal to him, dislike him, or whatever is meaningless.   After all about half the population voted for $hillary.

Quote:you’re not much help in building up black generalizations or stereotype.

Skin pigmentation is a  poor method by which to build up generalizations or stereotypes, unless of course your goal is to make racist generalizations.  

 

Quote:I might not be an expert in saying what makes someone culturally ‘black’,

You aren't an expert because for you to be such an expert would require expertise in something that does not exist.  What does Tyrone down the block have in common with a Bushman in deepest darkest Africa?  Pigmentation.  

Black Americans have a culture, it is the same as White Americans or Asian Americans and on and on.  

Quote:Sifting to Trump and the see saw...

Yes lets since you so want to convince me of something for which there is no evidence.

Quote:Trump preempted the Republican base by adapting the unraveling memes and enabling the old racism.

1.  What old racism?  You mean the old GOP which is the reason the voting rights acts and civil rights acts passed.  If LBJ had to rely on the Democrats it would have never been done.
2.  What unraveling memes?  Reagan spoke of "Morning in America" indicating that America is at its greatest point.  The slogan "Make America Great Again" indicates that America was great at some point in the past but is not now great.
3.  Trump did not preempt the Republican base--he preempted the Republican Leadership all of which was at the time Neo-Con in nature.  Trump brought his own base into the GOP which is why he got more blacks, latinos and gays into the party than ever before and why he breeched the blue wall in the Rust Belt and nearly picked up New Hampshire too.

Everything about that sentence is wrong and this is the first point in your see-saw hypothesis.

Quote:Then I look at the dysfunctional White House,

I think that you want the White House to be dysfunctional because "your girl" didn't get into it.  There is no evidence that the White House is dysfunctional at all for reasons I will get to later.

Quote:narcism,

I'm not sure what "narcism" is, I'm assuming you mean narcissism.  I actually expected that.  Honestly I'm surprised that the President has spent so much time at the White House, considering his usual digs the place is a dump.  But lets take a look at the 40+ years that Donald Trump has been in the public eye.  He built his business and brand on not just having a real estate business, he built it on having the best real estate business.  He doesn't want just sinks he wants gold sinks.  He doesn't want a casino he wants the best casino and so on and so on.  He didn't want a tee-vee show he wanted to have the best tee-vee show.

Anyone that expected Donald Trump to get elected and to magically stop being Donald Trump is, to put it mildly, delusional.

Quote:vindictiveness,

His catch phrase isn't "Kumbaya", it is "You're Fired".  He came in and I made the prediction that he would hire a number of people and that before the end of his 1st year most of them would be gone.  Running a business as a manager myself I can tell you that the hardest part of the job is not hiring people, it is firing them.

Quote:a failed agenda, ignored promises,

This failed agenda and ignored promises?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/...-100-days/

That list is a bit dated, but those things he can do he does, those things he has to get Congress to do are a little more troublesome but the President can't be held responsible for the failings of the Congress.  

Quote:sexism,

Citation needed.

Quote:a split dysfunctional party,

The GOP is under going a major restructuring.  The Trumpist faction of the party essentially did a hostile take over of the GOP.  At present there are three factions fighting for dominance and the Neo-Cons are losing big time.

Quote:impulsiveness…

This likely manifests itself in the President throwing bombs on Twitter.  Yeah it probably looks impulsive to those who are beholden to the legacy media and older ways of thinking.  Part of it is him directly throwing red meat to his base, the rest of it is playing the legacy media for the fools that they are and they fall for it every time.

Quote:I still really can’t see Trump building a policy and personality capable of shifting a culture.

Have you been living in a cave for the past two years?  

There is a reason why Google and etc are moving to censor their platforms and the legacy media is seeking to silence alternative media--it is that they are losing.  Did Trump build that?  Probably not, but he certainly has tapped into it.

 

Quote:While you’ve a world view that seems designed to allow your not to see it, I’m anticipating another bounce of the see saw.  What this see saw bounce will lead to, I don’t know.  Ask a blue extreme partisan.  I’m guessing they’ll tell you.  It’s all very clear in the stars, I’m sure.  

I'm not because I correctly recognized the GC.  I expect the Trump's Trumpist base to primary the Neo-Cons in the mid-terms which means that the Democrats may pick up some seats in the House but not enough to take it over, the Senate will be safely Republican but many Neo-Cons will be replaced with Trumpist Civic Nationalists.  And baring the President dying in office or being assassinated he will easily win re-election should he seek a second term which he's likely to do.

As for what the stars say, well they told me that the particular blue partisan you're referring to rarely has contact with reality.  Besides, he's on conceptual ignore anyway unless he invokes my name.

[Kinser79]

(09-05-2017, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

One could reword that.  "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."

If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious.  If one does, you get to a different place.

If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.

The question seems to be who is the pope.

Words are not violence, Bob.  And no amount of sophistry will change that fact.

[pbrower2a]

(09-05-2017, 07:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Kinser

I guess two points.  To some extent most everyone will generalize or stereotype.  To a degree they are just different degrees of the same thing.  I call myself ‘leaning blue’ often, but I see myself looking deeper into the past and guessing further into the future than most.  Also, if anyone thinks I lean blue on gun policy, they will find the errors of the ways real fast.  While I generalize, and see that as unavoidable dealing with huge numbers of people, vile stereotyping and expecting people to live up to the stereotypes is another level.  That is highly problematic if altogether common.

I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

Quote:You (kinser)?  Anyone who jumps from Marx to Trump isn’t going to fit cleanly into the obvious pigeon holes.  I find myself agreeing a lot with what you say about health care.  However, it would seem you favor sharing risks and costs, which puts you quite some distance from many reds.  One of many blindnesses you have is in expecting your chosen father and party to be with you on health care.  I’m doubtful.  Not vital.  I’ll wait and see.

I see Eric Hoffer's True Believer, the sort of person who goes from one fanatical cause to another. Weak on principles and empathy?

Quote:What does it mean to be black?  I don’t mean skin pigmentation.  It’s more about the culture.  Many share a good deal of culture and life experience.  Some diverge strongly.  I don’t think I’d nominate Obama, Carson or yourself as being particularly close to any pattern or stereotype.  Anyone who jumped from Marx to Trump likely shouldn’t center any pattern or stereotype.  You’re you, which is nothing to be ashamed of, but means a lot of your opinions fit only those in your pattern or stereotype.

Black? It is too broad a category for facile stereotypes except appearance. Certain characteristics identify one as black in America, and there is nothing that one can do to not be black in America. There's some vagueness about the validity of the one-drop rule. There may be more secret and unknown African ancestry among people who think themselves white than most of us realize. It need not be obvious, but the one-drop rule has been in effect. For example, the one-drop rule establishes that the late mother of Barack Obama was black -- about 1/16. Maybe that explains some mysteries in family trees.

People have passed -- people who have won the genetic lottery that conceals any obvious African ancestry in outer appearance. I have yet to take one of those genetic tests, and if I ever do I will disclose the results. I do genealogy, and there are some mysteries... and a couple of ancestors who might have had something to hide. So what happens if I find that I am 1/16? I will still consider myself white because I have the typical ties that someone whose grandparents were English, Swiss, German, and Welsh to the 'black' culture of the American South: none at all. I can have empathy for the Civil Rights struggle, recognize the validity of black culture in America, and know that white privilege hurts most black people and see white privilege as something to do away with. But I listen to the wrong music...  

Quote:I do know the civil rights movement shifted a lot of party allegiances.  You seem to be trying to deny this and the logic behind it.  I don’t think your beliefs change reality.

Until the New Deal, blacks were heavily Republican -- Party of Lincoln, get it? In the 1930s, where blacks could vote, they went Democratic. The New Deal was not about keeping blacks in line. Most Southern states were effectively single-Party states, and the white Establishment kept blacks from voting through sundry chicanery. White and black industrial workers chose to work together to get union representation and union wages where the industry was -- up North -- and by the 1960s they agreed that the subjection of the cousins of their black co-workers who had not left the South was wrong.  

Until 1964 the Democratic Party was the party of white privilege at its most blatant in the South.

Quote:I do have a perceived problem with extreme partisans.  Ideally I’d favor a scientific world view.  One looks at reality and build a descriptive method for analyzing and understanding the world.  The extreme partisan approach is in many ways the opposite.  One decides on a method for analyzing and understanding the world, then closes one’s mind to anything that conflicts with the analysis.  A nigh on religious faith in the value of the analysis is common.  My fate seems to be to feud with the many extreme partisans that contribute to these forums, whose world views are many if linked to the individual, varied, and often extremely narrow.  Your tendency seems to be to latch onto a particular partisan world view and ignore any faults it may have.

Show the stats, and except for those that purport to claim that people are in bulk, superior or inferior because of their ethnic origins (unless there is some selection creating such), I will go with the statistics. Many liberals used to believe that poverty and slum-like conditions created crime, probably because such was a pretext for anti-poverty programs. We have found that criminal activity is a choice that most poor people avoid. Incarcerate the one-person crime waves , and street crime plummets. But the idea that poverty created crime neglected that there are good people in the nastiest slums. Do such people deserve better? Probably. Poverty is as raw deal in a culture that values only ostentatious display and not character.

I would like to see the next President treat poverty as something to address with coherent programs (Barack Obama, regrettably, could not address American poverty because he is... you know) instead of treating it as a Third Rail of politics.

Quote:You  (kinser) have lately given your loyalty to one guy.  Any reason to question this loyalty gets value locked out of your personal variation of existence.  This isn’t apt to change.  You’ll just issue a papal bull claiming what you don’t want to be so isn’t so.  Not much to be done about it.  However. not much from that perspective is to be taken seriously.

The Republicans are stuck with Donald Trump and the consequences of his mercurial style of government. We are beginning to see those consequences. I need not go into the details here. Polls that have shown a disapproval rating of 60% even if there are yet no military disasters and the economy has yet to tank indicate that he is touching multitudes the wrong way. About 45% of the American population is decidedly conservative, and some of those seeing something terribly wrong with President Trump are conservatives.

Quote:Meanwhile, if your basic loyalty isn’t that of a typical black guy, you’re not much help in building up black generalizations or stereotype.  I might not be an expert in saying what makes someone culturally ‘black’, but if building a culture or stereotype were my goal, I wouldn’t start with you.  I don’t count that as a big deal insult.  Being kinda unique can be a good thing.  It just doesn’t make you representative.

White people have been able to adopt 'blackness' in culture and appearance. The rewards are small and the difficulties are great.  

Quote:Sifting to Trump and the see saw...

Given an apparent extreme partisan worldview which gives loyalty to Trump, expecting to open your (kinser) eyes seems futile.  The only reason for hope is the ability to leap away from Marx.

But Kinser is still an extremist. The ideology may change, but the arrogance, ruthlessness, and contempt for restraints remains. I have gone from conservative to liberal, but

(1) I have always recognized the rule of law as essential to human rights. The alternative to law and order is lynchings.
(2) I have tried to avoid judging people on their origins. Melanin does not build or destroy character as might exposure to environmental lead and mercury
(3) rational processes work better than anything else, but even they have their limits.
(4) old ethical values are not to be discarded cheaply. They had reason for existence, and one challenges them with due care.
(5) as long as my country is right I am a patriot.
(6) most people have good cause for believing what they do even if such seems wrong.
(7) nobody can prove esthetics.

Quote:Trump preempted the Republican base by adapting the unraveling memes and enabling the old racism.  You won’t want to see this.  I feel a papal bull coming on.  “I don’t like it, thus it mustn’t be so!”  Anyway, I don’t see the culture being transformed by a rehash of obsolete ideas.  That makes me dubious on one level.  Then I look at the dysfunctional White House, narcissism, vindictiveness, a failed agenda, ignored promises, sexism, a split dysfunctional party, impulsiveness…  Well, part of my judgement comes from leaning blue, and that part is to be considered dubious, but I still really can’t see Trump building a policy and personality capable of shifting a culture.  While you’ve a world view that seems designed to allow you not to see it, I’m anticipating another bounce of the see saw.  What this see saw bounce will lead to, I don’t know.  Ask a blue extreme partisan.  I’m guessing they’ll tell you.  It’s all very clear in the stars, I’m sure.

 
We shall see with the electoral results. We do not need a Man on a White Horse promising to solve every problem. I see much evidence of people wondering how they could have voted for him. We have the reality of Sinclair Lewis' fictional President "Berzelius Windrip" about eighty years after he wrote It Can't Happen Here. But it did happen eighty years later, which fits the generational cycle practically a saeculum later. I can't tell you who will be the Lincoln or FDR who gets us out of this mess -- maybe it could be someone more like Barack Obama because the leadership of the Boom Generation has yet to come up with someone who offers the usual strengths of an Idealist generation and rejects the worst.  Maybe the Man on the White Horse is what we least need. We wil need an intelligent, principled leader capable of telling us what we need to do to be the people who deserve what4eveer we need but is then lacking -- victory, civil peace, widespread opportunity, or even coming to terms with an end of the industrial era. Donald Trump is simply not that person.  

Quote:Oh.  And this piece isn’t so much about shifting an extreme partisan world view.  That is unlikely.  It is more about the nature of extreme partisanship.

Reality will crush some extreme positions of partisanship.

[Kinser79]

(09-05-2017, 11:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can think of more important rights than the right to bear a gun, like the right to travel, the right to change jobs, the right to refuse to do certain work, the right to make investments.... and the right to have consensual sex.

The right to bear arms secures all those other rights. If you disbelieve me, what is the first thing any dictator does to his population before he starts shipping them off to Konzentrationslager or Gulag? He disarms them.

Quote:People have passed -- people who have won the genetic lottery that conceals any obvious African ancestry in outer appearance.

Of course because there are no millionaires with African ancestry, no scientists with African ancestry and naturally no Presidents with African ancestry. Or could it be that in America a man who applies himself can accomplish anything he sets his mind to and is actually able to accomplish.

Winning a genetic lottery is being tall enough to compete in the NBA, I don't see many short fat Jewish guys in the NBA. Sorry. Getting rich, or getting power, or getting fame do not require winning such a lottery though. At least not in this country.

White privilege is a myth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...th-reality

Quote:I would like to see the next President treat poverty as something to address with coherent programs (Barack Obama, regrettably, could not address American poverty because he is... you know) instead of treating it as a Third Rail of politics.

There have been anti-poverty programs since the 1960s. The number of people actually in poverty has not decreased one iota. The only conclusion that can be realistically drawn from that information is that anti-poverty programs do not work, or do not work as intended. I would say that they do work precisely as intended, it creates a dependent class that can be threatened with welfare cuts if the Republican gets in. It is somewhat of a masterstroke from Dimocrats.

If the goal is to address poverty then there is only one way to do that. Jobs, and jobs that pay enough that someone can support themselves and their family. In order to acheive this the US has to do several things:

1. Address trade. Service sector jobs simply will never be high paying enough to provide the majority of people who don't have the ability to be doctors and lawyers and so on with a living wage. As such it is prudent to put those people into making things. This means the base is and must be industry, agriculture and construction.
2. Restrict the labor pool. Since labor is a commodity it is subject to supply and demand like all other commodities. Wages too low? Restrict immigration and tightness in the job market will in short order bring rising wages.
3. People with rising wages will desire more services which will soak up the remainder of the unemployed. There should be no immigration into the country allowed unless the US already has full employment (and I mean the real numbers not the cooked numbers).

Quote:The Republicans are stuck with Donald Trump and the consequences of his mercurial style of government. We are beginning to see those consequences. I need not go into the details here. Polls that have shown a disapproval rating of 60%

National polls are meaningless for reasons I've addressed earlier. Polls that don't publish their methodology are worse than useless.

Quote:even if there are yet no military disasters and the economy has yet to tank

1. No one can predict the future of any military actions with any degree of accuracy. That being said, taking out the DPRK, which is necessary, should be a piece of cake if we can keep the PRC out of the peninsula.
2. The economy grew at 3% last quarter, the first time it did so in over 10 years! The leading indicators are all up, probably because the President is addressing the trade problem and the labor surplus.

Quote:About 45% of the American population is decidedly conservative, and some of those seeing something terribly wrong with President Trump are conservatives.

Citation needed. My experience indicates that, at least in Florida, the people who voted for Trump still support him. As such I'm going to require evidence otherwise this statement is just wishful thinking on your part.

Quote:White people have been able to adopt 'blackness' in culture and appearance. The rewards are small and the difficulties are great.  

Rachel Dolezal aside, most white people have no desire to be black. Most black people have no desire to be white. Let me illustrate it this way, and it applies to dick girls and vagina boys too.

I like cats, says person A.
I like dogs, says person B.
I am a cat trapped in a dog's body, says person C.

Person C is obviously mentally ill.

In the US there is only one nation, Americans, and one culture, American. You are either an American or you are not.

Quote:But Kinser is still an extremist.

Yes. Let me remind you: Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Quote: I see much evidence of people wondering how they could have voted for him.

Then you surely have citations for when I say a citation is needed then. My experience indicates otherwise, and I deal with the public nearly daily. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your paragraph since it is just the same old canned nonsense you spout off with every other post. Get some new material PBR.

Quote:Reality will crush some extreme positions of partisanship.

Yes it will. I love seeing boomer ideologues getting crushed. Unfortunately it disconcerts my boyfriend when I start quoting labor statistics and GDP figures when we're fucking.

[Warren Dew]

(09-04-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You know, in a lot of ways it would be nice to have a black perspective.  Instead, we have a black guy who goes against the grain, fighting the usual black perspective.

Can't have those colored folk thinking for themselves, can we, eh, Bob?  Next thing you know, they'll be demanding to vote for the party of their choice, instead of the party that white Democrats choose for them.  They might even get it in their heads that they're smart enough to decide for themselves what's good for them, rather than trusting your superior white version of "the usual black perspective".

The sad thing is, you seem to be too clueless even to recognize the disgusting bigotry in your posts. You probably can't even see that even the idea that there's a "usual black perspective" is one of those "vile stereotypes" that you constantly complain about.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2017, 10:34 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 08:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: An attack on someone's unpopular speech today is an attack on everyone's speech, popular or unpopular, tomorrow. 

One could reword that.  "An attack on someone's hurtful speech today is an attack on everyone's hurtful speech tomorrow."

If one doesn't consider any speech to be hurtful, the conclusion is rather obvious.  If one does, you get to a different place.

If one is the pope, and can write a papal bull settling the hurtful question, one can create a world where the question is obvious and answered.

The question seems to be who is the pope.

Words are not violence, Bob.  And no amount of sophistry will change that fact.

Some feel controlling violence is not the only thing the government should do.  No confusing of your opinion with universal fact will change that.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-05-2017, 04:22 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-04-2017, 07:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You know, in a lot of ways it would be nice to have a black perspective.  Instead, we have a black guy who goes against the grain, fighting the usual black perspective.

Can't have those colored folk thinking for themselves, can we, eh, Bob?  Next thing you know, they'll be demanding to vote for the party of their choice, instead of the party that white Democrats choose for them.  They might even get it in their heads that they're smart enough to decide for themselves what's good for them, rather than trusting your superior white version of "the usual black perspective".

The sad thing is, you seem to be too clueless even to recognize the disgusting bigotry in your posts.  You probably can't even see that even the idea that there's a "usual black perspective" is one of those "vile stereotypes" that you constantly complain about.

I differentiate between a generalization and vile stereotype.  For black people, I'm no expert on what this might be, though in a forum dedicated to cyclical group behavior, I'll more favor the generalization. I do occasionally glance at polls showing how they voted.  I don't feel a need to repeat them.

I do believe there is culture, experience, history and more that shapes them and which they can share.  Not much my place to do so save by listening.  That you can associate this only with vile stereotypes is unfortunate.