Lefties are so cute, how they think the monsters they create won’t eat them.
This topic was continued by Leftists are not afriad of monsters. But as there are few leftists around, let's focus on liberals..
Join LibraryThing to post.
Politico: Ocasio-Cortez backs campaign to primary fellow Democrats
The incoming congresswoman endorses an effort by the group Justice Democrats to make the House Democratic Caucus more liberal and diverse by taking on incumbents.
Ocasio-Cortez joins climate change sit-in at Pelosi’s office.
Bonus: Ocasio-Cortez claims she was recently mistaken for a Congressional intern and implies this is RACISM! and/or SEXISM!
Dem Spouse + Member luncheon were at the same time today. I was sent to spouse event.
She’s probably just lying, as one does when one needs a rush of victim crack.
But on the off chance that it actually happened...
You can’t brag about being the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, and also shriek about being mistaken for an intern.
Narcisisstic little asshole.
Women’s march cancelled for being too white.
The organizers’ press release explains,
“Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community. Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach.”
And yet lefties stomped conservative ass in the most recent national election.
And what if they continue to stomp conservative ass in 2020? Well the whining by all the butt-hurt righties will just get louder about the cruelty of life and how evil is triumphing and so forth.
Wake up and smell your own shit, righties. trump and company are full bore in the process of destroying the republican party for god damn good. Just sit back and enjoy the show and STFU about socialism. Socialism is coming soon to a town near you.
Yeah! "Our strength is in our (racial/ethnic) diversity" works! Who knew!?
LOL! I love this shit!
..."the participants have been overwhelmingly white" ...
I feel their pain. I, too, have found that each and every time I've been personally involved in some social action, protest movement, etc., I've always been 'overwhelmingly white'.
Feminist kicked out of bar because she was wearing a T-shirt that defined a woman as an “adult human female.”
>3 Carnophile:: She’s probably just lying, as one does when one needs a rush of victim crack.
Baseless accusation much? We have no evidence to support her being a liar. On the other hand:
"“This building the wall should have been done by all of the presidents that preceded me, and they all know it,” he said during a news conference. “Some of them have told me that we should have done it.”"
Yeah, except not so much. The four living ex-presidents pulled that rug out from under Mr. T, didn't they?
>9 amysisson: "She’s probably just lying, as one does when one needs a rush of victim crack."
Baseless accusation much? We have no evidence to support her being a liar.
WRONG. We have innumerable examples of lefties issuing false accusations of racism, sexism, etc. Leftists do it constantly. See my posts in this thread starting here for just some of the many examples.
Wrong again. If the last million people you meet who were wearing purple turtlenecks say, "I was born in Lisbon," and turn out to be lying, then the next person you meet who is wearing purple turtleneck and says, "I was born on Lisbon" is also very probably lying.
It's called empiricism.
Did you ever study probability in maths? (or math, as I believe you say across the Pond).
The gambler's fallacy is the opposite of what I said, as you two would have seen if you'd actually read the first paragraph of the link in #15.
1. Do you have specific evidence of Ocasio-Cortez lying?
2. What is your response to the fact that Trump lied about what the ex-Presidents didn't say?
>18 amysisson: 1. Do you have specific evidence of Ocasio-Cortez lying?
Rather than lying, I think she believes everything she says. She's fantastic. Best Democrat representative in years, and I'm glad she's the new face of the Democrat party.
"I think she believes everything she says."
Yeah? So? I believe I could say, with equal accuracy, the same thing about a whole slew of people you wouldn't approve--they, too, actually believed all or very nearly all of what they said or wrote or, today, what they're saying and writing:
Ayn Rand comes to mind, for example. A whole "rogues' gallery" of elected officials: Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., Tories and, alas, Labour party members in the U.K. Tony Blair, hard to beat for being despicable--but it's possible--is another example. The Clintons, the insufferably smug Obamas--I'm convinced that they really believe the smug, ingratiating bilge they routinely spew at private addresses before their wealthy, high-fee paying audiences.
Hitler and Churchill were both people of stubborn conviction; each believed firmly in an ideology which informed and drove his policy-decisions. But their general aims were irreconcilable in nearly all aspects except one of note: both believed in a future dominated by ever evolving and ever more controlling technological prowess combined, inevitably, with ever more rationalized administrative practices in an elite-dominated world of social, political and economic "Mandarins" who rule the world's social and business affairs in their respective domains. Ayn Rand, too, subscribed to this view. Still, at the time, Britain was fortunate to have seen Atlee replaced by Churchill and, similarly, Americans fortunate--if we can apply that term to a world careening into World War II--to have seen Hoover (who was, as a business administrator, extremely accomplished and astute) replaced by Franklin Roosevelt.
For another quite interesting angle on the pitfalls of people who, without a doubt, believe what they're saying, see this important reading:
>21 proximity1: Still, at the time, Britain was fortunate to have seen Atlee replaced by Churchill... if we can apply that term to a world careening into World War II
I think you meant Churchill replaced Chamberlain, not Attlee (in 1940, in a world in which World War II had already begun).
To complicate matters, Attlee then replaced Churchill (in 1945), and Churchill then replaced Attlee (in 1951, long after the world had careened out of World War II).
At its essence, an astute recognition underpins this thread's idea--
in its spirit, I recommend the following reading and YouTube listening; these things, which in one way or another turn around what Anand Giridharadas refers to as the "Aspen consensus".
Read, listen and consider:
First and foremost, listen to this address presented at the Aspen Institute:
Anand Giridharadas presents "The Thriving World, the Wilting World, and You"
(from "World Affairs" Conversations that matter) Anand Giridharadas: Are Elites Really Making the World a Better Place?
WINNERS TAKE ALL: The Elite Charade of Changing the World
The New Yorker : Gospels of Giving for the New Gilded Age || Are today’s donor classes solving problems—or creating new ones? |
By Elizabeth Kolbert | American Chronicles | August 27, 2018 Issue
>18 amysisson: Do you have specific evidence of Ocasio-Cortez lying?
Certainly. See #10.
What is your response to the fact that Trump lied about what the ex-Presidents didn't say?
I don't know about that alleged lie. In any case, this thread is about lefties' pets eating them. To quote krolik, "No need to change the subject."
>19 John5918: Maybe you didn't read the next few paragraphs?
I did. You didn’t, apparently. You certainly didn’t read down to the “Reverse position,” per Wikipedia:
After a consistent tendency towards tails, a gambler may also decide that tails has become a more likely outcome. This is a rational and Bayesian conclusion, bearing in mind the possibility that the coin may not be fair; it is not a fallacy.Which is the kind of argument I was making.
Stop pretending that you don’t understand the notion of basing beliefs on evidence.
If I tried, if I actually tried, I don’t think I could successfully bait lefties into *literally* arguing that evidence is irrelevant.
All my best baiting of lefties occurs unintentionally.
Pretending that you don’t understand the notion of basing beliefs on evidence is the sort of thing that made me call you the most intellectually dishonest person I know.
Even for a leftist, the level of this kind of behavior from you is remarkable.
>24 krolik: She's become the face of the party especially among conservatives. Seriously, my Republican friends on Facebook can't stop talking about her.
Please. It was the left that started pimping her, even before the primary she won to become the Dem candidate. See, e.g., the New York Times's coverage last summer.
The fact that the left couldn't resist making this FUCKING IDIOT the face of their party is just another one of the enjoyable auto-foot-shootings of the left.
The people I was referring to do not read or care about the New York Times. But your remark about pimping is of a piece with their attitude toward this person.
Of course. And I missed that because I'm not acquainted enough with the opinions of TrippB to have caught the point you saw.
I haven't bothered--till now--to even pay attention to her, what she says and thinks and the facts of her background.
Apparently, she has about as much in "roots" in the Bronx as the Clintons did when Bill parachuted into the borough with Hillary so that she could run for office "from New York."
Some of her policy positions are fine. But they aren't new. They've been plain common sense for decades or even many generations. If the political order was going to allow such things, they'd have happened a long time ago. So why haven't they happened? The answer to that question is what Giriharadas—and others like him—is talking about. In a way, this extremely fortunate young woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with her great expectations and ambitions is, really, exactly what Anand Giriharadas is talking about when he explains what the "Aspen consensus" elite love and why they love it.
That topic deserves fuller, dedicated treatment in threads devoted to these issues. To quote Giriharadas, (from
(from "World Affairs" Conversations that matter) Anand Giridharadas: Are Elites Really Making the World a Better Place? )
* fake "change": i.e. addressing social ills through phony, superficial designs which ultimately leave the circumstances unchanged because, to actually effect real change would demand a redress of wide and deep injustice--and doing that would always seriously threaten the wealth, privileges and power of the ruling elite.
Giriharadas estimates (from his reading) that in the five-county San Francisco area, there are approximately 7400-and-something homeless people. In the same area there are 74 billionaires. There are, then, if accurate, around 100 homeless people there for each billionaire.
>30 krolik: The people I was referring to do not read or care about the New York Times.
Note I said, "See, e.g., the New York Times..."
The left started pushing Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe there's some buyer's remorse about it now, but it's too late.
Jtf, I think it just has to be put down to one of those bizarre things the human mind can't decipher. You want proof? Okay, check out this 300+ post thread that ended last April. Somewhere in there is evidence Ocasio-Cortez is a liar...Plus you might consider plain fatigue, as he is at war with South Sudan, as explained on another thread.
Sure, the left is pushing her. I don't doubt that. And they're pushing other new faces, too, like Tlaib, Finkenauer and Omar. There's boosterism all over the place. Milking the moment for all they can.
My point in earlier posts, if you can get the chip off your shoulder that obstructs your head, is that in the examples I'm referring to of the "right" (which in other aspects I thought was more varied than you suggest--this is weird shit, me inviting you to be more nuanced about the right), has especially zeroed in on and anointed Ocasio-Cortez as their poster child, their fear figure, and object of two-minutes hate.
This is what intrigues me, and maybe you could school my ignorant liberal ass. Why her and not some of these others, who, ideologically, probably aren't significantly different. What accounts for your demonstrated attraction (repulsion) to Ocasio-Cortez?
FWIW Fox News and conservatives are absolutely obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez. They can't stop talking about her. They've completely misrepresented what she's talking about on taxes. They make out as if she wants to tax everyone at a 70% tax rate. That would only be true if everyone were earning $10,000,000.00 a year. I don't know about other people around here--I know these people exist but I've never met one--so the truth is her tax idea is aimed at a small sub-percentage of the 1%--the biggest earners of all in the United States---those who control well over 50% of the wealth of the nation. Why this outrages people on the right so much is beyond me but it does.
Interesting tidbit about Kentucky Senator Rand Paul I heard today. The libertarian who is dead set against government health care has gone north of the border to have a hernia procedure done at an Ontario hospital whose profits come out of Canada's National Health care system. Go fucking figure. We've heard all these horror stories down here about how horrible Canada's health care system is and how terrible their hospitals are because of it. Really Rand!
>36 krolik: No. The left thrust her into the spotlight, not the right.
I've never heard of Finkenauer, and I never heard of Tlaib until she made the "impeach the motherfucker" comment.
>38 Carnophile: I guess it depends what the spotlight is. Ocasio-Cortez thrust herself into prominence and the media took note. The 'left' has had a wide range of responses--the more progressive left is excited, the Democrats in general are a little nervous. Anderson Cooper is concerned about a return to 50s through 70s progressive tax rates. The 'right' is nervous to spiteful.
This issue exposes the rift among Democrats: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/15/la-teachers-strike-charter-schools/
Here is another indication that the 'left' is not Nancy Pelose: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/house-committee-assignments-democrats/
>39 RickHarsch: the 'left' is not Nancy Pelose
Ah yes, that old myth of a monolithic organised "left".
I don't think AOC minds being a focus of attention because it's a way for her to get some ideas out. I don't think she's really 'thrusting' herself out--more like media people and pundits are thrusting themselves at her . If people (especially conservatives) would chill out a bit--they might keep in perspective that she has just been a congresswoman for a few days and that there are 434 other House members. That said I do wish there were a lot more like minded congress people like her but the Democratic Socialist wing of the Democratic party is kind of small.
>41 lriley: It seems to me there is good reason for conservatives to...what's the opposite of chill out? warm in? They have good reason to be concerned, because Ocasio-Cortez has people THINKING about taxation again, and the vast majority of voters would realize that they would benefit a great deal from a re-institution of an Eisenhower era progressive tax. The truth of taxation has been fogged in for decades, but plenty of people are still around who benefitted in the 70s from progressive taxation and Fox may not have enough coal left ot operate its fog machine...
#42--not to get me wrong--I'm all for what Ocasio-Cortez has in mind. That said I don't think the Democratic party is at all interested in bringing any such tax legislation to a vote at least at this time and probably not for a long time. All in all the Democratic party is much too conservative of a party for that. In any case there are a bunch of things that the great majority of the public would be for--such as national health care---the politicians know what the polling says and hear what their constituents say but are past masters at ignoring, obfuscating and putting off to another day. In any case with this Republican POTUS and this Republican Senate that is not going anywhere for the coming two years.
Hopefully though a lot more people like AOC will run for Congress in 2020--that could make a difference.
But as you say history for a lot of people is foggy. Used to be a time when many Republicans believed in a progressive tax system too--like President Eisenhower. Nixon twice tried to give the country a National Health Care system.
From Ocasio-Cortez to Pelosi it is all good. The far left, the near left, the center moderates, and the majority of U.S. voters who are basically sane will unite to crush the orange fat traitor in 2020 like the motherfucking bug that he is - assuming he is still around then.
During the Eisenhower administration the super rich were taxed at something like 70 or 80 per cent and no one raised much of a fuss. After all the exemptions allowed the super rich actually paid much less than that, as would be the case in the future if taxes were increased on them to the same degree.
Again, separating the republican and trumpian lies from actual reality is the issue to be addressed - continually.
trump is not a mere motherfucker - he is a stupid lying motherfucking huckster moron. That will be his everlasting legacy.
1. A new Rasmussen poll (a super conservative poll) found that if Ocasio-Cortez were old enough to run and were selected as the Democratic nominee in 2020 she would get 40 per cent to trump's 43 with 17 per cent undecided.
Pretty good for an admitted socialist as determined by a conservatively biased poll.
2. Pelosi, in effect, has now informed the fat orange traitor that there will be no SOTU address until the government is opened. Pelosi calls the shots as to what happens in the House chambers. Bet the fat orange traitor wasn't aware. What a motherfucking dipshit moron he is.
#45--that was a interesting move on Pelosi's part. I agree. Turn the screws.
Nevertheless, as a face of the party...she's a bit origami Meiji unrestored. (Pelosi, I mean, of course.)
"Trump Turns On Fox News And Tells Aides To Make Whatever They’re Saying A Law"
—The Onion, 'America's Finest News Source'
"Fox News Now Just Airing Continuous Blood-Red Screen With Disembodied Voice Chanting ‘They’re Coming To Kill You’"
I'm not a huge fan of Ocasio-Cortez; she's come up on Politifact too often with questionable statements, and they often seem to be careless misunderstandings. But she's young and new; maybe she can season up, and she doesn't seem ill-intentioned. I find this concept that she's a monster that's going to eat us is absurd.
Liberals sometimes do similar things; I hear a lot about Steve King from liberal sources. But that's a white supremacist versus someone proposing high taxes on the rich.
>51 prosfilaes: What a condescending little post. I've had a great deal more experience arguing with the poster of #51 than I have listening to or reading the words of Ocasio-Cortez, so I am not aware of her limitations, but up to now her grasp of what's important in politics has been impressive, while the posts of prosfilaes are of the quality of an Anderson Cooper interview question.
She was being deliberately provocative. Good thing she was banned. So what if some pervs invade girl's dressing rooms and women's bath rooms? Like, she can't take care of herself? Why is she so special?
>53 margaretbartley: What are you talking about? If you're responding to a particular post please include the post number in your message.
>54 jjwilson61: I think it's just fine. I think the thread was dropped in on by a novelist.
And the he turned back: those holes drilled in his back? It had to have been her eyes. She was a provacateur of pervs, a pervercateur, if you will, and if she says so you damn welll will. Ha ha ha, the laughter echoed in the chambers of...
All that time in Africa and you still don't know that one does not SMOKE mushrooms?
Michigan College cancels Vagina Monologues because it excludes transvestites.
Eastern Michigan University's Women's Resource Center will no longer host productions of "The Vagina Monologues," noting that the play's version of feminism excludes some women.I remember when feminists wanted to make sure that women’s voices were heard. Now the campus feminist center tells women, “Make sure men’s voices are heard, OR WE’LL SILENCE YOU.”
>54 jjwilson61: thanks for the advice. How do I do that? I tried just typing the link in; I guess I'll see, after it's posted, if it has a link in it, or not.
Nice to see you exploring conceivable variations and nuances regarding feminists and the possibility of plural perspectives.
Democratic Virginia Governor circling the drain.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) on Friday acknowledged appearing in a “clearly racist and offensive” photograph in his 1984 medical school yearbook that shows a man in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan robe.For once, leftists are truthfully accusing someone of racist behavior!
What I find interesting and encouraging about this is that Democrats are avidly after the head of a fellow Democrat. That’s relatively new. Dems used to be able to count on shameless hypocrisy by fellow Dems to protect them. (E.g., Robert Byrd.) No more. The outrage mob has slipped the leash.
>63 mamzel: Al Franken?
Definitely, Franken and lots of others since the MeToo thing got underway. In fact that's one of the things I had in mind when I said "relatively new" (as opposed to totally new). One of the reasons Northam is of particular interest is simply that he's a state Governor, so is especially prominent.
>64 timspalding: Quite. It's like something out a Tom Wolfe essay.
Today's hip, trendy Liberal-lefties don't read Tom Wolfe. He's worse than so-yesterday. He's a dead, white male. Ewww!
>66 proximity1: Plus, they don't have the sense of humor needed to look at themselves through that kind of lens.
Now Virginia’s LIEUTENANT Governor is facing sexual assault allegations.
True. Their sense of humor was sacrificed at the altar of political-correctness. Worse, this sacrifice is now raised to ritual status. The youth must be properly brought up in their cult's faithless faith.
A small per cent of those on the left of the political spectrum are politically-correct micro-aggression sensitive types. They get a lot of coverage and this gives the impression that lefties have no sense of humor.
That is incorrect.
Most lefties are like, e.g., Bill Maher, or myself - as a non-celebrity example. I would say super-sensitive snowflake types make up less than 10 per cent of all left of center folks. I invite righties to prove otherwise.
As to lack of humor the right is overwhelmingly clueless assholes who cannot even get a joke when told one. Most righties either have sticks up their asses or are just too ignorant and/or stupid to get a joke. The exception is the schadenfreude type of humor, or cruelty jokes - i.e., sick humor only a sick person would find that particularly humorous. Righties love that kind of shit.
Righties find the black face problem of the Virginian Democratic governor quite amusing - pure schadenfreude - .i.e., if a Democrat is disgraced then that MUST be humorous. Since right-wingers are racist bastards, for the most part, they have no particular outrage at black face, like lefties do. So if a republican official has a black face problem show up they will not care and will go balls-to-the-wall to defend him. We all know this. Why not fucking admit it?
Hell, righties don't give a shit even when a republican candidate for high office is a child molester. I don't think we can say the same about democrats.
No matter how lacking in common human decency any particular democrat is democrats as a whole will never equal republicans in just sheer unadulterated amoral scumbaggery and unflinching absolutist partisanship (trump being the best example of what I speak).
Well Jesus Joseph Mary! The latest headline is about the Virginia AG who has now admitted to a black face problem also.
I would guess this eventuation has thrown both Carnophile and proximity1 into extreme masturbation mode.
I would advise their loved ones and pets to take cover.
>68 Carnophile: Funny the timing on that, huh? Didn't come up when he originally ran for governor.
This is because, in between now and the last election, someone went back in time and changed his yearbook.
#69--speaking of humorlessness is this remark. But anyway I'm trying to think of a single time you've said anything remotely humorous...to me it's never been your shtick.
And however funny Wolfe is or isn't probably doesn't have all that much to do with whatever his particular political takes are so much as that's the way he writes. Some people have more the talent for that than others.
>70 JGL53: Righties find the black face problem of the Virginian Democratic governor quite amusing - pure schadenfreude
>72 mamzel: Yeah, a lot of people have been wondering why all this stuff didn't emerge earlier. I don't have any theories or anything; it's just odd that so much was missed. Are Republicans really that inept at oppo research?
Sigh. Funny, but sad.
Lesbian Activist Faces Leftist Fury After ‘Misgendering’ a Male Rapist
Julia Beck, a lesbian activist and former member of the LGBTQ Commission for the mayor of Baltimore, got in a “little trouble” after she called a male rapist “he” when "he" actually considered himself a transgendered woman.
#77--FWIW I haven't read through the entirety of every thread in Pro and Con.....and anyone can have their moments and I didn't mean to infer that you can't appreciate humor but generally the tones I get from you are pretty damned angry. But you are hardly the only one who is pissed off or very angry at the current state of politics either as they are here or as they are somewhere else and it's on all sides of the political spectrum of beliefs.
....and sometimes it's healthy for a person (or any person) to take a break from things that are keeping them angry all the time or too much of their time.
But as far as myself--I never said I was a comedian either. In fact I'll often tell people that I have no sense of humor--I might say that with a smile though.
... "the tones I get from you are pretty damned angry" ...
Seeing our time's wanton injustice and obscene corruption and complacent folly?
Not "pretty", v e r y damned angry. And how! To be less than very angry is to be complicit. Tell victims that you look placidly at their suffering? while others don't even bother to turn their attention from their amusements?
There is far too little anger where so much is warranted.
Meanwhile, taboo to mention, envy and jealousy vie with conformity for rule over our sentiments.
Notwithstanding all of that, I can still appreciate a good joke, a worthy laugh.
#79--I wasn't saying you shouldn't be angry. Politicians these days don't very often work for the public good--more for their own ambitions or bank accounts but defining exactly what the public good is--that's kind of an open book when there are millions of people with all kinds of views that intersect or don't with millions of others. So they have leeway but what they do with that leeway is important and that's why corruption and lack of integrity is important too--that's why when someone like Sanders comes along who has been hammering away consistently at the same message for a good 40 some years anyway and a lot of that in a political limbo or obscurity meant a lot to the people who had been watching him for so long---but his is not the only view to take on everything and he's not perfect either. It's also why some younger politicians who might be more naive but they're cleaner because they haven't been corrupted and there's better chance that they actually believe what they're talking about.
But another thing if you're going to get into politics you need to be interested enough to work at it and work at it continually and get into the actual details of things and it should be a never ending process of learning and trying to understand. Even corrupt politicians will do that--take Cheney for example--he knew the govt. like the back of his hand. He knew how everything worked. I hated Clinton but he was smart as fuck. That's just giving devils their due.
"What I find interesting and encouraging about this is that Democrats are avidly after the head of a fellow Democrat. That’s relatively new. Dems used to be able to count on shameless hypocrisy by fellow Dems to protect them. (E.g., Robert Byrd.) No more. The outrage mob has slipped the leash.
I partly agree with you on this one, Carno. Guys like Byrd used to be a part of the Democratic establishment fabric. Now they're no longer possible. Not, I think, because "the outrage mob has slipped the leash." But because times have changed. People have wised up. (A bit.) Byrd's ilk are too embarrassing. (Cue Ralph Northam.) I don't see this as hysterical. We're living in another generation, with different expectations and standards. Good riddance.
I don't think progress is ineluctable. Can't get sentimental about that idea. But change happens, and sometimes it's a good change.
The racist heritage of the Democratic party is a matter of historical record. Sure. And if we go back a bit in history, yes, the Republicans did comparatively better on questions of race. But that was then. And the bar was so very low.
People like William F. Buckley, coming from a markedly different culture and circumstances than a person like Byrd, could mention in his memoirs that he cried as a child because his elder siblings didn't take him along to a cross burning.
Such were good old boys in...Connecticut.
Racism permeates American history and culture and yes, its political parties. All its parties. Excuse me if I'm not shocked.
Re Northam, this bit isn't too bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5JKhRRhbRY
First posted and revised 10 February, 2019
Additions on 11 & 12 February, 2019,
Now thus, our downward-spiraled course is set.
—René Girard, from his study, A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991/ Gracewing & Inigo Enterprises, U.K., 2000) (at pp. 194-199), exposing the dramatic operations in (Edward, Earl of Oxford's work (under his pen-name Wm. Shakespeare)) The Tragedie of Julius Cæsar
In Lyon, Sunday, 10 February, Rival (right-wing & left-wing) factions of the 'Gilets Jaunes' ('Yellow vests') anti-Macron protesters squared off in skirmishes on the street.
(The Daily Mail, London; from Footage shared on Twitter)
Judge rules that an all-male military draft is unconstitutional:
On the Ilhan Omar thing:
Just days ago, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) faced rebuke, albeit indirectly, from her own party in a resolution condemning anti-Semitism that had been developed as a response to her repeated anti-Semitic statements... (But now) Omar’s victory is total. The anti-Semitism resolution was turned into a condemnation of “Islamophobia” and “white supremacism,” she remains on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the entire Democratic leadership has made it clear that they don’t dare cross her....is fucking hilarious in this context, and gives me a schadenboner the size of Staten Island.
The chickens come home to roost. And, goddamn, are they angry!
And they look more and more like vultures.
Now this is fucking hilarious.
It doesn't stop with Ihan Omar, of course.
The insanity of Dems' love-affair with political-correctness is the "gift that keeps on giving" to Dems' political opponents.
Here, Beto O'Rourke -- I challenge you to find a less 'Texan-like' name than that--has to follow his past (and some of his near-present) around with a mop-and-pail:
O'Rourke has just grossly slighted the entire porcine spectrum of the animal kingdom! These highly-intelligent animals do not deserve such disrespect! What was he thinking!? We raise them in factory-farm conditions and then slaughter then---- for sandwich meat! and now O'Rourke shows his utter disregard for these wonderful animals likening his own gaffes and fuck-ups to "Ham"-handedness!!
We're not done as long as there's a Democratic-party candidate for elective office who hasn't been shamed into complete silence over verbal gaffes and past adolescent behavior.
You know what you've said & done! Confess now! Seek forgiveness!
#84--we've been over this at least in one other thread. The right wing is trying to conflate any critique of the govt. of Israel currently presided over by an extreme right politician as anti-semetic. If you want to go down that road it's up to you but Palestinians are just as Semetic as the Jewish people of Israel and yet they are treated not even like citizens. Israel currently is an apartheid like regime. Omar's objections to taking an oath of allegiance to the Israeli govt. as some United States state legislatures would have (require) their own citizens do just to apply for a govt. contract or to take or hold a govt. job are correct and not weak as liquid shit like a good many of her democratic compatriots in the House and Senate. Most of them (along with almost all of their republican cohorts) are bought off by a foreign govt. That she has encouraged Muslims not to take part in the Haj to protest the Saudi's and their vicious regime seems to fly right past you and a lot of other assholes but that's par for the course. Maybe you should make a point of swearing allegiance to Israel too.
>85 proximity1: The chickens come home to roost.
Yup. And other metaphors come to mind, like They made the bed, now they have to lie in it, etc. What gets me is that this was all so predictable.
>86 lriley: (blah blah) seems to fly right past you and a lot of other assholes
Relax; you'll live longer.
we've been over this at least in one other thread.
What is "this"?
The right wing is trying to conflate any critique of the govt. of Israel currently presided over by an extreme right politician as anti-semetic. If you want to go down that road it's up to you... Maybe you should make a point of swearing allegiance to Israel too.
What on earth? You missed the entire point of 84. It has nothing to do with whether Omar's statements are defensible or not. Read 84 again. Start with the word in the upper left and finish with the word in the lower right.
Video: Muslims get in Chelsea Clinton's face and berate her for inciting the New Zealand mosque attacks:
Chelsea Clinton is berated by Muslim NYU students who blame her for New Zealand mosques attack because she 'incited an Islamophobic mob' against Rep Ilhan Omar.
“This right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,” says Dweik, gesturing to the vigil for the 49 who were killed in Christchurch when a white nationalist shooter stormed two mosques.You have to watch the video to get the tension and anger in the accuser's voice... the way she jabs her finger an inch or two from Clinton's chest... the fact that Clinton is outnumbered... the fact that Clinton is (visibly, swollenly) pregnant, increasing the menace of being outnumbered by angry people getting in her face... the fact that when Clinton meekly says, “I’m so sorry that you feel that way,” a man off screen responds with an aggressive, “What does 'I’m sorry that you feel that way' mean? What does that mean?”
All lefties who think they're still in control of the identity politics monster really should click through and watch the video.
#90--FWIW Chelsea had played into the anti-Muslim rhetoric hard pushed by the Trump regime after Ilhan Omar made her remarks on Israel. FWIW he's said a lot of anti-Muslim shit before that too. Chelsea is a child of some privilege. She took sides but felt bad about the Christchurch Mosque shooting afterwards. Hopefully it's a learning moment for her and she begins to see that Israel isn't just for Jewish people and it's okay for people like Omar to question loyalty oaths. And FWIW the murderer of all the people at the Mosque was a huge fan of Mr. Trump. Go fucking figure that one. Donald runs his irresponsibly fat mouth all the time and then some nutjob inspired by his racism and/or bigotry goes off and murders a lot of people. Go figure that too.
The only famous Clinton I ever really liked is George Clinton.
The rest of them seem to be dicks.
>91 lriley: Donald runs his irresponsibly fat mouth all the time and then some nutjob inspired by his racism and/or bigotry goes off and murders a lot of people
Reminds me of a quote from a Muslim woman in UK which I posted in another thread:
People need to understand that what they say has an impact on what happens on the streets (original link)
#94--he's continually aiming his rhetoric at white greivance and then some think it's unfair to call him a racist. The Klanners and white supremacists though think he's great--that he's their guy. They've never been so happy. He's doing the same along religious lines--Christians and Jews are great--Muslims are not....and to top it off he doesn't have a religious bone in his body. It's just dog whistling all the time.
And if you're Muslim, Hispanic, black or LGBT and voting for him you're out of your mind. He's constantly inciting hatred against these groups.
>91 lriley: the murderer of all the people at the Mosque was a huge fan of Mr. Trump... Donald runs his irresponsibly fat mouth all the time and then some nutjob inspired by his racism and/or bigotry goes off and murders a lot of people.
The killer was a hardcore environmentalist:
He calls himself an “Eco-fascist,” ... He calls for a form of “Green Nationalism” which will save the planet by stopping “the continued destruction of the natural environment...”ENVIRONMENTALISM KILLS.
#99--I'm sure if you asked Trump he'd call himself an environmentalist too. He thinks he has solutions to all kinds of environmental events. People aren't sweeping out the millions of acres of California forest land for instance. And of course he's an imbecile but that doesn't matter as long as he's your imbecile.
But anyway Mr. Tarrant said of Trump in his manifesto--'that he is a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose'--which is to say he (Tarrant, that is) as a white supremacist sees common purpose between the thing he did (murder at least 50 innocent people, that is) and the things that Mr. Trump is doing. He also referenced in his manifesto immigrants as invaders saying 'to show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands' which is eerily similar to the language Trump uses quite often when referencing immigrants crossing the Mexican border. Some more for instances anyway. So to Tarrant Trump is an inspiration--that's pretty clear or why would he write such shit? And personally I think Tarrant sounds a bit like you too when you start going off on people you don't like.
>100 lriley: Tarrant said of Trump in his manifesto--'that he is a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose' etc.
He calls himself an “Eco-fascist,” ... He calls for a form of “Green Nationalism” which will save the planet by stopping “the continued destruction of the natural environment...”
I'm sure if you asked Trump he'd call himself an environmentalist too.
Let's ask your fellow lefties what they think about that, right here in Pro and Con.
Here, for example: https://www.librarything.com/topic/253425
And here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/269635
And here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/292416
And here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/298994
Here's YOU, at #9: https://www.librarything.com/topic/253425#5989280
"The Dakota pipeline is an inevitable disaster waiting to happen. All pipelines eventually leak. It's unconscionable what they're doing. The Obama administration should have done much more to stop it. The Trump administration has greenlighted it. Business trumps health and safety."
Why bother with all those people? You don't like or believe them anyway. Why not go to the source?--the proverbial horse's mouth (or ass in this case). All you have to do is cut to the chase and google 'Trump calls himself an environmentalist' like I did. See for yourself whether he ever said or didn't say such a thing. See how recently even.
Here is the first example that popped up for me.
trump is a bad man, let us count the ways.
The number is indefinitely large.
So, moving on.
Yes, moving on - well, let Steven Colbert explain:
(See especially minute 14 to the end.)
- trump is still in the middle of a fiery legal inferno that even a thousand Russian hookers couldn't piss out.
>102 lriley: The question is whether anyone takes it seriously when he says that. (I don't, and I freakin voted for him.) But sure, if you want to say that Trump's known for being an environmentalist, go for it.
Attack-mob asshole destroyed by his own gang:
IMPORTANT: He’s black and gay. Still think racking up PC identity points will protect you, lefties?
He Was Part of a Twitter Mob That Attacked Young Adult Novelists. Then It Turned on Him. Now His Book Is Canceled.
Kosoko Jackson, a gay black author writing about a gay black protagonist, gets taken down by the YA Twitterati.Then the SJW rage mob went after him. Among other things, the accusations included the fact that he had a Muslim bad guy in the story. (Seriously, how could a politically correct SJW “sensitivity reader” possibly make that mistake? LOL.) They intimidated him into canceling the book.
Part of what makes this story so interesting is that Kosoko himself has been on the other side of these online attacks on authors.And now the same hate mob has destroyed him!
Delicious, delicious poetic justice.
LOL: SJWs eating their own, part whatever:
Chelsea Cain Deletes Twitter Account Following Accusations of Transphobia
Chelsea Cain has deleted her Twitter account after facing mounting backlash and accusations of transphobia due to a creative choice present in the latest issue of her comic book series Man-Eaters.WTF?
Anyway, at first she hit back at her accusers, with images that implied that they were anti-feminist bigots. Other people then leapt in, basically saying, “How DARE she call them bigots when they call her a bigot!” So she gave up and tried to apologize.
Anyone who has been paying attention in recent years knows what happens when you try to appease SJWs.
Let’s see how it worked out when she got own on her knees and apologized:
Some of her self-abasing tweets:
Let me make this clear: I’m an idiot. I’m super sorry. I’m defensive because it MEANS so much. If you are trans and feel excluded by MAN-EATERS, that’s on me. Not you. You are glorious. And brave. And, gah. Thank you. I am listening. I am trying.
LOL. “If you psychotically take offense at a story for not featuring transvestite were-cats, it’s my fault! You’re glorious!”
I can be dumb sometimes. I get so defensive and self-righteous. It creates blind spots. And that’s not okay. And I’m sorry.
Would any of you be willing to be a trans sensitivity reader for our last few issues of MAN-EATERS? We can’t pay. But I will send you comics!
The article notes that this offer only “served to further stoke the flames of outrage” - of course it did; she was trying to appease an SJW attack mob - so she tried apologizing again:
I’m sorry. I’ve never worked with a sensitivity reader. I can’t seem to stop screwing up, can I? I was just trying to say that I was open to feedback. But you’re right. Of course. I can’t ask anyone to work for free.
I didn’t even know sensitivity readers were a thing in comics. I really have no business being here. I work on ME for free. We thought we were doing something good. I’m so sorry.
I appreciate yr patience as I educate myself.
“Thank you for the whippings, master! They’re helping me to see how horrible I am. I will show my appreciation by getting upon my belly and licking your feet.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The article continues,
Ultimately, the anger, backlash, and the rejection of her haphazard attempts at placating the outrage caused Cain to delete her Twitter account after publishing a final Tweet:LOL, have fun being destroyed by the identity-politics crap that you took part in.
u think if u agree w a person on one issue (say, electoral politics) but disagree on another (say, transphobia) then u shouldn't ever criticize that person? what?
I'm happy to provide amusement for you. Any chance you could enlighten me on that abbreviation?
"LOL, have fun being destroyed by the identity-politics crap that you took part in."
Exactly! At last there's something in the press about fucking pseudo-liberals that, rather than making one cry in desperate disbelief, just makes one burst out in honest feel-good laughter.
(Quote) ... "Let me make this clear: I’m an idiot." ... (Chelsea Cain) (Endquote)
Got it. Thank you!
God these morons so deserve this! LOL! ;^)
Thanks. Never heard that one before. It appears to be pejorative. I wonder which end of the political spectrum it originates from? I have my suspicions...
It comes from the folks for whom social justice is ironically bracketed as "social justice" with fingers ironically clawing air quotes. It embraces a certain kind of postmodern skepticism for its own ends, rendering the concept inoperable.
>112 alexanme: u think if u agree w a person on one issue (say, electoral politics) but disagree on another (say, transphobia) then u shouldn't ever criticize that person? what?
You've misunderstood me. I am delighted with this development.
>114 proximity1: And one wonders if they will learn this is not a good approach to politics, and if so how long the learning will take.
See, thats the thing. i think being willing to criticize those within a certain movement (whether feminism or a vague opposition to the GOP) is a GOOD thing, and is in fact a GOOD approach to politics. intra-group critique is vital for growth
You say you think hurling accusations of bigotry for no sane reason is a good thing ("critique," LOL).
Excellent! I applaud this judgment on your part, and encourage you to continue participating in this autophagy.
Also, thank you for providing a data point on my question above, about how long the learning will take.
"no good reason"
I see u dont care to read or even feign understanding of the events u discuss
>122 alexanme: Don’t worry about it. You think this is a good thing. I think this is a good thing. Carry on!
The inane politically-correct high-jinks of the extreme left is nausea-producing, no doubt about it. No normal person thinks or acts that way.
However there are levels of evils. The gop and trump are so insanely evil that, in comparison, they make the radical left look like a bunch of innocent harmless three-year-olds playing with their dump trucks, pails and shovels in their tiny sandboxes.
The fucking bible says something about beams vs. motes in the eye. Some people, even if they are atheists, should look those verses up and see if there is not a lesson there to be learned. Just saying.
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
Thank you very much for everything, it is a pleasure to be on this page and I love everything, plus the books of literature and technology iptv http://listasiptvplus.org/ and wiseplay. https://mundowiseplay.com/
Yo, Gerson - your popularity level here is somewhere between Ebola and d. trump. lol.
I officially offer you an invitation to piérdase.
'Erosion in acceptance' of LGBTQ people among young Americans, survey finds
“Young Americans ages 18-34 are increasingly uncomfortable around LGBTQ people in personal situations, like learning a family member, doctor, or child’s teacher is LGBTQ.”
Nationwide, the support for “equal rights for the LGBT community” remained stable at 80 percent, GLAAD’s survey found. But the biggest drop in support identified by the LGBTQ rights group was among the youngest Americans.I have a solution: Continue to import people from Muslim and macho Hispanic countries. (Ya might wanna look at the age breakdown of immigrants vs. non-immigrants.)
This marked shift is reflected in the shrinking of a group of respondents that GLAAD classifies as “allies” — those who say they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable in all seven interpersonal situations tested. In 2016, 62 percent of young men ages 18-34 reported feeling comfortable in all seven LGBTQ situations; in 2018, that number dropped to 35 percent, although GLAAD did not say which or how many interpersonal situations saw a decline in support.Don't worry about it. Just continue to import people from cultures where they execute gays by throwing them from rooftops. What could go wrong?
Another example of a right wingnut blaming "lefties" for a (HORRORS!) political "boogeyman" their weird imagination created. Why are Trumpers so afraid of people having strong opinions that differ from their own? What snowflakes they are.
Yep, those border prisons for immigrants ARE concentration camps. AOC destroyed the Trump lie publicly. The Trumpers screamed, "Wah, wah, wah!!!" to cover the fact of their shame they tried to bully their way out of. Those camps are more than that. Since the deaths that have occurred in them due to harsh treatment, abuse, and willful neglect, everyone may accurately refer to them as death camps.
It took Nancy Pelosi to get in the Orange Shite-Gibbon's face for him to evacuate one such camp of its 300 minor prisoners after several children there were discovered by investigators to be deadly ill due to inhumane treatment and willful neglect by guards. This is an Administration who sent lawyers to testify before a panel of judges that soap and oral hygiene are not among life's necessities and therefore need not be provided to detainees, regardless of how young and vulnerable to disease they are. This is an Administration that is proud of forcing its minor political prisoners to sleep without bedding on cement floors.
Lovely compassionate family value Christians that Trumpers are. Make America Gestapo Alright -- MAGA!
Cute, aren't they?
its the state and its propaganda that prosecute queer muslims; otherwise their "culture" is only as queerphobic as our own
Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature
Professing Selves: Transsexuality and Same-Sex Desire in Contemporary Iran
Living Out Islam: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims
Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims
Female Homosexuality in the Middle East: Histories and Representations
queer latinx immigrants r often more threatened by ICE and the police (predominantly natural-born white) than by their also latinx immigrant family/friends
queer natural-born americans also tend to xp violence within their communities at a comparable rate to queer immigrants within their own communities
(the above source is optimistic only bc obama's admin was still rolling out queer protections and regulations; most have been undone since trump's admin took over)
also i have to ask, do u actually care abt queer lives? bc the way ur framing it, it kinda sounds like u just wanted an opportunity to b xenophobic and Islamophobic and then say queer ppl r responsible for their own oppression
>129 alexanme: its the state and its propaganda that prosecute queer muslims
LOL, I love this notion that the populace of Islamic nations is just thirsting for Gay Lib, but their oppressive governments are keeping them down.
Thank you for that. That was one of the better chuckles I’ve had at Pro & Con in a while.
I looked at the one link you provided that was not a pdf file or an entire book. It exquisitely makes my point for me as early as the first and second paragraphs:
Many transgender people come to this country fleeing persecution in their home countries...If we import more people from countries that “criminalize” and engage in “persecution” of transvestites, we’re going to get more of the attitudes that lead to criminalization and persecution. Which was my original point.
queer latinx immigrants r often more threatened by ICE and the police... than by their also latinx immigrant family/friends
This is an utterly irrelevant comparison. Also, illegal immigrants should be detained by ICE; that’s ICE’s job.
queer natural-born americans also tend to xp violence within their communities at a comparable rate to queer immigrants within their own communities
Your citation for this is an 84-page pdf file. Focus.
>129 alexanme: also i have to ask, do u actually care abt queer lives?
I'm not advocating importing people from cultures that persecute them.
And unlike some people, it wouldn't even occur to me to place more or less value on someone's life because of their sexual preference.
>131 Carnophile:Your citation for this is an 84-page pdf file. Focus.
Most complex issues are better understood by reading deeply than by soundbites and slogans.
>132 Carnophile: it wouldn't even occur to me to place more or less value on someone's life because of their sexual preference.
And yet many of your posts appear very hostile to certain people based on their sexual orientation.
RE: "it wouldn't even occur to me..."
Exactly. The ethos of these people who certainly do place greater value on any lives other than heterosexual "white" males simply screams out an insanely stupid and utterly false set of notions about a vague thing called "diversity"--catnip for viciously intolerant LGBTQ militants who, in actual fact, hate and will not tolerate mere equality of opportunity. They demand from all others a servile deference toward all of their privileged minority groups--and that's just for starters. When these people get their way, there'll be forced re-education camps for people who don't toe their lines.
They are anything but guardians of a fair and reliable practice of general civil liberties without regard for race, religion, creed, color, or national origin.
You make a common rightwing mistake when you assume that wanting equal rights and opportunities for all implies placing greater value on one group. The key word is "all". However members of the formerly privileged group may feel as if they are being undervalued when they gradually realise that their own values, ideas, practices, culture, religion, etc which they have always assumed to be the default norm (because they had the power and privilege to make it the norm, whether consciously or unconsciously) is in fact not considered the default norm by society as a whole (including the formerly underprivileged groups), and they have to accept that they now live in a society where in many aspects of life there is no single default norm. That's what diversity and equality of opportunity imply.
Me: "Your citation for this is an 84-page pdf file. Focus."
>133 John5918: Most complex issues are better understood by reading deeply than by soundbites and slogans.
You've never written an 84-page argument for a single assertion here in Pro & Con. I take it you're admitting that you only think in soundbites and slogans.
many of your posts appear very hostile to certain people based on their sexual orientation.
Stop attacking me. Every time you issue a false accusation like this you admit, implicitly, that you can't win based on the truth.
Cowardly sort of comment. Flippant throw-away remarks can't refute the evidence. As usual.
In the absence of any refutation, guess I'll have to conclude that you approve of and admire the New Trump America no longer being symbolized by the Statue of Liberty. The Trumpists have supplanted Lady Liberty with a now iconic photo of a drowned father and two-year-old daughter face down in the Rio Grande, feet from the shore where the tired and poor were once welcomed. You remember that time back in 2016, before Trump, when we were truly great and the entire world thought so, too.
Not accusing you of anything. Just querying an apparent (note my use of the word "appears") inconsistency in your position. You're welcome to enlighten me and explain how there is no apparent inconsistency, if that is the case.
>137 Limelite: can't refute the evidence
Stay coherent and on-topic, then *maybe* you'll get a longer response.
>138 John5918: Not accusing you of anything.
Yes you did. You accused me of appearing "very hostile to certain people based on their sexual orientation."
And now you're lying about it.
note my use of the word "appears"
You may call it weasel words, but note that I was querying your posts, not accusing you, and the use of the word "appears" puts the onus on me (that is how your posts appear to me) not on you. It aso strikes me as being within the spirit and the letter of the TOS in terms of challenging what people post but not attacking the person. You have the opportunity to enlighten me on the substance of my post and explain to me how in your view your posts do not appear, or are not intended to be, hostile to a certain group, if you so wish. I note that you have made no attempt to do so.
I would also suggest that accusing someone of lying because there is a difference of understanding is not very helpful.
i mean, im literally trying to point u towards historical archives of parts of the populace of islamic nations who DO thirst for gay lib, bc theyre gay! and ya, the state does not necessarily mirror the attitudes of the populace at large? is that so unbelievable to u? allowing refugees to seek asylum in the us will not lead to the introduction of the government policies of their home countries bc, in fact, the refugees have FLED the government policies of their home countries!
the reason i brought up the comparison bw the threat of ICE versus the threat of other latinx immigrants was to illustrate how queer latinx ppl, at least based on the statistics presented (abt intimate partner violence, attitudes towards police, rates of deportation), r MORE persecuted by white natural-born americans than by other immigrants from countries that do have governments that criminalize queerness. that is, the immigrants from countries that criminalize queerness (most latin american countries) do not seem to b more predisposed to abuse queer ppl more than natural-born americans; u implied that immigrants from such countries should b MORE predisposed to abuse queer ppl
also, even if immigrants do not cross at a legitimate port of entry, according to US law they can still be legally seeking asylum, and so r not actually illegal immigrants. but the executive branch has the leeway to completely ignore some laws, at least when the other branches have little motivation to challenge the executive branch
r u literally tryna say "all lives matter" wrt queer ppl. in >127 Carnophile: u sarcastically feign concern for the safety of LGBT ppl. its rather tasteless to reference the real suffering of a group of ppl merely to make a petty political jab. plz dont talk abt queer ppl again.
not only is it tasteless to exploit the suffering of an oppressed group for petty rhetoric, but to make the safety of queer ppl a sarcastic punchline ("What could go wrong?") devalues their lives and xp. and to devalue the life and xp of a group of ppl is pretty hateful, even queerphobic. then to immediately suggest/assume that queerphobia in the us would b closely linked to immigration based solely on the concept of age cohorts is, frankly, kinda xenophobic!
now i dont mean to call u a queerphobe or a xenophobe, i just think its the most probable explanation for how/why u write the things u do. im just trying to give u feedback on how u come across to others! im sure ur not rly a hateful bigot on the inside, im just tryna warn u that that's kinda how u come across here!
>141 Limelite: ...autophage...
Aww, you read #121 and learned a new word! That’s cute!
>142 John5918: You have the opportunity to... explain to me how in your view your posts do not appear, or are not intended to be, hostile to a certain group
Like I’d fall for such a blatant attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
>143 alexanme: im literally trying to point u towards historical archives of parts of the populace of islamic nations who DO thirst for gay lib, bc theyre gay!
Sure. But gays are far from the majority of islamic nations.
the reason i brought up the comparison bw the threat of ICE...
This paragraph and the next are doubling down on your attempt to change the subject. ICE should be detaining illegals. In any case, this is simply a wholesale attempt to change the subject from the likely effects of an influx of people from gay-hostile cultures.
In fact, by even engaging with this, I’m falling for your attempt to change the subject.
Which you want to do, I suspect, because the plausibility of what I’m saying is so uncomfortable.
>143 alexanme:plz dont talk abt queer ppl again.
You disagree with my opinions on immigration. plz dont talk abt immigration again.
>143 alexanme: suggest/assume that queerphobia in the us would b closely linked to immigration
It’s not an assumption. Let’s see what they think.
Pew Research asked, “Should society accept homosexuality?”
In the Middle East, literally every country surveyed said “No” at much higher rates than the US. In the US, the “No” response was 33%. In the Middle East, the lowest No rate was 47% and the highest rate of No was 97%.
In Latin America, mixed, but more countries said No at higher rates than the US (4), than said No at lower rates (3).
(If you exclude two countries where it was inside the margin of error, 3 to 2.)
...is, frankly, kinda xenophobic!
Unlike you, I actually listen to what the people of those cultures are telling us. Your cavalier indifference to hearing their beliefs suggests serious xenophobia.
>145 Carnophile: attempt to reverse the burden of proof
Good grief, how grandiose! We're not in court, we're having a conversation. There's no burden of proof on anybody. I pointed out how some of your posts appear to me, you object, and I ask you to explain why you believe I have misconstrued your posts. Simple. You can respond by clarifying what you believe to be a misapprehension on my part, or not, as you choose.
Pity you had to look it up before posting. Who knew you could read? From your inability to respond to facts, I assumed you were illiterate and just another member of the Trumpist insultirati.
I think you're a mass murderer, based on your posts. It's on you to prove you're not. If you suggest otherwise, you're being "grandiose."
>150 Limelite: Who knew you could read? ... I assumed you were illiterate
Got that from reading the posts I wrote, did you? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
No, it's not the same thing at all. But for the record, I'm not a mass murderer, although I have met quite a few, and I doubt whether there is anything I have written that could reasonably be construed as such.
Note that I haven't accused you of accusing me of anything. I have simply explained to you that you have gained a false understanding of me from your reading of some of my posts.
"mass-murderer" properly takes a hyphen.
Otherwise, "spot on." ;^)
Naw. It's just a combination of intellectual laziness and emotional neediness.
>153 proximity1: Checked on google and it appears there has been a mass-murder of hyphens.
As a non-American, honest question to all posters in this thread: is this how conversations about politics usually go in the US, or is this one especially unfriendly?
>153 proximity1: >155 RickHarsch:
After the Great Hyphen Slaughter scientists discovered the strange effect the tragedy had on certain conservatives of the Trumpist conviction. Their conclusion follows:
The stages of grief cloud their abilities to reason and reduce their abilities to counterargue (no hyphen needed) to mere ad hominem comebacks (still no hyphen needed). We conclude this phenomonon has resulted in a new syndrome to which we give the name "Grammar Nazi."(Parenthetical remarks added.)
For love of a hyphen an argument was lost.
"is this how conversations about politics usually go in the U.S....?"
No, the hypocrisy, question-dodging, disingenuousness, blatant lying, wild self-deceiving flights into convenient and self-serving fantasies, the refusal to cede an honestly and fairly-won point by one's opponents--all these and much more in the panoply of all that is worst in human nature that is so common here is helped along by the fact that here, unlike in direct exchanges of views in person, people typically don't ever come to meet and see those with whom they're arguing. Elsewhere, by contrast, in those relatively few places where people--strangers to each other-- will even engage in a political discussion, there is usually much more reserve, much more cheap and dishonest superficial "politeness," a great deal more hypocrisy and practically none of what, for some, is recognized as refreshing candor.
I much prefer to see people here present themselves as the assholes which they so often actually are. I'll take open, clear and undisguised bullshitters over others, those who are full of a hyper-refined politeness, devoid of truth, devoid of honesty, completely phony and worthless as a basis for a clear exchange of opinions--I'll prefer dealing with them over dealing with those of the phony polite set any day of the week.
Politics is the realm (everywhere) in which power asserts itself. It's the arena where those who have the means, seek to dominate and control, defeat and marginalize those who haven't the power to adequately defend themselves. Down the beautiful, tree-lined lanes of wealthy people's homes, it is deceptively quiet, peaceful. Behind those walls, inside the beautiful carpeted rooms with their lovely curtain-dressed sparkling windows are the very comfortable vicious people who regularly win in a fierce daily competition for first-place, for the best of everything, leaving their vanquished opposition with much less or sometimes nothing at all--in many cases.
>156 sometimeunderwater: I'll answer with a brief anecdote. Back in the early 1980s I had a used book store. Those were horrible years for me, a lifelong leftist. I suppose in a way Reagan struck me as Trump strikes many today...improbably, let's say. And there were the wars and death squads in Central America...Anyway, a Reagan supporter came in every Saturday morning and we argued every Saturday morning...We're still friends today. I've not changed much, and though he has gone through some extreme changes he's back closer to where he was then.
What does it mean? I'm sure to some degree it has to do with the anonymity of this venue, although I have found most online discussions to be more polite than this one. And of course it depends what is on the line here and now. In Portland, being face to face these days isn't so good, as the left and right are fighting on the streets.
Two really eloquent responses - thanks both.
My question was a tiny bit disingenuous, as I don't live under a rock. But I was honestly surprised to read such impoliteness on a small book-cataloging website. Thanks again for such interesting responses to my stupid question.
>159 RickHarsch: I have found most online discussions to be more polite than this one
This is the only site where I really engage in such conversations, so I don't have much to judge it against, but it does surprise me that it is so discourteous, particularly as when LT Talk first started, for the first couple of years it did seem much more civil (or is that just nostalgia and rose-tinted spectacles)? It continues to surprise me that educated people on a book-catalguing website cannot discuss and disagree, even robustly about deeply-felt issues, without the level of offensiveness which one sees here. Having said that, I'm still around, because there are issues where I feel I have something to say, and I really appreciate the posts by many of the posters. I have learned a lot, which for me is the point of engaging with people, even (especially?) people with whom I fundamentally disagree. It hasn't changed many of my views, but it has given me a deeper understanding of where others are coming from.
It is also just about the only space where I get to interact deeply with extreme right wing people, as most of my own friends and colleagues, whether left or right wing, are more moderate and towards the centre of the political spectrum. And, as Rick implies, when you're talking face to face with someone, it's a different dynamic. sometimeunderwater, if you're from UK you'll remember Billy Connolly, of course, and you may recall a joke he tells about the Rangers-Celtic match where one wee supporter finds himself in the wrong part of the stand, surrounded by hulking giants from the other team. Apart from the fact that they end up shitting in his shoes while he pisses in their Bovril, one line that struck me was how they gathered around him fascinated, because they had never been that close to one (an opposition supporter) before. I think I can say I had never been so close to one before, and I suppose we are metaphorically shitting in each others' shoes and pissing in each others' Bovril here, especially in this Pro and Con group.
Broadly, I think that conversations about politics in the USA have tended to be more heated than in the UK, at least until recently. The upsurge of populism and nationalism which we are seeing in many parts of the world is perhaps levelling that playing field a little.
And finally, sometimeunderwater, welcome to the fray!
Edited to add: By pure coincidence the Billy Connolly story appeared in the "recommendations" when I logged in to YouTube today, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzbbK9vmaM
You're really very welcome.
Well, your question isn't a stupid one. If you want to think of this as an academic question, there's a good deal more which could be said about it.
Consider, for example: You write of this place as a "small book-cataloging website"--which it is. But that's to overlook a very big socio-political factor. There's a great deal of passion here about issues which are VERY important to the groups--rather, the individuals--who come here to debate them. Why? Where else are they going to go? The places where (non-academicians, lay-) people used to meet for serious discussions of matters of public interest have mostly dried up --like that "lake" in Russia. In many cases, it's well understood that there is not and there is unlikely ever to be a "meeting of the minds" behind these posts. (There are now many regulars to these fora whose posted comments I no longer ever look at. (e.g. >161 John5918:) They (may) return that "favour." There is clearly no point in engaging with these people. But I post comments more often than not for the consideration of others who can be reached intellectually.)
In modern societies where meaningful democracy (participatory self-government) has become reduced to an even greater farce than it had been known as for the past several generations, people are left seething in their discontent. You probably see little evidence of this around you in the public sphere. That's because so many people have become, publicly, so thoroughly muted. (think: head-phones/ear-phones) The passion is going to go somewhere and, when, like a volcanic subterranean force, it finds an outlet, expect explosions.
In some areas of academic study, (where psychology meets politics, sociology and linguistics) this is referred to as the phenomenon of the magnification of "small differences". (1) (2)
also, e.g. : Barbarism and Its Discontents Stanford, CA., (2013) Stanford University Press, and "Barbarism of the Similar," by Maria BOLETSI (3), ; Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, London, New York, Routledge, (Taylor and Francis Group, Publishers) (2004) (full text at this link) ) by Paul Anthony CHILTON (4) )--where people who agree on a good many things are fiercely divided on matters which, to the disinterested, appear "marginal." To their advocates, these matters are not felt to be marginal in character.
(1) Freud, Signmund - Taboo of Virginity (1918) for "the narcissicm of minor differences". Freud cites Ernest Crawley's work.
(2) Crawley, Ernest - (1867-1924) (Worldcat.org link, above)
(3) Maria Boletsi, is Assistant Professor at the Film & Comparative Literature Department, Leiden University.
(4) Paul A. Chilton is professor of linguistics at the University of East Anglia.
>162 proximity1: That lake in Russia referred to in the post above is of course the Aral Sea, which is far from Russia, straddling the border between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
Petard, meet >1 Carnophile:
Faux News, Trump's personal propaganda cheerleading machine and State Information System is now Public Enemy #1 in the mind of the Occupant-in-Chief. The network's crime? Broadcasting the loudly voiced opinions of him live from a French bar where patrons were celebrating USA women's soccer championship win with boisterous chants of "F*ck Trump!" that were heard over the airwaves by him, Trumpist idolators, and those cute lefties brave enough to monitor.
He unloaded, using his weapon of habit, Twitter, with a series of excoriating tweets critical of his once Golden-Haired Network. Best bits below.
"Watching @FoxNews weekend anchors is worse than watching low ratings Fake News CNN, or Lyin’ Brian Williams. . . @FoxNews is changing fast, but they forgot the people who got them there!" https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/trump-slams-tweetstorm-fox-news.html
Better than just Trump eating his own is the recent development from several Trump anchors and hosts, not a few of their guests, including (gasp) Democrats who appear on Faux airwaves in order to beard the lion. They are criticizing Fearless Illegitimate Leader! Could it be that those Faux TV propagandists are developing a healthy appetite? One for the truth? They certainly are prepared to eat "their own" if that's what's required before acknowledging reality and telling the truth.
For instance: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-news-turns-on-trump_n_5a99e885e4b0e6069a17f3d...
And: https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-will-look-into-fox-news-decision-to-st... Ahhhh, new flavors!
Even Neil Cavuto has had it up to here with Trump; in fact he broke the enchantment a year and a half ago. Just look at the Google listings for "Neil Cavuto goes off on Trump." Tasty!
Shepard Smith has been fact-checking the lying liar ever since -- you name it. Yum yum!
Karma is a b*tch, >1 Carnophile:
In #142 you wrote,
You have the opportunity to enlighten me on the substance of my post and explain to me how in your view your posts do not appear, or are not intended to be, hostile to a certain group, if you so wish. I note that you have made no attempt to do so.
You have the opportunity to enlighten me on the substance of my post and explain to me how in your view your posts do not appear, or are not intended to be, an indication that you’re a mass murderer, if you so wish. I note that you have made no attempt to do so.
(Just saying, "I'm not a mass murderer" doesn't "explain" anything.)
>164 Limelite: They are criticizing Fearless Illegitimate Leader! Could it be that those Faux TV propagandists are developing a healthy appetite? ... They certainly are prepared to eat "their own"
LOL, that reminds me of this:
Mueller is building a case; applying pressure; climbing the chain in the same way a prosecutor goes after ordinary organized crime bosses... Thread by thread, Mueller is untangling the skein of corruption, collusion, and cover-up. Members of DJT's family will be going down soon. They will throw him under the bus...
The difference is perhaps that I have not accused you of accusing me of anything, and I have no interest in pursuing it. You have accused me of accusing you of something, and you have pursued the matter. But if you're not interested, fine.
You know what those who can't refute an argument are labeled, especially when their claim is turned against them?
"Cherry-picker," aka, the favorite summer pastime of Trumpists. snicker
No, the hypocrisy, question-dodging, disingenuousness, blatant lying, wild self-deceiving flights into convenient and self-serving fantasies
Nice of you to describe your posts in this way.
Maybe not delusional Trumpist "really," but yes. Really really (with citations!). Petard really.
>171 Limelite: Trump really created Fox News. Wow, I'm learning a lot in this thread.
One of the walls poor reasoners erect to actual learning, beyond cherry-picking, is attempting to mischaracterize figurative language as literal same. In college, professors face this mental hurdle in their freshman writing and rhetoric classes and work with the enrollees to show them how to think (not what to think).
Students who achieve a passing grade in these introductory courses for teaching "thinking like an adult" have overcome the deficits they left high school with (emotional response, attacking the messenger, arguing from false premise, and inability to separate signal from noise, etc) and go on to effectively use their new powers of reason in problem solving, research, and persuasion, to name a few areas of mind training that university education addresses across the curriculum.
>173 Limelite: I am a college professor. The vast majority of college student writing displays better writing, and thinking, than your posts.
Racial politics roil Democratic Party
Democrats who have called President Trump and his policies racist are now pointing fingers at one another on issues of race.Clay did not explain why racial divisiveness is helpful in society in general, but "damaging" within the Democratic Party.
177: Any child taught by you is being cheated out of their tuition.
It is dubious that someone of such deficient mental faculties as you could possibly be employed by a college.
>180 proximity1: Yes, and the other cheap thing about that new thread is the attempt to completely change the thread title in the new thread.
>179 StormRaven: ...someone of such deficient mental faculties as you...
Input: Years of law school. Output: "Yer stoopid!"
Something something mental faculties something.
More from the article in #178, Racial politics roil Democratic Party:
Tensions exploded on Capitol Hill this week after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accused Pelosi of singling out women of color for criticism... Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks ignited a long-simmering feud with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).
Something something mental faculties something.
I'm just going on the posts you've made over the years here. Literally nothing you have ever written on this site has been anything other than idiotic drivel. If you want others to believe you are something other than a clueless clown, you should learn how to write something that is other than debunked right-wing knee-jerk talking points.
You are like the creationists who get mad when biologists dismiss their creationist "arguments" out of hand. You, like those creationists, don't present anything that anyone needs to take any more seriously than a dismissive wave. You, like those creationists, are making stupid arguments that are so stupid that they don't deserve more respect than a snort of derision.
>184 StormRaven: “I could so refute you! I totally could! I just don’t want to!”
Still more from the article in #178, Racial politics roil Democratic Party:
In the presidential race, Biden’s backers are still fuming over what they view as a dishonest characterization of his record on race by his rivals for the presidential nomination, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.)...Yeah, how could that happen? We spent decades normalizing attacking people for “racism” and making that the path to status and power on the left. We’re completely puzzled as why that behavior is increasing!
Depends on your gender. Women in here are not only routinely exposed to misogyny and sexism of opinion, they may live to be insulted out of the blue (possibly the effects of alcohol, a frequent handicap) as a "slut" and a "putrid cunt". It may happen in a language you don't speak, as that allows the sod to circumvent the TOS and avoid getting flagged. It may happen repeatedly. The offending sod will never apologise, and those who run the site won't lift a finger to penalise such behaviour. Other asshole bros of the local self-styled "left" will try to mansplain that you're a very "irritating" woman and hence insulting you is a fair game. See? Violence against women wouldn't be happening if we bitches weren't so darn irritating. (My shitlist populated that day like unto mushrooms after rain.)
A few years later, that same putrid-cunting individual may be sharing views on politesse & etiquette with the public, as I see by chance and to much amusement from John's post, but probably not warning one of the putrid-cunting, slutting hazard.
If this is too hair-raising to contemplate, then there's nothing but to retreat to that haven of civility that is Brexitannia these days, is there!
All of that made me laugh a good minute. So much so I had to post in this dumbass thread...
"It may happen in a language you don't speak, as that allows the sod to circumvent the TOS and avoid getting flagged."
Or it may happen in a partly shared non-English tongue by someone sandbagged abusively who had years before been referred to by the person as a monolingual 'sod' (it wasn't sod, but sod will do), who responded unkindly in kind in that partly shared foreign tongue, exasperated by a torrent of dishonest verbal assault.
Thanks, Lola. And when I wrote, "I have learned a lot, which for me is the point of engaging", you and southernbooklady were two of the people I had in mind from whom I have learned a lot. Thanks to both of you.
No need to thank me. If it's true that we can learn from almost anything and anyone, it's also true that "lessons" eventually have an end and there are limits to not just useful but moral "engagement". After a certain point your "engagement" with vile shits only legitimizes them and their behaviour. If the misogynists, the homophobes, the racists were less coddled here, fewer decent people would be blocking this group.
>191 LolaWalser: The best literary group I found here reformed as a private group specifically to block LolaWalser. It's called Tropic of Ideas, an offshoot of a great group called Salon, and various other titles playing on Salon. Spiteful personal attacks became too much in that group and though it still exists, the core retreated to privacy.
I mention this because post 188 is referring to a spat between LolaWalser and me and she therefore has brought it up again after two or three years of blessed peace.
(ETA: it's an ugly irony that this resurfaced in the thread with the most pathetic, jejune title, which just a few days ago I attempted to divert. Further, I happen to agree with about 97% of what LolaWalser posts, admire her ability capture her outrage eloquently, and fully support her refusal to tread carefully where she has determined that enough is enough.)
>192 RickHarsch: Further, I happen to agree with about 97% of what LolaWalser posts, admire her ability capture her outrage eloquently, and fully support her refusal to tread carefully where she has determined that enough is enough
Nice, really nice.
I'm all out of patience here, John. I say this not for my sake, in order to elicit something from you on my behalf (that train has gone long ago), but because you will keep doing this: when you feel the temptation to lecture someone on the advantages of "engaging", do check first whether that person is a woman, or any other type of person without your male white privilege.
Because your "engaging" misogynistic shits comes at no cost to you and never will and is in itself a demonstration of your privilege. No misogynistic shit is going to call YOU a slut and a putrid cunt; such insults simply don't apply among "men"; you will never be depreciated because of your gender (or race, or sexual orientation etc.) and because you DON'T share this basic injustice with those of us open to such attacks, you also DON'T have the right to presume to tell us how to deal with them.
By all means, hobnob with the sleaze, buddy up to putrid cunters. But don't think you're acting in a better way than someone who is that sleaze's target. The whole fucking life.
>194 LolaWalser: But don't think you're acting in a better way than someone who is that sleaze's target
Thanks, Lola. I don't think it's about anyone thinking they're acting better. My experience in life (which you so succintly sum up) leads me to engage in a certain way, yours leads you to engage differently. I respect you for that, but I act and think from my own experience while trying to learn from that of others, including your good self.
I have to admire your old style christianity, john, but it just doesn't work in the Year of Our Lard 2019. I. e., the more you extend love and understanding to the monsters the more they will want to devour you (perhaps you should put down your bible and read some H.P. Lovecraft occasionally).
But your heart really seems to be in the right place so we all should respect that.
Thanks, JGL. While "old style christianity" is a foundational part of my value system (more precisely, Catholic Social Thought), I would add that it is also based on personal experience of peacebuilding. Working for peace in particular conflicts one has to engage with all stakeholders, including mass murderers, "terrorists" and war criminals, as well as "spoilers" who wish to derail the peace process. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it has to be done.
Your experiences are not those of an unprivileged person and never will be. When it comes to dealing with those specific forms of discrimination, you have nothing to say that should take precedence over the viewpoint of the unprivileged persons.
Did you ever in your life consider how everything you have done was not just facilitated but made possible in the first place by the fact that you are a white man? Where would you be if you had been a woman, a black African, gay? Could a woman have had your life, stepped in your shoes, exactly as everything happened, making and maintaining your connections? If not, why not? Could an African, of any ethnicity or religion? Could an openly gay person?
You go around mediating between factions of non-whites, and specifically you meet a whole lot of men in doing so, not women, because women count for shit there even more than here--why can you do that? Because you are a man, and white, a foreigner in an exalted position, never one belonging to the bloodied parties, and you represent one of the oldest, richest and most powerful churches on earth. You have access to that church's hierarchy in a way only a man would. You are not a pariah where you live, because you are not gay and not a woman.
Whatever discomfort, hardship, danger you suffered, they'll have been the result of changing, passing circumstance, same as may happen to anyone. The risk of adventure, no more. And if you were sometimes wounded in your very being, because of what you are born like and not for any reason in your power to choose or change, you will smart at the injsutice and feel very wronged, but it will be a passing insult, an individual occurrence, of no import to the great scheme of things in which your maleness and whiteness place you at the top. It is not how you have lived your whole life. It is not a permanent stance the world takes on you, forces on you, mutilates and hounds you with. You know nothing of that and never will.
Lola, I'm not making any claims of precedence over anybody. I'm aware of my privilege. All I'm doing is sharing my experience, which is really all any of us can do authentically. I have huge respect for your authenticity in sharing your experience, which is obviously different from mine. I learn from you and others. I'm not attacking you nor challenging your experience, and I hope you don't feel that I am. I'm simply sharing my experience.
And yes, I have often asked myself those questions, but of course I don't have an answer to them. I'm who I am. But thanks for reminding me.
>199 John5918: Perhaps you already know this, jtf, but your crime was committed in >193 John5918: when you, rather than condemning me as a misogynistic shit, quoted something I said that you liked. This was taken to mean that you 'hobnob with the sleaze, buddy up to putrid cunters,' which means, implicitly, that you are posturing yourself as better than LW in that you fail to condemn as she condemns. I would not be surprised if you had received a pm describing the LW version of what happened. My own version would be far different. I believe mine is accurate. LW no doubt believes hers is accurate. It is hardly surprising that someone with your experience would do his best to engage the situation fairly and based on what you actually know. Luckily for you I am not a terrorist, torturer, mass murderer, rapist, misongynist, and even am only occasionally an asshole. Like you, I do my best to try to understand the existential circumstances of the female, and like you I can only do my best to make the best decisions I can based on empathy. And like you I believe in economic equality. Unlike you, I am only engaged in 'the battle' as a writer and so have no evidence to present that I have done any good in the universe.
Edited to attempt to present the word implicitly with the appropriate number of ells.
Thanks, Rick. Mind you, I may have to stop engaging with you and cut you off for ever over the issue of the appropriate number of ells in "implicitly"...
>201 John5918: I know, but i knew with you I had better be up front about it...
While the last twenty or so posts don't exactly illustrate the point of the thread title, they illustrate a related point, that trying to appease leftists just increases their aggression. With leftists there is no "He apologized so now I'm satisfied," there is only "He apologized, so he's weak and safe to attack!"
Do leftist rioters destroy stuff because it offends their "principles," or do they just like destroying stuff?
Here's a relevant data point:
“Demonstrators also tore down two statues, including Wisconsin's motto "Forward" and the likeness of Col. Hans Christian Heg. Heg was a Norwegian migrant and an abolitionist who died for the Union Army during the Civil War.”
From the same link as the previous post:
Gay Democrat state senator in Wisconsin hospitalized due to beating by thugs. I doubt the thugs knew that he was a gay Dem politician, but that makes the point almost as well as if they did. The point here being:
Lefty thugs don’t stop and check out your Twitter feed to assess your sexual identity or your politics, etc., before they decide to kick you in the head until you need to be hospitalized.
Being a PC leftist is not going to save you.
Afghan Held After French Migrant Activist Murdered
French police are holding a man of Afghan nationality after a prominent activist in the north of France who helped migrants was bludgeoned to death...LOL.
Social democrat fired for re-tweeting academic paper about the benfits of non-violence.
David Shor is a 28-year-old political data analyst and social democrat who worked for President Obama’s reelection campaign. On May 28, Shor tweeted out a short summary of a paper by Princeton professor Omar Wasow. The research compiled by Wasow analyzed public opinion in the 1960s, and found violent and nonviolent protest tactics had contradictory effects. Shor’s synopsis was straightforward:(Yeah, imagine putting the blame for violence on the people who commit violence! The nerve!)
Anyway, some other lefty tweeted to Shor’s employer about Shor’s tweet, and Shor was fired as a result.
Worth noting that Democrats (with a capital D referring to your US political party) are not "lefties", they are at best centrists and at worst right of centre, and they are an establishment political party, not a social justice movement.
I'm quite heavily involved in the Catholic Nonviolence Initiative, and I would say that most of the people I encounter are genuinely leftish.
imagine putting the blame for violence on the people who commit violence!
Yes, it has been quite a radical shift in thinking, probably since the 1960s, to begin to put the blame for violence on those who commit violence but previously had rarely been challenged for it, namely governments, police forces, business cartels, etc - forms of violence committed by and/or supported by and/or colluded with by the state and the establishment. Christian Liberation Theology played a role in this paradigm shift. Sometimes desperate people feel they have no other recourse except, as a last resort, to respond to this state-sponsored violence with violence. But personally I don't believe that is the best response, and along with many of my left-leaning colleagues, would advocate nonviolence.
A nice, if imperfect bit of writing. I would add that many of you won't read it and or find that it penetrates anything but the nerve before you close it, but it is quite interesting in its totality. I hope you filthy Lefties read it ; ).
>209 Cubby.R.S.: filthy Lefties
Do you not find it possible to argue rationally without insulting people?
I do hope you'll find that I am not so dreadfully serious, hence my attempt at a wink and smile. Even when it may seem that I am a curmudgeonly bitter neo-nazi racist filled with the utmost contempt for any who may disagree, I'm really a fairly light-hearted chap with ever-morphing views. I.e., I did not really mean for it to be seriously taken and sorry if you took offense.
>211 Cubby.R.S.: There's enough ugliness in this group, let's try not to add to it, even "in fun".
Above is another link of fair writing. If you are to judge others by their perceived morality, then you will find nothing left to learn. There's always a barn to raze and folks to frog-walk at pitchfork point. But then again, thought is dangerous... and just like every other great medieval town, or communist regime, we should ban only certain things.
>215 Cubby.R.S.: It's certainly a discussable statement, but not in the context of this thread, and not in the context of the author, who is the "Director of the Saint Vincent Center for Catholic Thought and Culture", whose Flannery O’Connor spoke similarly when she said, “I write the way I do because and only because I am a Catholic. I feel that if I were not a Catholic, I would have no reason to write, no reason to see, no reason ever to feel horrified or even to enjoy anything … I have never had the sense that being a Catholic is a limit to the freedom of the writer, but just the reverse.”
When I started pulling that quote, I didn't realize that that was the same author he was being defended in the article. So basically the director of a center focusing on Catholic thought, quoting an author that says they wouldn't write if they weren't Catholic, is being used to justify "If you are to judge others by their perceived morality, then you will find nothing left to learn."
It's not even relevant to the article. Nothing I see in that article implies that you shouldn't judge Marxists and atheists. It's just classic "my side deserves benefit of the doubt and forgiveness".
To quote from the end of the article:
"... when rightly read, O’Connor reminds us that seeking health and racial justice without charity can easily lead to American-style labor camps and gas chambers."
Cool; I'm glad there doesn't need to be any evidence behind that. The US imprisons more than any nation in the world, both by absolute numbers and per capita and is the only nation in this hemisphere to have the death penalty, so we already have American-style labor camps and gas chambers. But we can take the word of a fiction writer that it somehow would be worse.
"What this may mean in terms of the COVID-19 response I’ll leave to the reader to discern; regarding racial injustice, the obvious answer is character assassination, even of those who have long been resting in their graves...."
It must have been nice to live in the days when dog whistles were inaudible; if the author wants to say that there's something wrong with how we're handling COVID-19, perhaps he should be intellectually honest enough to say it.
As for character assassination, the author hardly defends O'Connor from the claim of racism. He argues that art shouldn't be read in the light of the artist, which is a very different claim. He never says anything like "If you are to judge others by their perceived morality, then you will find nothing left to learn."; that would imply, perhaps, that he should get out of his Catholic bubble. It is not character assassination to study the morality of historical figures, and no matter where you fall on the line of letting the author inform their work, arguing for it is not character assassination. This is just knee-jerk "how dare you criticize my favorite author" stuff, combined with "it's evil to fight against injustice if you're not doing it my way."
So, yeah, the article doesn't even say what you claim it says.
Golly, I never said the article said that. It was my comment, because it seems some are using one statement or action to give credence for disregarding all other statements by the same individual. I think we can still look for the positive comments regardless of the views, because searching for only perfect individuals makes it impossible to learn. Which is sort of what you do in your response to me.
So you know, the U.S. under Franklin Roosevelt, did put Japanese and American citizens in reeducation camps.
>217 Cubby.R.S.: Golly, I never said the article said that.
Ah, so you gave a link, and put a random sentence after it. Generally one of the principles of communication is that we interpret statements in context. So what the fuck what that supposed to mean?
So you know, the U.S. under Franklin Roosevelt, did put Japanese and American citizens in reeducation camps.
I could reply to this, but I would have to be using that principle of context, because otherwise it's just a random historical fact.
I said that and you legitimized it, so I don't know why you're upset.
Because the subject of the piece was of that era, I didn't think it was that random.
I have to assume you looked up the author, disregarded them on principle and did not read the article. Further legitimizing that arbitrary comment of mine with the link.
>219 Cubby.R.S.: Because the subject of the piece was of that era, I didn't think it was that random.
You've told me that I don't understand what you wrote, thus I asked you for more clarification. One of the more annoying games people play is saying something to provoke and then denying its obvious meaning when people give it that means. So make it clear what you mean by that statement.
I have to assume you looked up the author, disregarded them on principle and did not read the article.
Of course, I always quote from works I haven't read. No, I did not read every line; I skimmed it, because I don't care about Flannery O'Connor. Why didn't you post it to some group where O'Connor is relevant? If you were going to post it here, why not make its relevance to this topic clear?
What do you think I missed? Outside the author, it whines about the response to COVID-19 but refuses to actually make a clear claim. It complains about "character assassination" when never establishing that anything said about O'Connor's character is actually wrong; it's somehow wrong to mention anything a dead person did wrong (or at least a dead person the author approves of.) It otherwise makes a fairly standard "death of the author" argument, with a weird thing about how you have to read an introduction she wrote. I don't see any reason to assume you read what I wrote.
Wait, when you were talking about FDR, were you referring to American-style labor camps? If so, then you need to clarify that; it wasn't at all obvious to me.
You should read the whole thing.
I never said you didn't understand what I wrote, all I've done is defend a simple tangent statement to an article I posted.
June 23, 2020: Scott Alexander shuts down the Slate Star Codex blog due to being doxxed by the New York Times.
The first post in this thread was about Young Turk Dems primarying the Old Guard. More on that:
Suburban Voters Rage Against Political Machine
Mark Lungariello, Rockland/Westchester Journal News, July 1, 2020 (paywalled)
The new breed isn’t exactly young but younger than the alternatives, and their ranks include people of color, women and members of the LGBTQ community.Weeks later we can update this from “possible” to “actual.” Mondaire Jones, Jamaal Bowman, and Mimi Rocah all won their primary contests. As an example,
Jamaal Bowman, a former middle-school principal, declared victory over 16-term Rep. Eliot Engel in the 16th congressional district... despite the incumbent’s support from old guard national Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, and local leaders like Westchester county Executive George Latimer.
Portland's rioter-coddling Mayor Ted Wheeler moving to avoid rioters targeting his home.
The Democratic mayor of Portland, Ore., is moving from his $840,000 condo to avoid rioters who have repeatedly targeted the building, according to a report.LOL.
This topic was continued by Leftists are not afriad of monsters. But as there are few leftists around, let's focus on liberals..
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.