The Maelstrom of Violence

[Mikebert]

About the NRA ad. Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales? Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport. How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns? Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals. What is the purpose of a military weapon? To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment, military-styled semi-automatic weapons. What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement. Guns in the first two categories are tools. Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

[Eric the Green]

Quote:I'd like to see you live up to the boast. If someone disagrees with you, they are demonized. Your personal point of view is presumed to be correct, and anyone who disagrees with you must be utterly defeated. Are you going to stop telling people they are wrong and demanding they change or allow themselves to be politically subdued?

No, not in all cases. The Republican Party is bankrupt; it needs to be politically defeated and put out to pasture. That is my honest and well-considered opinion. I admit this goal is not going well.

Quote:You straw man quite a bit. You have odd ideas on how they other guys think that seldom mesh with how they are actually thinking. Not just you by any means. It's a common problem. It's a core part of why extreme partisans can't communicate.

I understand the opposing perspectives all too well.

Quote:

Quote:Eric the Green
I agree about major world views having solid reasons for coming into existence. That's what spiral/planetary dynamics is about, and the review of planetary types I posted by Vic DiCara. Now though, our regressives are clinging to these memes when they need to move beyond them. Those who perpetuate these deceptions I might call demons, because I am angry at what they do. But I don't hate people, or dismiss the possibility that anyone has the potential to see the inherent light within them.

Planetary Dynamics isn't dynamic. You have clumped various world views / memes / areas of human endeavor into groups, associated these groups with planets and colors, and made value judgements about which groups are better than others. It's a pretty good structure reflecting your schemes of things. Those who think like you are good. Those who don't are bad. You listen to some folks well, and reject what comes from other groups. It isn't a bad structure, so long as you understand that everybody forms different world view groups, embraces certain groups, rejects other groups. Your prejudices are not uniquely true in any way. The basic structure of Planetary Dynamics can be used as a model of how extreme partisans think. They make up their mind in advance as to what they will embrace, what they will reject. Late night comics good. NRA bad.

Planetary Dynamics is dynamic, and includes within it the types you have described as tribal, agricultural, industrial and informational, and in exactly the same way; plus you have mentioned some of the same subdivisions as are in this theory and its original spiral dynamics.

It is indeed very dynamic because it's evolutionary, and also says that the "more evolved" types or phases in history transcend and include previous ones, so it can't be used to reject less-evolved phases entirely, since they have valuable aspects to them, and as you said, came into existence for a reason; they fit the need of their times and were the next step forward in their time. But yes, any typology can be used to judge and group people too much, and no-one fits into any group completely.

Planetary and Spiral Dynamics help us understand the phases in history and their place in evolution. I think it's also true that the value-memes in these groups can be held in very narrow ways, and the people who do this are typically the groups I criticize. That would include nefarious, horrific groups like the KKK and the current NRA leaders; as well as Christian and Muslim fundamentalists (narrow-minded blue/Jupiter) and Reaganomics/libertarian economics neo-liberal believers (narrow-minded version of Orange or Uranus), who may or may not be horrific, but whose fanatical dedication to their memes and ideologies is in fact keeping our nation from progressing. So, the distinction I make is really an add-on to Planetary Dynamics, in which people cling to the values-memes in a narrow-minded (and "demonically-possessed") way that impedes rather than furthers both evolution and integration in which the earlier memes are included in a holistic approach.

Quote:Now, I can agree with you that certain world views and memes are obsolete to dangerous. The unraveling memes are key among them. (Trickle down, borrow and spend, cut domestic services, spend on the military, the government is the problem.) At a different level, tribal morality is a problem. Many are out to optimize the culture for their own group, and diminish or disparage other groups. In the health care debate, this sort of thinking has been expressed as "I've got mine, up yours." The idea seems behind much racist thinking, and the alt right's opposition to equality, the notion that striving for equality is a form of tyranny and oppression. (This isn't to say that striving for equality can't be overdone.)

As I would say, a narrow rather than "enlightened" version of the Orange/classical-liberal/Uranus meme in the first case, and of the Purple/tribal/Mercury meme in the second.

Quote:But it seems safe to suggest that everyone has a set of memes they think obsolete, and a set of memes that they advocate for. The above paragraph tops my personal list. While convincing me that the above aren't important will be hard, I'm not going to pretend my list is uniquely universal or the only possible list. I also completely expect those who disagree with me to believe in and defend well memes which oppose mine.

And this forum is a place for such activity.

Agreed. Yes it is.

Quote:

Quote:Eric the Green
Demonic means that one is possessed by something not themselves. I know that this happens to all of us, much of the time.

Huh? You seem to be throwing in some of your magical thinking? The nuns fed me stories as a kid of demons taking over people, among other stories, with no real evidence. Are you talking about magical thinking or is that some sort of allegory for your understanding of psychology?

Anyway, my own recent use of 'demon' is that demons demonize people. Commonly, extreme partisans will insult, disparage and fail to understand extreme partisans of opposite ilk. I see this as a problem, a character flaw, a way of thinking that one might strive to overcome. Extreme partisans might see the tendency as a virtue. Since side A is right, side B is wrong, it is acceptable to exaggerate, spin, insult, make fun of and in any way diminish the other guy. This can definitely be taken too far. It's a good excuse for the other guys to ignore everything that is being said, to respond in kind.

I've gone over that with you before. Are there any conversations we have that we have not been through before, again and again?

Normally, being "possessed by demons" is indeed a popular, allegorical phrase meaning that parts of yourself, or influences external to you, take you over. It does not necessarily refer to literal demons, although in my own "magical thinking" I also have no problem considering them to be a factor for some people, and which priests used to handle in exorcism. So, you can pigeonhole me as stuck in Purple/Mercury if you want.

I don't see you as qualified to see my character flaws. Look at the man in the mirror.

I understand your meaning, which is allegorical too. I would see that if people are unwilling to hear what others say, it might indicate possession in my first sense. But it is mostly the case that politicians and pundits like Trump have possessed people, hypnotized and brainwashed people, and that this has occurred mostly on the right; although some extremists on the left (some berniebots or establishment lackeys, perhaps), might also be possessed by their fanatical devotion to their candidate or cause. But I don't see Hillary or Bernie being as nearly as much of a hypnotic demagogue as I see Trump. He is a classic case.

So, those whom I "demonize" in your sense, are in fact, in my opinion, demonically-possessed in the allegorical sense. I am just calling out and "exorcizing" the demons.

Am I an extreme partisan, as others and yourself have labelled me? Not exactly.

I am extreme partisan in a negative sense, since as I see it now, the Republican Party is bankrupt and the only thing to do with them is vote them out of office. Not shoot them though.

Just "demonizing" them won't do the trick, but I am not in charge of campaigns against them. The most I and others can do is post the facts as well as we can, hoping to reach some young people or a few others who may be open to these facts, such as the facts about global warming and inequality, and government policies that affect them.

But I am not extreme partisan in the sense that I simply parrot the positions of Democratic Party leaders. I speak my mind on each issue as I see it. I am not a registered Democrat, but a Green, and I don't even cling to the Green Party line either, all the time. Supporting Democrats just seems to be usually the best way right now to defeat Republicans.

[Eric the Green]

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

What Bob does is, whenever I express something he disagrees with, and disagree with him on facts, he tends to "demonize" me as someone who ALWAYS is unable to deal with facts, if they offend my cherished world view.

The NRA (or at least its current leadership; not indeed necessarily every member) deals only in lies, and no, I will not debate anyone on this topic. (and I agree with mikebert's statements above about them; bravo!)

No, I don't think violence is justified-- unless, when a nation or its allies are under attack, it MIGHT be; or police restraining criminals in a lawful manner (sadly, often not the case today especially in black neighborhoods). No, I did not approve of the attempted assassination of Scalise, and I prayed for his recovery. I DO hope that he and others of his ilk are voted out of office. A faint hope in his case.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

The bold thought did occur to me.  If so, they are ready to escalate the spiral of rhetoric for the sake of profit.  I'd view this as irresponsible, but don't know their real motivation.

[Mikebert]

(07-03-2017, 05:09 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

The bold thought did occur to me.  If so, they are ready to escalate the spiral of rhetoric for the sake of profit.  I'd view this as irresponsible, but don't know their real motivation.

I can't think of a better reason for escalating the spiral of rhetoric. Profit is a sacrosant conservative value. The idea of leftists being scary to conservative gun owners seems like a stretch to me. Any of the conservative gun owners here find the ad scary?

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

He did dispute the facts, calling the NRA add a lie without any evidence or attempt to fact check.  When asked to provide evidence and fact checking, he just refused.  His standard of truth is that he can declare anything that conflicts with his worldview a lie without basis.  I think the NRA ad significant enough that Eric shouldn't be allowed to get away with his lies.

To me, I thought the NRA ad a high powered attempt to take the high road on political violence, amplified by having the factual claims true, though highly selective and suggesting the extreme blue perspective is held by lots of blues.  They might, as Mikebert suggested, have been trying to sell guns as well.  I think they knew full well that they were presenting a loaded piece of work, and went out of the way to both back their position with demonstrable truth and stay that millimeter and a half short of an all out call to violence.

The ad is a notable bit of work that should be allowed to stand on its own.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 05:27 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 05:09 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

The bold thought did occur to me.  If so, they are ready to escalate the spiral of rhetoric for the sake of profit.  I'd view this as irresponsible, but don't know their real motivation.

I can't think of a better reason for escalating the spiral of rhetoric. Profit is a sacrosant conservative value. The idea of leftists being scary to conservative gun owners seems like a stretch to me. Any of the conservative gun owners here find the ad scary?

Interesting question. With fully automatic fire disabled, the civilian versions of the military weapons aren't more effective functionally. They just set a different mood and attitude.

As far as I know, the reasons for the physical differences in construction was originally economic. Traditional civilian guns often feature fancy woodwork, unnecessary, decorative without impacting function. To the military with limited budgets, they aren't going to pay for fancy woodwork. You get bare metal anodized black.

[Warren Dew]

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

I'm pretty sure it was an ad to promote NRA membership, like most NRA ads.

When the left gets a win, they push further.  They got gay marriage, so now they're pushing to force people to participate and be supportive of gay marriage ceremonies even if that's against those people's religious beliefs.  They'll be pushing to force churches to perform the ceremonies next.

The NRA didn't do that.  They fought for the right to own firearms, successfully, but they didn't follow that up by aggressively pursuing concealed carry and open carry.  As a result, they lost the support of the militia movement folks for being allegedly insufficiently supportive of the second amendment.

This video appears to me to be an attempt to get those people back on board with the NRA.

[Warren Dew]

(07-03-2017, 05:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

He did dispute the facts, calling the NRA add a lie without any evidence or attempt to fact check.

He said the NRA lies.  He didn't specifically say anything about the ad, probably because he didn't bother viewing it.

[Bob Butler 54]

In a thread focused on the NRA add at the time, close enough. I don't doubt your guess that he didn't read the add.

[Warren Dew]

(07-03-2017, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

What Bob does is, whenever I express something he disagrees with, and disagree with him on facts, he tends to "demonize" me as someone who ALWAYS is unable to deal with facts, if they offend my cherished world view.

The NRA (or at least its current leadership; not indeed necessarily every member) deals only in lies, and no, I will not debate anyone on this topic. (and I agree with mikebert's statements above about them; bravo!)

No, I don't think violence is justified-- unless, when a nation or its allies are under attack, it MIGHT be; or police restraining criminals in a lawful manner (sadly, often not the case today especially in black neighborhoods). No, I did not approve of the attempted assassination of Scalise, and I prayed for his recovery. I DO hope that he and others of his ilk are voted out of office. A faint hope in his case.

Interesting.  So where do you draw the line?

- Do you object to protesters who beat people up who are trying to enter a Trump rally?

- Do you object to protesters who prevent Milo whatshisname from speaking by breaking windows and burning cars?

- Do you object to protesters who block interstate highways to try to get more news coverage?

If none of these, how do you think the crisis will be resolved?

[pbrower2a]

(07-01-2017, 09:37 PM)Galen Wrote:

(06-30-2017, 10:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-30-2017, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote: A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'

They do stop short of being 'an open call to violence'... by about a millimeter and a half.  An interesting point is that most of the accusations against the blue are pretty much true.  The one about schools teaching children that Trump is Hitler is a new one to me.  What school districts are doing that?

Pretty much my take on it.  As for the schools, it depends on where you live.  In my experience teachers have pretty much tended toward the left even though there are exceptions.  Hell, at PSU we had outright communists there so that accusation is not far from the truth and definitely true at the university level.

Teaching, that is, graduates of 'education' departments tend to fill with people who distrust corporate bureaucracies. K-12 teaching may not be one of the most lucrative of careers, but it does not compel one to believe the agenda of the economic elites that has generally shown itself narcissists believing in an unqualified Social Darwinism. Teaching is one of the least bureaucratic of activities, as shown by the high ratio of supervised people to supervisors.

Teachers do not need to be promoters of the mindless materialism that much of Corporate America treats as the ideal way of thought of the masses. For someone in distress (and I have been in deep distress due to a hopeless situation involving parents for which I took responsibility), turning to this





(Schubert's Octet for winds and strings)

makes more sense than does going on a shopping binge that puts several hundred dollars on a charge card, especially when the situation in which I was in precluded my participation in the money-grubbing world that is America. I had lost my life savings in the situation, and from this I may never recover. This music reminded me that there is more to life than a very bad moment of economic ruin and personal despair. This could do more good for me than could buying some bling; buying some bling would simply give me the ephemeral high that one gets from impulse shopping and leave me very quickly as a person in emotional distress with a little more bling and much more debt.



But that says nothing about the vile economic order that we have suggests that it is just as noble to profiteer off human suffering than it is to make the world a happier place. In our system, profit is the sole measure of virtue irrespective of the human cost. But this has a corollary in the disparity in value between human lives, something inconsistent with the values of three of four parts of the American heritage at the time of the American Revolution.  The fourth was slave-owning planters whose devaluation of the lives of slaves has now been completely discredited.  

The Hard Right that you believe in, no matter what cultural difference you may have from a President who already resembles one of the unholy trinity of the most despised of Roman Emperors (Nero, Caligula, and Commodus), has no problem with mass suffering so long as it enriches and indulges the Right People. Yes, the three most despised Roman Emperors are so despised because they bled the treasury to entertain people, and it is the elites or Rome (the Senatorial class) who used that unsavory trio as examples of misrule including an odd combination of cultural populism, character assassination of dissidents that culminated in literal murder, sexual misconduct, and abuse of power for the satiation of the ego of the bad Emperors. 

Donald Trump is not that bad -- yet. But if he showed signs of getting that bad I would expect the military to take him down as did the Roman military take down Nero, Caligula, and Commodus. But even he is a symptom, and not a cause, of the sickness of America as a social order. Aside from technology and the level of development, a big difference between the United States and Imperial Rome (or for late-Republican Rome which may be a better analogy) is that we have a heritage of elections in which most people can participate. It is my hope that we can simply outlast a President who has contempt for a majority of the People (as shown in polls that already show disapproval of the President ranging from the middle fifties to as much as 60%) and for the people that our political system (the free press, understood now to mean the news media) deputed to monitor the achievements and failures of our political leaders.

I can already think of what the Armed Forces, law enforcement, and the intelligence services would do if the President gave them orders to do something so outrageous as murder the opponents of this horrid President. They would turn on him, and they would insist upon a successor who agrees to do nothing outrageous. At that, a conservative version of Barack Obama would be the solution for the time.

...It is a good thing that America does not exist solely to enrich and indulge elites, and that there are valid roles for many people who find capitalism at its rawest objectionable yet have the talent to do something good without being ideological flunkies. Were I to give career advice to most intelligent, decent people I would tell them to steer clear of Corporate America with its rigid and low glass ceilings. I would have been better off as a policeman than as a glorified clerk in some for-profit entity. Busting a meth lab is far nobler than is hustling people into signing up for cable service. A poorly-paid Protestant pastor can at least pray with someone in economic distress instead of preying on people in economic distress as does some payday-loan place.

Medicine, law, engineering, academia, K-12 teaching, the military, law enforcement, scientific research, religious life, creative activities, and owning and operating a small business all look like better routes to even a modest measure of success than does joining some corporate bureaucracy. You, Galen, endorse capitalism at its worst, which is almost as objectionable as Bolshevism -- because capitalism at its worst gives the world fascism.

This is a 4T, and all other 4Ts have forced Americans to re-examine the fundamental beliefs that underpin American life. In the last Crisis American leadership reached to the heritage of righteousness that rejected a tyrannical king and his flunkies in the American Revolution and that found that claims that America stood for freedom was inconsistent with chattel slavery. When it came necessary to defeat the despotic empires of enslavement and mass-murder in Germany and Japan, America chose to use a legacy of righteousness to smite despotism and free slaves. Maybe in this Crisis we Americans struggle with the demons in our nature and in our institutions. In this we must succeed on our own. I would not want India, Indonesia, or Japan -- let alone China! -- be arbiters of what the next era of American history be like. We solve our problems ourselves -- lest others solve those problems for us on their terms.

[gabrielle]

(07-03-2017, 05:27 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 05:09 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

The bold thought did occur to me.  If so, they are ready to escalate the spiral of rhetoric for the sake of profit.  I'd view this as irresponsible, but don't know their real motivation.

I can't think of a better reason for escalating the spiral of rhetoric. Profit is a sacrosant conservative value. The idea of leftists being scary to conservative gun owners seems like a stretch to me. Any of the conservative gun owners here find the ad scary?

No, the ad was meant to be scary to liberals.  Perhaps it will prompt gun sales--among those seeking to protect themselves from would-be enforcers of "clenched fist of Truth."

[Eric the Green]

(07-03-2017, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

What Bob does is, whenever I express something he disagrees with, and disagree with him on facts, he tends to "demonize" me as someone who ALWAYS is unable to deal with facts, if they offend my cherished world view.

The NRA (or at least its current leadership; not indeed necessarily every member) deals only in lies, and no, I will not debate anyone on this topic. (and I agree with mikebert's statements above about them; bravo!)

No, I don't think violence is justified-- unless, when a nation or its allies are under attack, it MIGHT be; or police restraining criminals in a lawful manner (sadly, often not the case today especially in black neighborhoods). No, I did not approve of the attempted assassination of Scalise, and I prayed for his recovery. I DO hope that he and others of his ilk are voted out of office. A faint hope in his case.

Interesting.  So where do you draw the line?

- Do you object to protesters who beat people up who are trying to enter a Trump rally?

- Do you object to protesters who prevent Milo whatshisname from speaking by breaking windows and burning cars?

- Do you object to protesters who block interstate highways to try to get more news coverage?

If none of these, how do you think the crisis will be resolved?

I said where I draw the line.

I object to protesters who beat people up and break windows, although I note the fact that Trump is the first major USA candidate who encouraged his followers to beat people up.

I don't object so much to protesters who block traffic, although I suppose if I were stuck in a traffic jam caused by protesters, I don't know what I'd think.

I decided to drive to a small protest rally on Jan 21, and wondered if they would block the street I was on while I was driving to their rally. I didn't really know much about the group putting it on.

They did go into the streets, shouting "whose street? Our street!" but I stayed on the sidewalk. Noone was really blocked though. They kept moving. The police came out in force and arrested a few of them. Over-reaction, I thought. But some people of the same group back in DC did break windows on inauguration day, so I guess the police concluded that our group would do that. A false conclusion; this group was roudy, but not destructive at all.

The next day I rode my bike over to the famous "women's march." It was bigger than I expected, and the street was so crowded that it took me a while to get my bike through it to where I could lock it up in the rack. But no problem with the police that time with the people crowding up the whole street.

It does now appear that the 4T will involve some violence; perhaps a serious rebellion. Whoever violently rebels, I predict, will lose. Elections are still the key, and your side has a very easy time getting people to buy into your slogans. so it's gonna be tough indeed to get this country moving in the right direction after 40 years of blatant nonsense. Secession is a possibility, and that sort of rebellion may be able to succeed.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

What Bob does is, whenever I express something he disagrees with, and disagree with him on facts, he tends to "demonize" me as someone who ALWAYS is unable to deal with facts, if they offend my cherished world view.

The NRA (or at least its current leadership; not indeed necessarily every member) deals only in lies, and no, I will not debate anyone on this topic. (and I agree with mikebert's statements above about them; bravo!)

The particular NRA ad in question is somewhat unusual in that they anchor the emotion and values behind the ad in solid fact.  Thus, I find this a good example of Eric's tendency to disregard facts which conflict with his world view, and he refuses to even examine the issue.  A statement of his word view is just asserted like it was papal bull.  I'm sorry, but he isn't the Pope.

Me, I'd rather talk about the NRA ad, but Eric won't.  Instead, he turns it into a personal attack.  I'd much rather discuss the issues.  As he won't talk issue and fact, we have a tedious between poster squabble.

We both lean left and agree on a lot of blue basics.  We've participated in many gun policy discussions, particularly the legal aspect, but he refuses to educate himself on the law or accept anything the NRA says.  He indulges in magical thinking quite a bit, which to me is not a source of objective fact.  Mostly, though, he has asserted that anyone who disagrees with him must be subdued or defeated.  In the past, this has accompanied a failure to understand why the red folk are upset or why.  He is talking a different game lately, but I haven't really seen the change in his posts.  If he lives up to his recent boasts, fine.

[Odin]

(07-02-2017, 09:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: This is the same CNN  that had to fire a couple of reporters for lying about the administration, right?  They need to "start" doing their job; they can't "keep" doing it when they haven't done it to date.

Reputable media outlets fire journalists who lie? WHY THE FUCK IS THIS SOME KIND OF SCANDAL? You idiots are engaging in the same kind of authoritarian reasoning that leads religious fundamentalists to reject science because it's fallible and "scientists change what they believe all the time".

[pbrower2a]

(07-02-2017, 09:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: This is the same CNN  that had to fire a couple of reporters for lying about the administration, right?  They need to "start" doing their job; they can't "keep" doing it when they haven't done it to date.

Good journalistic organizations screen potential journalists (this includes photographers) for competence and integrity. On occasion a bad one slips in, as has manifested itself with some reporters who have fabricated or plagiarized stories. Get caught faking or plagiarizing stories or even pressing something inconsequential as a major scandal, and your career is through as a journalist. One journalist who fabricated a story was discovered five years later doing a minimum-wage job in a department store.

If Jayson Blair has a job in the newspaper business, it is delivering them on a paper route to supplement his meager income.

[Bob Butler 54]

As CNN tried to spin it, the reporters were fired not for posting a false story, but for posting a story with only one source. It amounts to the same thing. Anyone can make up a story. CNN likes to have two sources so there is some chance it is true as well as being something in the single source's agenda.

[Eric the Green]

(07-04-2017, 07:24 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

What Bob does is, whenever I express something he disagrees with, and disagree with him on facts, he tends to "demonize" me as someone who ALWAYS is unable to deal with facts, if they offend my cherished world view.

The NRA (or at least its current leadership; not indeed necessarily every member) deals only in lies, and no, I will not debate anyone on this topic. (and I agree with mikebert's statements above about them; bravo!)

The particular NRA ad in question is somewhat unusual in that they anchor the emotion and values behind the ad in solid fact.  Thus, I find this a good example of Eric's tendency to disregard facts which conflict with his world view, and he refuses to even examine the issue.  A statement of his word view is just asserted like it was papal bull.  I'm sorry, but he isn't the Pope.

Me, I'd rather talk about the NRA ad, but Eric won't.  Instead, he turns it into a personal attack.  I'd much rather discuss the issues.  As he won't talk issue and fact, we have a tedious between poster squabble.

We both lean left and agree on a lot of blue basics.  We've participated in many gun policy discussions, particularly the legal aspect, but he refuses to educate himself on the law or accept anything the NRA says.  He indulges in magical thinking quite a bit, which to me is not a source of objective fact.  Mostly, though, he has asserted that anyone who disagrees with him must be subdued or defeated.  In the past, this has accompanied a failure to understand why the red folk are upset or why.  He is talking a different game lately, but I haven't really seen the change in his posts.  If he lives up to his recent boasts, fine.

The only "ad in question" I see in this thread is the one posted by Odin. I don't see any facts in that ad; it's just pro-Trump lies and propaganda, and allusions to stand with the gun toters as the guarantors of "freedom." Trump's version of "freedom" seems a lot like Mussolini's to me (Trump is Mussolini's reincarnation, according to my "magical" way of thinking)

I don't have to turn anything into a personal attack on me by you, if that's just what it was in the first place. Hint: my "demonizing" of opponents is not a personal attack on you. You saying I always disregard facts and say all who disagree with me must be subdued, is exaggerated, and thus a personal attack on me. It just shows again you don't live up to what you say people here should do.

There's no use asking me to examine or debate something you already KNOW that I won't, and then complain I don't regard facts. You are just setting yourself up for frustration and anger at me. Just be wiser and let it go, and admit that Eric is not going to agree with Bob on everything. No-one will agree with you or me on everything. It will brighten your day

[Warren Dew]

(07-04-2017, 12:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-01-2017, 06:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But you don't seem to deal with that level of fact.  Fact seems irrelevant to you.  If something is unpleasant to your world view, you will call it a lie, with absolutely no attempt to fact check.

I could be wrong, but I doubt Eric would dispute the facts.  I suspect his position is that he believes the violence on the part of the left is necessary and justified, up to and including the attempted assassination of Scalise.

What Bob does is, whenever I express something he disagrees with, and disagree with him on facts, he tends to "demonize" me as someone who ALWAYS is unable to deal with facts, if they offend my cherished world view.

The NRA (or at least its current leadership; not indeed necessarily every member) deals only in lies, and no, I will not debate anyone on this topic. (and I agree with mikebert's statements above about them; bravo!)

No, I don't think violence is justified-- unless, when a nation or its allies are under attack, it MIGHT be; or police restraining criminals in a lawful manner (sadly, often not the case today especially in black neighborhoods). No, I did not approve of the attempted assassination of Scalise, and I prayed for his recovery. I DO hope that he and others of his ilk are voted out of office. A faint hope in his case.

Interesting.  So where do you draw the line?

- Do you object to protesters who beat people up who are trying to enter a Trump rally?

- Do you object to protesters who prevent Milo whatshisname from speaking by breaking windows and burning cars?

- Do you object to protesters who block interstate highways to try to get more news coverage?

If none of these, how do you think the crisis will be resolved?

I said where I draw the line.

I object to protesters who beat people up and break windows, although I note the fact that Trump is the first major USA candidate who encouraged his followers to beat people up.

I don't object so much to protesters who block traffic, although I suppose if I were stuck in a traffic jam caused by protesters, I don't know what I'd think.

I decided to drive to a small protest rally on Jan 21, and wondered if they would block the street I was on while I was driving to their rally. I didn't really know much about the group putting it on.

They did go into the streets, shouting "whose street? Our street!" but I stayed on the sidewalk. Noone was really blocked though. They kept moving. The police came out in force and arrested a few of them. Over-reaction, I thought. But some people of the same group back in DC did break windows on inauguration day, so I guess the police concluded that our group would do that. A false conclusion; this group was roudy, but not destructive at all.

The next day I rode my bike over to the famous "women's march." It was bigger than I expected, and the street was so crowded that it took me a while to get my bike through it to where I could lock it up in the rack. But no problem with the police that time with the people crowding up the whole street.

It does now appear that the 4T will involve some violence; perhaps a serious rebellion. Whoever violently rebels, I predict, will lose. Elections are still the key, and your side has a very easy time getting people to buy into your slogans. so it's gonna be tough indeed to get this country moving in the right direction after 40 years of blatant nonsense. Secession is a possibility, and that sort of rebellion may be able to succeed.

Thanks.  Sounds like we're on the same page regarding the ethics of protests.  Blocking interstates is risky and illegal, but not an unethical way to draw attention to a cause; however, in keeping with the Gandhi tradition of peaceful protest, the protesters should go quietly when arrested, which is legitimate activity on the part of the state to keep the roads clear.

I'm still hoping most of the fourth turning violence will be overseas rather than domestic.