If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
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.
I didn't really need to use labels in this case. I already pointed out how the horrors of 20th Century history stemmed mostly from secularism (not religious fundamentalism) and also, in many cases, also from anti-nationlism (i.e. Bolshevik Communism). Stop telling me how some guy's journalistic experience is supposed to override the basic lessons of history. Stop telling me to ignore what I see and learn because "expertz".
I think a whole ton of people would really benefit from having some comparative experiences. You have no idea how powerful the American ideal is until you can compare those people in their native countries and then again here. This guy is completely wrong on ``not becoming Americanized." One example is the women's revolt in Detroit's mosques a few years back. Women got sick of having to pray in a shitty separate room while the men get to pray in the nice main sanctuary. They staged a rebellion, and in many congregations men and women now pray side-by-side. That's been happening all across North America, and, in some cases, mosques are no longer designed with a separate door for women. That's one example of the power of American culture. And of what America was supposed to be in the first place -- somewhere where people could come and decide for themselves how to worship, rather than being told by the state.
I am very sympathetic to the abuse of the welfare state stuff. And if you go to their native countries, and get a sense of what passes for legitimate commercial activity, you can understand the importance of helping immigrants to understand what is acceptable here and what is not. Cutting out that fraud won't amount to any significant savings, but right is right and we shouldn't be allowing people to bring old-country tricks with them.
By ``burned in a pyre'' do you actually mean ``condescended to in a very annoying way''?
I assume RK was being figurative. I rather doubt it was intended to be literal.
I can't seriously believe you think liberal dogma results only in very annoying condescension, so I don't think that's a serious question. I know you're smarter than that and I know that you understand that imposition of liberal policies have consequences that are not entirely positive. For example, even if you agree with Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter that forces Universities to act as sexual assault tribunals, you'd have to acknowledge the dozens of wrongly expelled students. Even if you agree entirely with the notion that a restaurant has to serve everyone, you'd have to acknowledge that an Indiana pizzeria owner that said they have zero problems serving gay folks but wouldn't cater a gay wedding and that was blasted nationally -- and they're now out of business -- wasn't merely condescended to. Or a bakery that owes over $100,000.
I can also site several shootings of police officers. I'm not particularly inclined to do that because those aren't particularly representative or at all so. But, if we're talking about shooting up a church or blowing up a Federal building, I don't consider those particularly representative either. But they certainly involved a tragic cost so I'm ok with the inclusion.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
I didn't really need to use labels in this case. I already pointed out how the horrors of 20th Century history stemmed mostly from secularism (not religious fundamentalism) and also, in many cases, also from anti-nationlism (i.e. Bolshevik Communism). Stop telling me how some guy's journalistic experience is supposed to override the basic lessons of history. Stop telling me to ignore what I see and learn because "expertz".
Well those secular causes are two of his three devils, so here's another reason for me to wonder exactly what it is you have seen and learned. Or why you think you have nothing to learn about the Soviets from a guy who lived and worked behind the Iron Curtain, like this guy did. Which proves him right in the first place about how reason dies.
I assume RK was being figurative. I rather doubt it was intended to be literal.
I can't seriously believe you think liberal dogma results only in very annoying condescension, so I don't think that's a serious question. I know you're smarter than that and I know that you understand that imposition of liberal policies have consequences that are not entirely positive. For example, even if you agree with Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter that forces Universities to act as sexual assault tribunals, you'd have to acknowledge the dozens of wrongly expelled students. Even if you agree entirely with the notion that a restaurant has to serve everyone, you'd have to acknowledge that an Indiana pizzeria owner that said they have zero problems serving gay folks but wouldn't cater a gay wedding and that was blasted nationally -- and they're now out of business -- wasn't merely condescended to. Or a bakery that owes over $100,000.
I can also site several shootings of police officers. I'm not particularly inclined to do that because those aren't particularly representative or at all so. But, if we're talking about shooting up a church or blowing up a Federal building, I don't consider those particularly representative either. But they certainly involved a tragic cost so I'm ok with the inclusion.
OK. Fair enough -- I should not diminish the costs. The wedding-cake example is spot-on. There's a certain symbolism there and forcing a baker to do that, and then persecuting him out of business is awful. That's a lot more in your face than serving them a pizza. But you are talking about misguided/bad policy. I wonder if I could limit myself to things that happened since the election and find more examples of that then in the Obama era. I'm talking about systematic violence from the left to the right. The spike in anti-Semitic crimes, or the very long list of mass shootings or attacks on abortion clinics. We should talk about bad policy too, but that violence is what I was referring to in saying that liberal dogma isn't as harmful.
I guess, in the end, policy overreach is going to happen and create victims, and that's bad. But that's with every government. It creates victims of everyone. In Ontario the overly generous subsidies for wind power means everyone is going to overpay for electricity for a long time. More bad policy. But policy won't be perfect. It's a blunt instrument, but we're human.
Which proves him right in the first place about how reason dies.
Stop saying this as if I'm the one who is oversimplifying history or contorting it to fit a pre-defined view. The horrors of 20th Century wars and totalitarian regimes cannot be neatly distilled down into the those three causes. Especially when many of those totalitarian regimes were defined by their absence. Actually, that goes for any century. If you think that nationalism is inherently bad, then you are guilty of the dogmatic thinking that you are accusing me of. If you think that religious fundamentalism is inherently more destructive than atheism, then you are ingorant of history. Even if that belief were true, then wouldn't it be a good idea to not spread religious fundamentalism? You are guys are the ones in favor of policies that do this, not us. I'm perfectly content with Islamic fundamentalism being confined to the Middle East instead of spreading to the streets of Brussels and Stockholm. I wish that you felt the same.
I'm always keeping context in mind. The context right now is the response to Western nationalist movements. The main tactic being used right now is to either accuse white people of racism or to tie nationalist movements to Hitler. We need to eliminate national borders because Borders = Hitler and "control immigration" = racism. I know where you stand on this.
Last edited by Hannibal; February 28, 2017, 10:15 AM.
I'm talking about systematic violence from the left to the right. The spike in anti-Semitic crimes, or the very long list of mass shootings or attacks on abortion clinics.
A few quibbles with this line. I probably wouldn't use systematic. I probably don't share your usage of that word above. I'm not sure who is committing "anti-semitic" crimes. I do know that Jews have, for years, being the runaway leader for victims of hate crimes. That's been largely unreported in deference to other groups (IMO). And I'm not sure what constitutes a mass shooting -- the government definition seems loopy to me. I go with what is obvious to me and, again, I'm not sure what is systematic or systematically right about them.
I, by and large, agree with the rest.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
No you don't. That's your problem. You think you know. You know less about the Bolsheviks than you think you do, and you know less about me than you think you do. You read the theory and think you know about the reality.
A few quibbles with this line. I probably wouldn't use systematic. I probably don't share your usage of that word above. I'm not sure who is committing "anti-semitic" crimes. I do know that Jews have, for years, being the runaway leader for victims of hate crimes. That's been largely unreported in deference to other groups (IMO). And I'm not sure what constitutes a mass shooting -- the government definition seems loopy to me. I go with what is obvious to me and, again, I'm not sure what is systematic or systematically right about them.
I, by and large, agree with the rest.
Fair enough. Systematic is the wrong word. Repeated, perhaps.
If we could eliminate everything that isn't obvious, it would be easy calculate. You can't include the school shootings, but you can include Dylan Roof, for example. And whilst common sense says we know where all this anti-Semitism is coming from since the election, well, ultimately it's possible that there could be a few lefties who have snuck one in because it's OK now. I don't know that that faction is large enough to moderate the claim, but surely it exists.
There is, indeed, systemic violence by the left. It takes the form of smashed store fronts and overturned cars during protests and all of the violence committed by Leftists against Trump supporters (which the media either condones or ignores). If you go back further you find the violent extremists movements of the 60s and 70s and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers.
Re mass shootings, this is what I was referring to:
But starting in 2013, federal statutes defined "mass killing" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons.
There are dozens upon dozens of "mass killings" every year, but most of those are actually related to a criminal enterprise or a more conventional crime. I don't think some dillhole shooting 3 people in a convenience store robbery is what we we're talking about. We're talking the indiscriminate mass killings like in Sandy Hook, San Berdardino, Columbine, South Carolina, etc. That's what I meant by that comment.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
I thought some of that would come up. We had a brief period with a few incidents 50 years ago in which a few people organized as radicals and it didn't last. That obviously doesn't rise to the level of ongoing violence over decades. I don't like the protest nihilists, but that's not left>right violence. They aren't targeting specific people. As for attacks on Trump supporters, many of those are faked. There's the one with the black guy beating up a white guy in a road-rage incident that was miscast as political violence, and then that girl in the football jersey at the California protest that was actually a picture of an actress on set. http://www.snopes.com/black-mob-beat...-voting-trump/. http://www.snopes.com/injured-trump-supporter/.
And that stuff goes both ways too. You can find plenty on snopes in the reverse direction, like the woman who lied about someone yanking her headscarf off in a WalMart. Which, IMO, only goes to show what happens when you substitute thought for labels. People retreat into their corners and scream out terminologies they don't understand, and then you get this faked nonsense.
Re mass shootings, this is what I was referring to:
There are dozens upon dozens of "mass killings" every year, but most of those are actually related to a criminal enterprise or a more conventional crime. I don't think some dillhole shooting 3 people in a convenience store robbery is what we we're talking about. We're talking the indiscriminate mass killings like in Sandy Hook, San Berdardino, Columbine, South Carolina, etc. That's what I meant by that comment.
Sure. I don't know that some of the ones you mentioned count either, as indiscriminate violance therefore can't be explicitly political. An angry teenager shooting up his school isn't political violence, IMO. But you sure can put Dylan Roof in there, and the Orlando guy, and the McVeighs, and the abortion clinics. You can blame the right for the availability of guns, and somewhere in there you can argue that that kind of violence is more right in nature than left, but it doesn't rise to the open/shut right>left violence like those examples I mentioned.
I know for a fact that Talent's favorite book is Turtledove's "Guns of the South."
I have that novel. And the entire series (starting from how few remain)
2012 Detroit Lions Draft: 1) Cordy Glenn G , 2) Brandon Taylor S, 3) Sean Spence olb, 4) Joe Adams WR/KR, 5) Matt McCants OT, 7a) B.J. Coleman QB 7b) Kewshan Martin WR
Tweet
Comment