Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[AlabamAlum]

Repeaters rule.

Heh. A devotee, I see.

[Wild Hoss]

Has everyone decided if they are going to tune in tonight for Cheetos' speech before Congress? I am pretty sure that I will have something else to do....tshirts don't refold themselves.

[Wild Hoss]

Heh. A devotee, I see.

I have some Harry on the shelf.

He picks interesting concepts, but the real gold is in the details of the characters experiences and every day lives IMO. Windows into times gone by.

[WingsFan]

Whitley, don't let the fear mongering from the left scare you. Snyder touted Michigan’s approach to Medicaid expansion for low-income earners as rifts emerged with other Republican governors that rejected to expand Medicaid under the 2010 health care law.

WASHINGTON — Gov. Rick Snyder today praised what he called "unprecedented" collaboration with President Donald Trump's administration and Congress as they look at ways of reforming the Affordable Care Act

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/02/27/governor-snyder-trump-obamacare/98485592/

[hack]

To be clear, hack, I'm not talking about one specific side or the other re labels. I can list tons of examples from both sides and some that are apolitical.

Sure. You can find them on both sides. But I wouldn't ever agree that it's balanced or equally impactful. You find more fundamentalism, nationalism and racism on the right, whereas the left tends to breed naivete, which does not result in domestic terrorism, the mass desecration of cemeteries, or so-called fiscal conservatives who savage social spending and never care to look at the scale of the problems in defense spending. Left-wing versions of Trump never really gain traction. People like Jill Stein stay on the fringes, and I bet none of us could even name the current head of the US Communist Party.

[Hannibal]

Anyway, I think it's an incomplete thought because it purports -- or at I read it as -- identifying 3 types "thought" that lead to these bad consequences as the full universe. I think the things he identifies are certainly not the full universe. I prefer to look it as dogma leads to bad things. The 3 things RK identifies, IMO, are the basis for reaching the dogmatic conclusion -- you're making a conclusion based on race or nationality or religion. There are other bases, too. Some more likely to actually produce a correct conclusion and others as unlikely.

I see all kinds of issues with labeling these three plagues as the great evils threatening peace, prosperity, and whatnot. The biggest of those issues being that in the 20th Century, society specifically developed a "cure" for nationalism and religious fundamentalism. That cure was Bolshevism. We have seen how that worked out. With regards to religious fundamentalism, all of the great mass murdering machines of the 20th Century were secular regimes, including the nationalist ones like the Nazis.

WRT to "racism", it's not really saying much, so context is key. I'm guessing that there was only one kind of racism being considered -- that of White Christians towards non-whites. This is the White Guilt view of history. It is both ignorant and self-destructive. White Guilt is a huge driving force behind the destructive immigration policies being pushed by people like Angela Merkel, George Soros, and Barack Obama. The idea that white people have all inherited the original sins of slavery and imperialism, so we owe all of the non-whites of the world a huge debt. So I pretty much always bristle at the mention of "racism". I agree that racism is bad, but that's not saying anything. If you talk about racism, my first question is to wonder what your agenda is.

[iam416]

I truly do believe that those three devils are exceptionally harmful.

Well, they're not good. Extemporaneous exercise -- considering each of the 3 independently -- b/c I don't think they're equally bad. Consider them in terms of rationality and bad impact.

So, fundamentalism is probably the least rational. You're making judgments based on, pejoratively, myth.

Nationalism is more rational. If it were just patriotism -- a strong support for the a country's shared values -- it'd be way moreso. We live in the country, we experience the values, we can make a rational judgment on whether we embrace those values or not. However, nationalism tends to also shit on anyone who is not you. Having not lived in those countries, we have no experience with that country so we're basically saying you're not us, you suck. In some cases that'll be right, in some cases that'll be wrong.

Judgments based on race -- or racial stereotypes -- are probably more rational than god stuff and less rational than nationalism. I haven't though this through, but it seems to me that it's a far more complex interaction and culturally dependent.

In terms of which is more nefarious -- in the US. I tend to think racial stereotypes are it because it's the most granular, day-to-day shit. Nationalism, I guess, can start wars, but on it's a more macro issue than racial issues. And religion I see as the least nefarious. I base all these conclusions, more or less, on global history. Religion has probably done the least harm over the past 200 years.

Of course, Bolshevikism, as Hanni noted, is no peach.

[iam416]

You find more fundamentalism, nationalism and racism on the right, whereas the left tends to breed naivete, which does not result in domestic terrorism, the mass desecration of cemeteries, or so-called fiscal conservatives who savage social spending and never care to look at the scale of the problems in defense spending. Left-wing versions of Trump never really gain traction. People like Jill Stein stay on the fringes, and I bet none of us could even name the current head of the US Communist Party.

Yeah, this is where we part ways.

[crashcourse]

medicare is the big issue trump needs to take on with whatever version of obamacare conservative style gets rolled out. needs to be some overlap addressing what comes in 20 years when medicare bankrupts entitlements. sopranos season two sounds more appealing then watching chester cheetah

[iam416]

I'm guessing that there was only one kind of racism being considered -- that of White Christians towards non-whites.

Well, of course. I think that's why it's important to, e.g., to note that it's race-based judgments are wrong, or rather produce the type of dogmatic conclusion that will see dissenters burned in a pyre or whatever. That's dead in line with left's playbook on race, sex, orientation, gender, etc.

[hack]

Religion has probably done the least harm over the past 200 years.

That's an interesting statement. Very true, but, also, not true. I would agree that in this country one can put racism up there higher, still rank religion #1, because ultimately it is going to kill us all. The doomsday seekers will eventually get their hands on the levers. Depending on what you believe about Bannon, it's happening now. I don't really know whether to believe that about him or not, but Trump saying ``We've got to start winning wars'' after his campaign-era promises to attack wasteful spending are suggesting. A lot of variables there, but I guess in the end I do agree that nationalism alone presents the lowest of threats. There's plenty of ways to be a nationalist that don't put one on that path to a harmful place.

But ultimately I don't know how you separate them. They reinforce each other and tend to come as a package.

[Hannibal]

the left tends to breed naivete, which does not result in domestic terrorism.

We need a facepalm emoji for this forum.

[hack]

I'm guessing that there was only one kind of racism being considered -- that of White Christians towards non-whites.

One option is to stop guessing. Go educate yourself on the guy, where he worked, and what he saw. Or stick with your labels, and, in the process, prove him right.

[Hannibal]

Yeah, I edited my post to point out that most "labels" are tied to some varying amount of truth. At least the ones that stick. I don't think it's because of the reason you state -- I think it's more basic -- they ring true to SOME people. Or, at least true enough. And that absolutely goes both ways.

That might not be the reason why they stick, but it is the reason why they are useful. Lots of radical agendas are pursued via lies and subterfuge -- people being dishonest about who they are and what they want. Labels help bring this to light and stop this. People who are offended by the mere existence of labels are usually the ones getting exposed.

[hack]

By ``burned in a pyre'' do you actually mean ``condescended to in a very annoying way''? Cause that's what your typical campus lefty is guilty of. They don't blow up buildings or shoot children in schools or black people in churches.