The Maelstrom of Violence

[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.