What is our 4T contest about? Can we see it differently?

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-11-2017, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-11-2017, 12:30 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Globalism/nationalism.  No,no, no Eric. Nationalism just states that there exists nations which have actual borders, not the strange tripe you mentioned. Humans are just wired for hierarchy so that's why kumbaya globalism falls flat on its face.  That basically means the antipode of globalism = economic nationalism, which put the nation of interest's economy first, and globalism which is just nothing but put's a nation and it's peoples' economic interests subordinate to some globalism's agenda of no nations, no sets of workers, but rather some borderless mess of assorted workers in different places. That means mutinats have full access without penalty to the cheapest labor. That's what capitalism is all about, silly. Find the cheapest inputs and make something for the highest price. Nationalism is a sure fire way to insert other interests besides profits.

What strange tripe? That we are all humans and all have basic rights and values? No, that's the truth. Humans are wired for truth, as well as for outdated social orders. We just need to pay attention. But I don't know why you are "ragging" on me with the rest of your paragraph; it should have been clear that I basically agree.

I was just "ragging" on the 1st point of what nationalism is about in general. I just consider nationalism without some qualifier as other issue neutral. It's when nationalism per se is added as a plank to some other agenda that it can be bad or good. Brexit for example is good because the EU is a failed project, IMO.

The antipode of globalism is economic nationalism EXCEPT that people latch xenophobia, racism and war onto "anti-globalism" and the conspiracy theories about the UN and the one world order. So, lets have the nationalism that makes sense, and the globalism that makes sense. That should be clear what I was saying, Mr. Rags,

I don't have much issue with the UN but some "world order" of some sort is silly.

Quote:2. Peace movement. Yes, by all means. I know you just don't like it when I point out again, that peace is best served right now by stopping wars of choice. And... again, the US military should not be the virtual firehouse when some activity overseas make people here feel bad.

Again, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Why is that, Rags? I don't agree with wars of choice, generally. We can disagree with the policy of helping the Iraqis defeat the IS, with only US special forces and bombing. You can call that a war of choice. Yes, I am in favor of Obama's policy on that, and you are not. Fair enough.

See that's a difference right there. Our definitions of "war" are different.  I have a broad definition of what "war" is. War = any action involving force between political actors.  The US is conduction war in Syria by the insertion of special forces and bombing campaigns.

Quote:But don't say I am defending a "war of choice" that doesn't exist, such as the USA fighting Assad. We are not, and those are two completely different wars. They are NOT the same war, although saying so fits in with Monster Assad's propaganda.

That's another point of disagreement. I also have a broad definition of "wars of choice". Wars of choice are any war that:
1. Does not involve a direct threat to US citizens.
2. Retaliation against deaths/injuries to US citizens from a foreign actor.

Assad has done neither which means wars against him are invalid.

Quote:I strongly dissent from not recognizing that other governments and tyrants cause wars and war crimes besides just the USA. The USA has done it (as in Iraq in 2003-08, and Vietnam in 1965-1973). But the USA is certainly not the only government or empire in the world that has committed war crimes. What Assad is doing is a new holocaust, and it's wrong to deny it, or to deny that the real Syrians rose up in revolution against tyranny, and are still fighting it. You are not interested in them. OK fine. But that's no excuse for making up stuff. Tulsi makes up stuff. Not good for a potential presidential candidate to do, and no better than Trump who does it.

Just because Tulsi's findings do a mindfuck to Eric's worldview does not in any shape or manner invalidate such findings.
It is up to warmongers like Mcstain to also go get verifiable facts like Tulsi did if he does not agree.

Quote:That doesn't mean I advocate that the US declare war on Assad and send troops, or even bombing him. I don't. Ideally, but extremely unlikely, would be an alliance of the entire world against him, and then we could throw him out easily. That doesn't seem to be in the cards, so no, I don't want US troops in Syria fighting the Russians and Iranians.

That's one of the biggest problems since 'Nam. Undeclared wars which is exactly what's going on in Syria. Congress needs to man up and either declare war or defund anything they do not declare war on.

Quote:3. War on drugs is another war of choice. This one directs resources that can be used elsewhere and most of those elsewhere's are far better than warehousing lots of Americans in prison.

Agreed, of course. And Trump wants to send troops to Mexico to make it an actual war of choice.


Yes. Mexico is a sovereign country and should be treated as such. Mexico should not pay for the wall either. It's our wall and we should pay for it.

Quote:4. Justice/fairness: Really Eric? That's a broad topic. Essentially, it should just mean following the constitution. Justice demands that each individual, not group! have a fair shot to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. SJW's and snowflakes focus on group outcomes which do not equate to equal opportunity.  The same goes for religious freaks who likewise think everyone else is lacking in a certain "truth" they themselves only possess and insist on fobbing said "truths" on everyone else.  Essentially, how many people really like being nagged by self righteous morons?

Of course, justice and fairness. Really. And that is more than the constitution; it's an inherent value. And we do need to focus on groups, but only because those who unjustly discriminate and profile focus on them. I don't have a problem with SJWs and snowflakes. I'm sorry you do, but it seems like a matter of taste regarding presentation, rather than a beef with justice itself. Anyone can go overboard with nagging and single-issue dogma. That has nothing to do with justice, right?

Guess why I have a problem with SJW's and snowflakes?  It's the exact same reason I have a problem with Jesusfreaks, your term.

Both of them try to TELL OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO THINK AND ACT!  I despise both of them and a pox on both houses.