The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-17-2017, 03:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 03:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

I would, of course, disagree.

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

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

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

My feeling, though, is that I’m dealing with unidentified and unquestioned assumptions.  Much of the ‘conversation’ here is just ever louder stating of assumptions.  Destination?  Nowhere.